How many see something (technically) egregious in this?

Chris Santucci

Chris Santucci

Veteran
I keep seeing this, more and more. When on a set, I takes pains to avoid this and half the time people act like I'm just being obsessively picky. Are shooters getting lazy or what?


 
I am seeing a softbox in her eyes as well as 2 other lights. Not sure why you see the other 2, but I would like to know why. Her hair light seems to be a different color. The background to me seems over-lit. To me the softbox needed to be "softer" (larger more diffuse) because her eye wrinkles detract (especially her left eye). I did not see the cable, but yeah I see purple in her hair too. The medallion on her lapel isn't level (but THAT is being picky).
 
Chris Santucci said:
I keep seeing this, more and more. When on a set, I takes pains to avoid this and half the time people act like I'm just being obsessively picky. Are shooters getting lazy or what?


Click to expand...

I was going to say that the puppet strings were well taken care of... but would your 'problem' be the fact that her necklace keeps 'changing' from sort of two rows to rows crossed over on her left side, and resulting in a big open loop further down her chest?

If that is your 'problem'... the Wife would have me swinging from the yardarm had I taken a 'setup shot' with such a glaring 'something out of place'...
 
Well, there are a whole host of things I could have mentioned, but didn't want to look like I was dissing your work. This is your work, right?
 
Other than not liking the overall composition/colour and the fact that I can't stand Michelle Bachman I don't see what your talking about. I imagine it will be a head slapper when you spill the beans but I think we are all looking too hard and not seeing what your talking about.
 
RatLabProductions said:
Other than not liking the overall composition/colour and the fact that I can't stand Michelle Bachman I don't see what your talking about. I imagine it will be a head slapper when you spill the beans but I think we are all looking too hard and not seeing what your talking about.
Click to expand...

I had the same feeling as well, so, I focused on what 'I as a photographer could change/adjust/etc. on a shoot'. As for 'technique'... I don't like fuzzy images... so, I'd not have used hazing to cover 'facial lines, and so, probably lit the subject with a light that didn't accentuate 'lines'... that is big soft box right over the camera... or some thing like that...

Purple Dress... again as the 'shooter', I don't think I have much to say about wardrobe, other than purple... puffy bosoms, giving the buttons and material there a 'pulled' look... big folds... satiny highlights... does not have a 'look I like'...

And while we are at it, her nose line is 'whacked'... but that is also accentuated by the lighting...
 
Seems good enough for the fairly limited audience it is aimed at. What a bore to watch.

Maybe all those people that said you were obsessively picky were right after all?
 
I find it hard to look at. It looks as though they put a soft oval mask around the talent and then flattened the image in post. Almost a halo effect. It looks to be an attempt to highlight the talent from the background, but it's very distracting.

But that's probably not what you are talking about, which is on set.
 
What I saw was terrible wrinkles. There's no reason a 57-year-old woman should be looking that wrinkled on camera. Proper makeup and a little diffusion will go a long way towards making her look much more flattering. I've shot octogenarians and had them look better than this. Especially that mess under her left eye (right side of frame).
 
Barry_Green said:
What I saw was terrible wrinkles. There's no reason a 57-year-old woman should be looking that wrinkled on camera. Proper makeup and a little diffusion will go a long way towards making her look much more flattering. I've shot octogenarians and had them look better than this. Especially that mess under her left eye (right side of frame).
Click to expand...

She's already heavily diffused, so much so it looks like a lens flare. The botox forehead doesn't help as it looks unnaturally wrinkle free compared with the rest of her nip-and-tuck face. Not sure what a DoP could do to help that though:-)
 
I hadn't noticed the continuity of the necklace.

I don't see how one could "flag" an eyelight. An eyelight is supposed to just provide little more than a highlight on the surface of the (highly reflective) eyeballs so it would never (normally) even register on the face anyway.

I'd agree that the hard cross-key lighting isn't doing her any favors by putting highlights on aspects of her skin. A better choice would have been a larger/softer source even if just slightly.

Still... nobody is seeing what my gripe is and it's really a "filmmaking 101" topic.
 
looks to me like focus was set on the tip of her nose, and not her eyes. could be a result of the soft blur/keying stuff though.
 
She's not looking directly into the camera. Pretty distracting and annoying if you had to watch that for 7 minutes as a viewer.
 
I don't like the red that catches her hair as she tilts - very annoying, but the rest to me are just interesting features. I actually quite like the small eye refections, creates a bit of sparkle that a dull dark eye would normally have, and although the lighting is hard enough to show the wrinkles, I don't think softening it would improve it very much, and could lead to it looking a bit 2D and plasticky?

I'd not have a problem with it as it is - even the annoying red light I could live with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top