I think filmmaking is a science as much as it is art
- Thread starter Zachadoodle
- Start date
Zachadoodle
Well-known member
Film will naturally have more of a direct effect with light than digital I will say that. My only complaint with film is that it is photography on insane mode (harder than hard mode in video games). You have to be extremely mathematically exact and observant with your results with lighting on film. Focusing and framing is another fear you may have. The viewfinder in the camera may be off a few feet from the lens giving a different framing you never expected. As for focusing you only know for sure you got it right when you got the film developed. A lot of guesswork in the camera too. What is more likely to happen in film photography is that you're jumping up and down that you got the best shot in the world then you develop it, and it's a mess of white splotches.
My advice to any photographer or filmmaker now-a-days is to get good with digital first, and then maybe try film.
My advice to any photographer or filmmaker now-a-days is to get good with digital first, and then maybe try film.
Last edited:
JAMedia
Well-known member
Wet film Photography relies on chemistry for the film. Chemistry is an exact science. It also relied on physics for the lenses, Mechanical engineering for the rest of the cameras and mathematics filling in between the chemistry and the physics.
Wet film photography is based entirely on science.
The art is what you do with it. Just like digital photography.
Actually, for digital photography the artist has more control than with wet film,
so digital photography is more of an art than wet film photography.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I don't think art is about making things easier or more difficult. It's about expression. It comes in all forms.
JAMedia
Well-known member
Actually, Michelangelo WAS known for his vision and planning. Having been to the Vatican I can tell you he didn't just nip up a ladder and start painting! There was a huge amount of planning and many preparatory sketches. Indeed some of it is quite complex and there were discussions on it. The Sistine Chapel "vision" is multi layered and it is in fact quite heretical.
The same with Leonardo Da Vinci, I have seen some of his original drawings and notes, and indeed most great artists.
JAMedia
Well-known member
This is not true. This is partly why film has been replaced by digitial every where except a [very] few photographers.
It’s the manipulation of many highly technical processes in service of a creative outcome.
The audience also doesn’t care how you “made” the image. They don’t know what processes you went through, what conversations you had.
They do hopefully have an emotional reaction to it. They like it. Or they don’t.
Which is basically what art is.
The audience also doesn’t care how you “made” the image. They don’t know what processes you went through, what conversations you had.
They do hopefully have an emotional reaction to it. They like it. Or they don’t.
Which is basically what art is.
Exactly what AI is, highly technical creative processes in service of a creative outcome that nobody would pay for. That's why it exists, it's free. That's why people fear it, it's cheap.
Art has an artist. Art requires artistry. People do care about the effort that goes into creating something original and pay large sums for it, could be a temple rubbing, or marquetry. It involves creating intricate designs or patterns by embedding small pieces of wood, veneers, or other materials into a wooden surface. Nothing that is not cheaply reproduced with automation already, but the craft which reached a level of sophistication in France during the Louis XIV, Louis XV, and Louis XVI periods, and is still practiced today, commands huge sums. People are not paying for a bill of materials and labor, they pay for artistry.
paulears
Veteran
Students discussed this endlessly when I was teaching. I know my view has always been some people have the artistic gene, and a great technical background. Others only have the technical knowledge.
In practice, with both still and moving images, I know my place.
I take thousands of photographs. I am NOT a photographer. A colleague doesn't even bother with his camera any longer, because he takes beautiful images on a phone! I can also produce excellent plans and production drawings, but I cannot draw a face, or an animal. Art is lacking.
I spent a whole day trying to paint a theatre sized canvas - I wanted an old fashioned Hogwarts style oak panelled effect. It was perfect and very 3D but not really realistic. My scene painting friend appeared and in an hour had painted over it with exactly what I wanted. Same brushes, same paint. NO straight edge and very few lines even straight. I could not replicate it, even after watching her do it!
Cameras, paintings, and probably even clothes need artistic flair. I don't have any!
In practice, with both still and moving images, I know my place.
I take thousands of photographs. I am NOT a photographer. A colleague doesn't even bother with his camera any longer, because he takes beautiful images on a phone! I can also produce excellent plans and production drawings, but I cannot draw a face, or an animal. Art is lacking.
I spent a whole day trying to paint a theatre sized canvas - I wanted an old fashioned Hogwarts style oak panelled effect. It was perfect and very 3D but not really realistic. My scene painting friend appeared and in an hour had painted over it with exactly what I wanted. Same brushes, same paint. NO straight edge and very few lines even straight. I could not replicate it, even after watching her do it!
Cameras, paintings, and probably even clothes need artistic flair. I don't have any!
No it's not really. At most someone is better at prompting than someone else. There's an argument I guess that taste is what filters the results and then arguably it's still a Human authored work because it's dependent on who or what is being typed and iterated.
It's not really free either.
It has to be authored.
Judged by an audince.
Market economics for art is independent of the art. Sure there is a giant and huge market for art, but it's as much about the human need to collect something that's uniquely authored and scarce. Market recognized art is worth more once the artists is dead. I can give you a bunch of examples of art that has no monetary value but I don't think you actually care.
Interesting that you think art is somehow authenticated by monetary value. Sad actually.
Like other collectable objects, the providence is as important as the serviced craftsmanship.
JAMedia
Well-known member
Meh! What does he know? My mum thinks my videos are better than his....
The problem is it is all subjective. Nolan still insists on using wet film, whilst Speilburg (or Lucas?) Pushed digital cameras.
The film Side by Side https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/110354-side-by-side is an interesting study on all this, but it is over 12 years old and things have moved on, and it needs to be remade with the current state of play.
EDIT depending on the 2-factor authentication bollox on this site, I may or may not be back to reply to any replies. Depends on if it takes me less than 5 minutes to log in or not.
Last edited: