commercial production values…where are they.

F

forbyfiev

Active member
maybe I'm just quixotic, but I'm seeing an awful lot of pro commercial shoots that are just a bunch of slider moves with no lighting. Have I been wasting my energy trying to properly light scenes? What I'm talking about are generally decent, and I know were not cheap productions. Do people just expect not to have to light anymore because of high ISO, and are happy anyway? Is it just the current "look"? Sorry for the rant, but I've always been about lighting and I'm feeling a bit beaten down.
 
forbyfiev said:
maybe I'm just quixotic, but I'm seeing an awful lot of pro commercial shoots that are just a bunch of slider moves with no lighting. Have I been wasting my energy trying to properly light scenes? What I'm talking about are generally decent, and I know were not cheap productions. Do people just expect not to have to light anymore because of high ISO, and are happy anyway? Is it just the current "look"? Sorry for the rant, but I've always been about lighting and I'm feeling a bit beaten down.
Click to expand...

I think it perhaps has more to do with certain 'vogue' techniques, such as 'washed out look', or 'we know you know this is an ad, so we are going to break the 4th wall, by showing you the set, or ragged shooting'... etc.

It takes a lot of skill to deliver crappy footage that sells products... if you miss your mark... you just have crappy footage...
 
forbyfiev said:
maybe I'm just quixotic, but I'm seeing an awful lot of pro commercial shoots that are just a bunch of slider moves with no lighting. Have I been wasting my energy trying to properly light scenes? What I'm talking about are generally decent, and I know were not cheap productions. Do people just expect not to have to light anymore because of high ISO, and are happy anyway? Is it just the current "look"? Sorry for the rant, but I've always been about lighting and I'm feeling a bit beaten down.
Click to expand...

Local or national? Local has always been a terribly mixed bag.
 
I've seen much more a trend towards essentially ungraded Alexa footage. Just about every 2nd commercial's colour looks like it's not far removed from the Log-C source footage.

Maybe it's trendy, but man it looks average.
 
forbyfiev said:
maybe I'm just quixotic, but I'm seeing an awful lot of pro commercial shoots that are just a bunch of slider moves with no lighting. Have I been wasting my energy trying to properly light scenes? What I'm talking about are generally decent, and I know were not cheap productions. Do people just expect not to have to light anymore because of high ISO, and are happy anyway? Is it just the current "look"? Sorry for the rant, but I've always been about lighting and I'm feeling a bit beaten down.
Click to expand...

Instead of letting it beat you down, I would look at it as an opportunity to produce better looking spots than the competition simply by doing something (proper lighting) that should be done in the first place.
 
mainstreetprod said:
Instead of letting it beat you down, I would look at it as an opportunity to produce better looking spots than the competition simply by doing something (proper lighting) that should be done in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yep I agree.

So go ahead your Canon 5D'ers!! Shoot all you want without lighting and your high ISO, it will only make the rest of our work look better. :happy:
 
I don't know which commercials you are speaking of, but in my personal experience it has a lot to do with budgets and compromise. I might have all the needed tools to give a particular commercial a great overall look, but that does not mean we have the time or budget allotted to do so. So lines must be drawn. A particular scene might need 8 lights and 4 flags to give the look I would really love to achieve, but knowing I do not have the time needed, AKA budget, I might end up using 3 lights and no flags, to knock out the shot in the given time. Would I rather light the scene properly and gain that high production value? Absolutely! But I don't work for free. So a compromise must be made to get the production done within the given budget. I can't tell you how many commercial shoots I have worked on where we had 7 or more crew members and a budget of over $30K, which are now being done with a crew of 2 and a budget of $5K. Budgets are getting very tight these days, so I completely understand why a particular commercial might not have the look one would like to see.

All the best!

Dave
 
Last edited:
David W. Jones said:
I don't know which commercials you are speaking of, but in my personal experience it has a lot to do with budgets and compromise. I might have all the needed tools to give a particular commercial a great overall look, but that does not mean we have the time or budget allotted to do so. So lines must be drawn. A particular scene might need 8 lights and 4 flags to give the look I would really love to achieve, but knowing I do not have the time needed, AKA budget, I might end up using 3 lights and no flags, to knock out the shot in the given time. Would I rather light the scene properly and gain that high production value? Absolutely! But I don't work for free. So a compromise must be made to get the production done within the given budget. I can't tell you how many commercial shoots I have worked on where we had 7 or more crew members and a budget of over $30K, which are now being done with a crew of 2 and a budget of $5K. Budgets are getting very tight these days, so I completely understand why a particular commercial might not have the look one would like to see.

All the best!

Dave
Click to expand...

Great post! :)
 
To the orignial poster, I would be interested in knowing which commercials caught your eye. Everything seems to be all over the map these days but I see good work out there as well. I too get frustrated with trying to deliver quality in an instant gratification society. Makes me wonder about how long this career will be rewarding into the future.
 
When I get AICP bids in these days, they don't even have generators included. It's all existing light augmented from outlets in the wall. And these are national spots. It's all driven by budget. Generally speaking, a ballpark price is based on number of days of shooting and days are based on number of setups per day. Hence, less lights. It's all budget driven - clients don't know (and agencies don't care - as long as they keep the business).
 
"It's all existing light augmented from outlets in the wall"
I'll try to find examples of what I'm referring too, but it doesn't even involve outlets in the wall.
 
Forbyflev,
I was referencing the budgets and approaches I receive in general these days. My point being that today's budgets often don't allow for generators.
 
I understand. The things I'm referring to apparently don't even have the budget for a griff fill panel. But I happen to know they get paid okay for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top