C100: I need a New Look for 2017. What's your fave interview lens besides the 70-200?
- Thread starter nedcam
- Start date
JPNola
Veteran
Actually, the Hipster Cameradude look isn't complete without the key element: the ironic, thrift-store chic t-shirt-
Run&Gun
Veteran
I used to hear the term "Rock Star Runner". You know the ones: The guys and gals making $150/day to lug crap around and be "fetch-it boys" that are dressed up like movie/rock stars in $200-$300 jeans and sun glasses so big they could double as a drive-in theater movie screen. These are the same people that wouldn't have rain coats or cold weather gear when we are outside all day in the elements. I don't know how many of these kids I used to see when we were at the track or stadium and it's pouring down rain like piss out of a boot and we have our rain gear on and they're wearing cotton sweatshirts...
You should look professional/presentable, but you should be dressed TO WORK.
You should look professional/presentable, but you should be dressed TO WORK.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Absolutely lens choice as per the op - camera position and height - these things completely matter - but you don't go on about them with the subject - you focus lens and thoughts on them - all the camera waffle should be 100% nailed with minimum fuss.
And yep I think both pro talent and interviewees are affected by outfit and the rest of the shoot presentation
bill totolo
Veteran
"...camera waffle..." stealing this!
JPNola
Veteran
Just in case any of you have not heard this...
Not that we need our cameraman egos to be any bigger than they already are, but that's a great bit. And he's right about still photogs.
Liam Hall
Veteran
I agree, I also think many interviewees on docos/corporates are affected, to varying degrees, by everything that happens from when they walk in to when they leave. How you look and behave is a big part of that.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Lol. And so true!
nedcam
Well-known member
I just finished entering everyone's data on their favorite interview lens and will post shortly. A recurring item is the Sigma 18-35 so I will zero in on that, hopefully buying used because at 63.5 I am pouring every cent into retirement and have to hide my gear purchases from my wife behind the camouflage of "just selling old stuff on Ebay and CL honey."
In response to some of the posts, I used to be a filter freak and am now pitching my 4x4s because the hassle of selling them is a PITA. Editors prefer to do it in post instead of me baking it in. For about ten years I would buy very high end women's hosiery and with an eight cent plumber's washer I would stretch that over the back of the lens for a gauzy look. Many TV shows spec'd that, or the Pro Mist which was the lazy DP's option. I would go into the women's section in department store and buy the hosiery AND makeup and I imagine the sales ladies assumed I was cross dressing.
As to comments about style, I always considered myself a "chameleon shooter" in that I can be hired to match previous styles already established. In other words, I have no style or look of my own except to say I am documentary/cinema verite-ish as my default. That's one of the main reasons I figured out years ago NOT to have samples on my website. It's was shooting oneself in the foot. If I get a nibble I then send password protected samples on Vimeo or Dropbox that were as close to their look as possible. I'd ask for the previous DPs contact info, get settings, watch examples. I think of myself as a Utility Infielder, although I will turn down what I am not good at or enjoy, such as table top, cheese pulls, sheet metal and I no longer like or do narrative. Being a chameleon was especially important with TV shows where I was merely doing the US, Midwest or Chicago segment of a show, or corporate video, so a marketing point for hiring me was I didn't have an ego that would supplant their "look". I want to come across as a team player, I got your back, don't worry I will do it as YOU want it done. Once I became known as their "Chicago Guy" there was such a comfort factor they would be "forced" to hire me the next time. Those days are pretty much gone due to the amount of camera models today since the clients prioritize an owner op over a renter. A key to the source of my net worth was that when a TV show would be cancelled due to a ratings drop, the folks that liked me would take their Rolodexes to a new show. (A Rolodex was a round card and contact file.) The costal peeps tend to not know any DPs in Fly Over Country. In 1997 I made the cover of a cameraman's magazine where I talked about being a chameleon DP, see below.
Besides loving doc there's an upside in terms of less of a capital outlay: If you're a highly stylized shooter, such as TV spots, you need to spend a LOT on glass, like cinema lenses.
As to the slovenliness of shooters, while doing docs I have often found myself in a scrum with TV news shooters, (and on occasions during disasters and civil unrest when they ran out of names, I would be called) and sometimes there's waits of many hours, like a perp walk, I've gotten to know them. Like an anthropologist visiting a remote jungle tribe, it is eye opening in terms of studying their dress. I just can't believe I am related to these guys in terms of dress. Plumber's Butt, Spaghetti stains on their shelf, etc. The locals don't care what kind of impression they make whereas I also do corporate video so I have a sense of trying to create an impression of a non-slob. Oh well...
Lastly, I don't know how you guys shooting solo can have a second interview angle that is tight and unmanned. Invariably I go into post and I see the subject has shifted and if no one was there to pan or tilt, the shot is unusable. Since I am often the interviewer I can't run back and forth. How do you manage it? Unless they are so close you can stretch your arm?
Oh!!!! I almost forgot. Morgan Moore wrote: "Maybe your 70-200 is pushing you too far back from the subject to create an intimacy with the subject." I think he has nailed it. It seems like I'm more at a long arm's length, probably due to the mantra of the clients to "throw the background out-of-focus". ? I do believe that is what is bothering me. I need a lens therapist.
See ya,
Ned
In response to some of the posts, I used to be a filter freak and am now pitching my 4x4s because the hassle of selling them is a PITA. Editors prefer to do it in post instead of me baking it in. For about ten years I would buy very high end women's hosiery and with an eight cent plumber's washer I would stretch that over the back of the lens for a gauzy look. Many TV shows spec'd that, or the Pro Mist which was the lazy DP's option. I would go into the women's section in department store and buy the hosiery AND makeup and I imagine the sales ladies assumed I was cross dressing.
As to comments about style, I always considered myself a "chameleon shooter" in that I can be hired to match previous styles already established. In other words, I have no style or look of my own except to say I am documentary/cinema verite-ish as my default. That's one of the main reasons I figured out years ago NOT to have samples on my website. It's was shooting oneself in the foot. If I get a nibble I then send password protected samples on Vimeo or Dropbox that were as close to their look as possible. I'd ask for the previous DPs contact info, get settings, watch examples. I think of myself as a Utility Infielder, although I will turn down what I am not good at or enjoy, such as table top, cheese pulls, sheet metal and I no longer like or do narrative. Being a chameleon was especially important with TV shows where I was merely doing the US, Midwest or Chicago segment of a show, or corporate video, so a marketing point for hiring me was I didn't have an ego that would supplant their "look". I want to come across as a team player, I got your back, don't worry I will do it as YOU want it done. Once I became known as their "Chicago Guy" there was such a comfort factor they would be "forced" to hire me the next time. Those days are pretty much gone due to the amount of camera models today since the clients prioritize an owner op over a renter. A key to the source of my net worth was that when a TV show would be cancelled due to a ratings drop, the folks that liked me would take their Rolodexes to a new show. (A Rolodex was a round card and contact file.) The costal peeps tend to not know any DPs in Fly Over Country. In 1997 I made the cover of a cameraman's magazine where I talked about being a chameleon DP, see below.
Besides loving doc there's an upside in terms of less of a capital outlay: If you're a highly stylized shooter, such as TV spots, you need to spend a LOT on glass, like cinema lenses.
As to the slovenliness of shooters, while doing docs I have often found myself in a scrum with TV news shooters, (and on occasions during disasters and civil unrest when they ran out of names, I would be called) and sometimes there's waits of many hours, like a perp walk, I've gotten to know them. Like an anthropologist visiting a remote jungle tribe, it is eye opening in terms of studying their dress. I just can't believe I am related to these guys in terms of dress. Plumber's Butt, Spaghetti stains on their shelf, etc. The locals don't care what kind of impression they make whereas I also do corporate video so I have a sense of trying to create an impression of a non-slob. Oh well...
Lastly, I don't know how you guys shooting solo can have a second interview angle that is tight and unmanned. Invariably I go into post and I see the subject has shifted and if no one was there to pan or tilt, the shot is unusable. Since I am often the interviewer I can't run back and forth. How do you manage it? Unless they are so close you can stretch your arm?
Oh!!!! I almost forgot. Morgan Moore wrote: "Maybe your 70-200 is pushing you too far back from the subject to create an intimacy with the subject." I think he has nailed it. It seems like I'm more at a long arm's length, probably due to the mantra of the clients to "throw the background out-of-focus". ? I do believe that is what is bothering me. I need a lens therapist.
See ya,
Ned
Attachments
Last edited:
cpreston
Veteran
Oh, please don't toss your filters. Filtration appears to be a dying art in low budget videography and the used market for filters is pretty weak, but all of those old filters are valuable. At the very least, donate them to an up and coming shooter so that they can see what they are missing.
When I have to interview and shoot at the same time, I put the close up camera right next to my head and a small external monitor just above or below my eye line so that I can glance at it and make sure nothing has shifted. The wide angle is set next ot the closeup as a backup camera with enough depth of field that I'm not worried about it. I am pretty traditional when working as a one man band to get content. It seems to work quite well, although trying to do cameras, audio, and interview is the type of multitasking that is guaranteed to lead to a mistake if rushing.
When I have to interview and shoot at the same time, I put the close up camera right next to my head and a small external monitor just above or below my eye line so that I can glance at it and make sure nothing has shifted. The wide angle is set next ot the closeup as a backup camera with enough depth of field that I'm not worried about it. I am pretty traditional when working as a one man band to get content. It seems to work quite well, although trying to do cameras, audio, and interview is the type of multitasking that is guaranteed to lead to a mistake if rushing.
nedcam
Well-known member
Hi Cpreston,
As to filters, I have been selling a lot of gear the last few months on Ebay and CL in prep for a possible downsize house move and retirement glide, and I have found, if something is less than $50 it is just not worth the hassle, especially if shipping is involved. I just sold 200 antique American Cinematographers for $200 to the DP of Chicago Fire and if I wanted the hassle they could have gone for $10-$20 each individually on Ebay, but the hassle of the shipping and PayPal is just not worth it. Since we shoot 16x9 I don't know how desirable 4x4s are anymore.
I find that when I am doing the interviewing as well as DPing, I have a 7" on the floor in front of me and sneak quick peeks for composition, BUT...I am sitting several feet in front of my main camera, to be closer to the subject. If someone does a major shift sideways in their chair I will reach back and stretch and grab the rods and pan. I forewarn them they I may need to break eye contact but "please continue to look where my eyes were." If they have instead changed their distance to camera, I am paranoid so I will let them finish their response and say excuse me, and go back to the EVF and look at the magnification to make sure they are still super sharp. I only care about their pupils. I don't trust PAs or clients to confirm, perhaps my audio guys, but if it's soft in post I have no one to blame but myself. Oh! I can blame the clients for being so cheap I have to do it all solo!
Sometimes I have an audio guy or warm body in the interviewer's chair and act like a ventriloquist, with instructions to them is to act like they are interested via facial expressions and nods, and then I can monkey manage two cameras. My second camera tends to be more than an arm's length off to the side, if we have room. I only do side-by-side if it's the same model camera with the same settings, so it matches exactly and I don't find 2nd cam DSLRs to do so. The older people are, especially aging females, I don't want a tight shot anyways because no matter how well I do my work, they will hate how they look in a tight. In fact, most people don't like how they look in a tight when they see the finished video. I know I wouldn't!
But in sum, if I'm solo, unless I am shooting a speaker on stage, I tend to not want to do two camera shoots solo, plus as an old timer I am resentful that it is now expected to throw in the 2nd camera for free, thanks to desperate young competitors throwing in the kitchen sink for free to "get the job". Many clients now expect a 2nd cam for free. Biz has gone to Hell! But I digress...[/I]
See ya,
Ned
As to filters, I have been selling a lot of gear the last few months on Ebay and CL in prep for a possible downsize house move and retirement glide, and I have found, if something is less than $50 it is just not worth the hassle, especially if shipping is involved. I just sold 200 antique American Cinematographers for $200 to the DP of Chicago Fire and if I wanted the hassle they could have gone for $10-$20 each individually on Ebay, but the hassle of the shipping and PayPal is just not worth it. Since we shoot 16x9 I don't know how desirable 4x4s are anymore.
I find that when I am doing the interviewing as well as DPing, I have a 7" on the floor in front of me and sneak quick peeks for composition, BUT...I am sitting several feet in front of my main camera, to be closer to the subject. If someone does a major shift sideways in their chair I will reach back and stretch and grab the rods and pan. I forewarn them they I may need to break eye contact but "please continue to look where my eyes were." If they have instead changed their distance to camera, I am paranoid so I will let them finish their response and say excuse me, and go back to the EVF and look at the magnification to make sure they are still super sharp. I only care about their pupils. I don't trust PAs or clients to confirm, perhaps my audio guys, but if it's soft in post I have no one to blame but myself. Oh! I can blame the clients for being so cheap I have to do it all solo!
Sometimes I have an audio guy or warm body in the interviewer's chair and act like a ventriloquist, with instructions to them is to act like they are interested via facial expressions and nods, and then I can monkey manage two cameras. My second camera tends to be more than an arm's length off to the side, if we have room. I only do side-by-side if it's the same model camera with the same settings, so it matches exactly and I don't find 2nd cam DSLRs to do so. The older people are, especially aging females, I don't want a tight shot anyways because no matter how well I do my work, they will hate how they look in a tight. In fact, most people don't like how they look in a tight when they see the finished video. I know I wouldn't!
But in sum, if I'm solo, unless I am shooting a speaker on stage, I tend to not want to do two camera shoots solo, plus as an old timer I am resentful that it is now expected to throw in the 2nd camera for free, thanks to desperate young competitors throwing in the kitchen sink for free to "get the job". Many clients now expect a 2nd cam for free. Biz has gone to Hell! But I digress...[/I]
See ya,
Ned
Last edited:
John Foundas
Well-known member
Sigma 50-100 is a beast for interviews
rob norton
Veteran
You'd been a cameraman for 21 years in that photo? You look like you're 21 years old!
Run&Gun
Veteran
This multi-cam sh*t with one photog is the worst. At the network level, we usually have to have three cams before they'll "allow" a second shooter, now. Absolutely F'n ridiculous. I blame all the young kids over the last couple of years or so that will do ANYTHING to get work and can/will give away the farm, because they either spent next-to-nothing on their gear compared to what we did in the past(even now on some stuff) when you were gonna spend $50K-$100K just to get up and running or mommy and daddy bought it for them. If only they knew just how much they hurt the industry and themselves.
When I have to do a two-cam without a second op, the unmanned cam is almost always the wide shot. I did a three-cam, two person interview last week. I was on my F55 as the primary cam on the main subject, an un-manned 5D on the 'interviewer' and the producer had his cam(1/3" Panasonic) on the slider for the two/cover shot. Five, six years ago, the idea of doing that type of shoot that way would have never even been entertained, much less actually done that way.
When I have to do a two-cam without a second op, the unmanned cam is almost always the wide shot. I did a three-cam, two person interview last week. I was on my F55 as the primary cam on the main subject, an un-manned 5D on the 'interviewer' and the producer had his cam(1/3" Panasonic) on the slider for the two/cover shot. Five, six years ago, the idea of doing that type of shoot that way would have never even been entertained, much less actually done that way.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
On a two cam shoot the cameras are either right next to each other for a wide and tight or medium and tight, in which case manning them with one op is super simple. With three cams, the third is off-axis, and sometimes with two cams I'll have the second off-axis. So, I'll typically man front-on cam, while keeping an eye on the off-axis shot which is around 5-15 feet away. If the interviewee moves, I can step over and adjust the framing between questions. Worst case scenario the off-axis shot is ruined by the interviewee moving, and it was really just a supplemental shot anyway, so no big loss. If losing framing on the off-axis shot was ever such a big deal, then obviously a second cam op would be needed.
I rarely do the interviewing myself; there's almost always someone around, a producer, the marketing director I'm working with, someone on staff at the location, etc., who can conduct the interview, while I man the cameras. I don't consider myself an amazing and empathetic people person, so chances are the random interviewer can do just as good or a better job of asking questions as I would do.
With two person network style interviews where the subjects are facing each other, I'd typically aim to have at least two cam ops for those situations.
Here are the three shots from the Sister Agnes interview below and a behind-the-scenes shot. One-man-band project.
Actually, I recall there was no one else free at the time, so if you see in the BTS photo the light stand to the right of the cameras with a black leather pouch on top of it; that was for her eye-line, so she answered her questions to an inanimate object. She'd been on camera before and seemed pretty experienced with doing so, so it didn't bother her. I typically prefer to have a person for eye-line, but in the rare but occasional times it has come to that, using an object for eye-line, I find the results of the interview are about the same. I hear plenty of psychobabble about interviewing, the interviewer connecting with the interviewee, etc., but I have doubts of the importance behind it. Maybe for more emotional interviews it's more important, but not for the average interview.
Some people actually seem more comfortable answering to an inanimate object as it's one less person in the room to make them feel nervous, and they feel more at ease with the inanimate object than with a person who they may perceive is judging their answers and ability to answer.
Last edited:
JPNola
Veteran
Boo, HISS for Editors and "Post"!!! Filters were so fun and yummy. Grape, Plum, Cranberry, Tangerine, Chocolate, Lavender...Coral, Antique Suede, Sepia, Skyfire, Tuscan Pink, Blender Blue, Whiskey, and Tobacco. - and we're just surrendering all that fun, just like that? Poof? Even the Whiskey? We can't keep just the Whiskey???
I remember the DP's who would have a special little hard case containing their personal selection of filters and it was like their treasure box with all their jewels that they had collected and their special tricks. Their magician's bag. And the Camera Assistants would treat the box with reverence, guard it closely, and maybe if you were lucky give you a peek inside when the DP wasn't around to catch them sharing the contents of his secret stash.
bill totolo
Veteran
Ran across some interesting notes on the development of the Canon CN-E zooms, notably how they designed sharpness in desired areas of a scene while softening skin tones in a way filters cannot emulate by introducing a controlled amount of spherical aberration: https://matthewduclos.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/cinema-eos-lenses.pdf