Damn his footage looks great on the Mark III

Okay, but let me play devil's advocate here...time is money, you have to spend extra time to place the diffusion for something that you show off to other DPs and practically no one else.

Is it worth it to bother? Aren't we talking entirely about splitting hairs here?
 
Looks like the background was blown-out in post to me, it doesn't look natural. Anyway, my eye still goes to the attractive blonde, not sure if she's natural either:-)
 
She's cute, but for me, to make her look her best she could have used a little more help under the eyes. Team effort between makeup and flatter lighting. The description lists the bounces uses for fill and the preference for a single eyelight, I would have been less concerned with that and more about digging out those under-eye pockets. I actually like a low highlight in the eyes, I think it adds a certain "come hither" quality. This is all quite subjective of course.

Gary--regarding your splitting hairs comment. Everything is in the context of the level that one is working at. I would probably guess that the budget of this spot was relatively limited and I imagine the client was quite pleased, so that's what counts. However, in other situations there could have been a situation where the client was unhappy with the degree of blowout and it would have been well worth it to paper the windows and/or beef up the interior exposure. This is actually quite a broad stroke, it's part of the signature look of the spot and thus hardly a "splitting hairs" situation. But overall, attention to detail is a major part of the DP's job, especially when it comes to commercials where every frame counts. What separates a high-level DP from wanna-be's is their choices that may come down to minute, almost indetectable adjustments that cumulatively add up in the final product. You always do the best with the time and resources you have.
 
But at the same time, the job of the spot is to get people to visit the resturant, something that a softer blowout is not going to influence one iota.
 
In this instance, the client wanted the windows blown out because it didn't look good outside. There's a lot of degrees to "blown-out". If the client came back and said "those blobs are distracting, can you dial them down?" but they are burnt into the footage because the camera doesn't shoot RAW, you are left with a compromise and the client won't be happy. THAT'S what counts on the day, not what other people on a message board think. Whether or not it makes people visit the restaurant is immaterial. If the client likes it, that's doing your job and ensuring repeat business. What you might think is a split hair may be the difference between keeping and losing a client.
 
Gary Huff said:
But at the same time, the job of the spot is to get people to visit the resturant, something that a softer blowout is not going to influence one iota.
Click to expand...
Agree. Budget + Target audience and the fact that this is like the third spot he's done for them guarantees that the degree of pixel peeping done in this thread doesn't not translate to people's living rooms.
 
I loved the look of the food. I guess blonds are not my thing. I wanted to know more how the food was shot! Like the plate spins is that a simple tripod maneuver or something else?
 
CharlesPapert said:
There's a lot of degrees to "blown-out". If the client came back and said "those blobs are distracting, can you dial them down?" but they are burnt into the footage because the camera doesn't shoot RAW, you are left with a compromise and the client won't be happy.
Click to expand...

Please. If the client is on set and approves the look before we even roll, then comes back to me with that nonsense and is seriously unhappy and thinks the spot is a fail because of that, then that client will no longer be a client of mine.
 
Gotta chime in with a positive vote for the "distracting background, blown out whatever". I'm a big fan of nisen bokeh and the BKGD in question is beauty to me. Invested in several Russian lenses to achieve that. And a typical client won't know the difference anyway.
 
I have an iron clad rule before I consider critique'ng footage based on assertions of equipment used.
SHOW ME THE PROOF. I mean a whole bunch of behind the scenes clips of the alleged gear actually being used.
sorry, it's that way now. can't believe anything.
 
Who cares about the blown out windows? That's a nitpicker photographer thing. It's only EVER about the end user and what they perceive or see... I couldn't give a damn what any other photographer thinks about a given project, if I have succeded in delivering what the client wants or think his target customers likes. And in this case it's pretty obvious that the windows blowing out was a deliberate choice and most likely was even ok'ed by the client during post. So why bother commenting on it.....

Nice to see properly lit work... food is a fun thing to light, and most enjoyable to watch when people do it right.
Almost makes me considering off'ing my FS100 and going the DSLR way for a moment again until 4K becomes a bit more affordable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top