Black Friday Specials

NorBro said:
I call those 'Craigslist clients'...which are about 90% of interested parties today.

You pretty much described the situation perfectly.
Click to expand...
They're actually a good client. Under normal circumstances I film their performances at a theater under stage lighting. They asked it I could film some promotional videos, which I actual enjoy and learn new things. But you get thrown into situations that you have to live with what you have.
 
Yeah, it doesn't mean they are bad...just may or may not have certain expectations. Sometimes they can be someone's best source.
 
Peter C. said:
Fantastic sale! I own and love the VL150. I'd like to buy the VL300 especially at that price. I recently did a shoot where I could have used 2x VL300 unfortunately the client wouldn't have paid extra for the lighting. That's the problem with this type of gear.
Click to expand...

These days I just charge a flat $500.00 for all G&L on most shoots. Clients seem fine with it and like it better than a huge itemized list. My grip gear has been paid off for decades and
these lights are already paid for (the three VL300s) so each time we charge this, it's pure profit.
 
I don't have a lot of experience with dealing with non theater locations. I've done interviews, but as soon as you start to try to improve or alter lighting for an entire room it's not really feasible without a substantial setup. The client wasn't asking or paying me to fix their lighting, it wouldn't be easy even if they did. It was out of the scope of the project so I just had to let it be.
 
Last edited:
puredrifting said:
It is weird considering just a few years ago, they were the cheap newcomer. Now there are cheaper newcomers and they have become at least a low end premium.
Click to expand...

Yep. I remember when I started seeing guys on-line talk about them, and I was like, "Who? What? Oh, this is just bargain basement stuff". Now I'm sitting here with their newest light on (pre)order.
 
Peter C. said:
I know. It was for a dance studio, with a limited budget trying to get through the pandemic. I have lights for interviews but in order to light an entire studio for a dance number it needed 2-3 vl300. It's one of those situations where either you bring in a lot of expensive equipment to get a good result and not get paid extra or you don't and get sub par result but either way the client is happy. The client has no technical knowledge all they want is you to film a dance at at their studio.
Click to expand...

My decision there usually depends on if I want to use the shoot for my reel/portfolio in which case I go balls to the wall. Or maybe you tell them you'll give them a freebie as a pandemic special but you can't afford to burn out your lights for free next time.

It's tricky, because you also dont want to be the guy where they say, "why does his video look crappy and dark? Must be because he was cheap. If we want a better video, we'll need to hire someone more expensive." Sometimes if the work is worth getting in the first place, I just kiss ass and give a little extra for the sake of securing it.

But I suppose the equation is different for bringing gear you already own versus investing in something that won't get a fee
 
Peter C. said:
I don't have a lot of experience with dealing with non theater locations. I've done interviews, but as soon as you start to try to improve or alter lighting for an entire room it's not really feasible without a substantial setup. The client wasn't asking or paying me to fix their lighting, it wouldn't be easy even if they did. It was out of the scope of the project so I just had to let it be.
Click to expand...

In such situations, I try to use the room lighting to give some level and contrast to the background. It doesn't work well if there's a nasty cast to the lights....a distinct possibility. But most of the time it provides a very fast and effective way of making sure your shot doesn't look like this:

20170228222123001_hd.jpg

And then you have to keep your video lights at a low level to match what's happening in the room. It wouldn't be doable at all without iso 800+ cameras that can get an exposure at normal interior light levels
 
ahalpert said:
My decision there usually depends on if I want to use the shoot for my reel/portfolio in which case I go balls to the wall. Or maybe you tell them you'll give them a freebie as a pandemic special but you can't afford to burn out your lights for free next time.

It's tricky, because you also dont want to be the guy where they say, "why does his video look crappy and dark? Must be because he was cheap. If we want a better video, we'll need to hire someone more expensive." Sometimes if the work is worth getting in the first place, I just kiss ass and give a little extra for the sake of securing it.

But I suppose the equation is different for bringing gear you already own versus investing in something that won't get a fee
Click to expand...
I'm just finding with each in a new location there's a different challenge. In this situation it wasn't dark, just back light, soft lighting, and a large space. Even with my lights at 100% they did very little.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/vmEZtVgQDqo17kZL6
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
What's wrong with the shot above? (Just wondering.)
Click to expand...

Too much contrast between the lit subject and the unlit background, both in terms of lighting level and in terms of lighting style. and also the diner interior just doesn't look like it normally does.

Part of the problem was the staging/directing of the extras, but the lighting contributed to people saying it looked like a "haunted diner."

Here's an article about the horrible reception to that speech: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/ne...ponse-trump-gets-panned-and-roasted/98577340/

Screenshot_20201127-034048_Chrome.jpg
 
Last edited:
Peter C. said:
I'm just finding with each in a new location there's a different challenge. In this situation it wasn't dark, just back light, soft lighting, and a large space. Even with my lights at 100% they did very little.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/vmEZtVgQDqo17kZL6
Click to expand...

Ah yeah opposite problem there. Tons of light to compete with. I think the backlight angelic white scenario can look nice. But to shape the light on the subject you either need a bunch of lights from the same angle, a powerful spotlight on a stationary subject, or the ability to light close. But maybe you can also find a nice place to position the subject to catch a flattering angle of ambient light and then expose for that. Which will probably overexpose the background but hopefully not blow it out.

Obviously all dependent on the range of action and width of shot you need to capture. Selectively closing the window blinds might help shape the scenario as well

But I agree that every environment has its own challenges...and surprises
 
The new Macbook Air is $899 at B&H.

"Normally, brand-new Apple computers would not be on sale, even during Black Friday.[...] Adorama and B&H are discounting the Mac mini, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro with M1 chips" --- The Verge
 
ahalpert said:
Too much contrast between the lit subject and the unlit background, both in terms of lighting level and in terms of lighting style. and also the diner interior just doesn't look like it normally does.

Part of the problem was the staging/directing of the extras, but the lighting contributed to people saying it looked like a "haunted diner."

Here's an article about the horrible reception to that speech: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/ne...ponse-trump-gets-panned-and-roasted/98577340/

View attachment 141436
Click to expand...

That's just how social media is...people have nothing better to do. (And it's politics.)

Maybe the setup wasn't the best choice for anything longer than 30 seconds, but the lighting is perfectly fine.
 
combatentropy said:
The new Macbook Air is $899 at B&H.

"Normally, brand-new Apple computers would not be on sale, even during Black Friday.[...] Adorama and B&H are discounting the Mac mini, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro with M1 chips" --- The Verge
Click to expand...

What am I missing? B&H's price on this configuration is the same as the Apple store on-line?

Screen Shot 2020-11-27 at 8.35.47 AM November 27.jpg
 
NorBro said:
That's just how social media is...people have nothing better to do. (And it's politics.)

Maybe the setup wasn't the best choice for anything longer than 30 seconds, but the lighting is perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

Being universally panned is usually considered a sign of failure. The critics were political allies of the speaker. And personally I think it looks artless
 
Went back to 2017 and took a look at some of the comments that were made on March 1st after Colbert's Feb. 28th show.

Assuming a bunch of people saw it and had their own "professional" analysis as well.

Doesn't need to look like "art" or a scene out of The Matrix for C-SPAN.
 
what do you mean people had their own professional opinion too?

it's supposed to look normal. the art enters the equation in making it look normal. it failed to look normal and drew attention to the medium, distracting from the message.
 
But it does look normal.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that shot for the hundreds of thousands of people watching that clip.

The only individuals who think it doesn't look normal are ones whom think they are artists, or ones who were convinced it doesn't by someone else drawing attention to it.

Seriously, there are are thousands of shots like that in everyday content all over the world, especially news-like segments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top