Is this even considered Cinematography?
- Thread starter NorBro
- Start date
AndrewGentle
Well-known member
You're asking if your own work is considered cinematography?
Moseph
Veteran
To me, it's more of a video showreel than a DP reel. It's not hard on the eyes, but there's a difference between that and cinema.
I would lose a lot of the color correction in there too. Oversaturating / split toning aren't ways make up for something that would otherwise not look good, they're effects that only work in certain situations. But in this, nearly everything has one of those two effects other than the dance class shots (which were my personal favorites).
I would lose a lot of the color correction in there too. Oversaturating / split toning aren't ways make up for something that would otherwise not look good, they're effects that only work in certain situations. But in this, nearly everything has one of those two effects other than the dance class shots (which were my personal favorites).
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I think that there are some very beautiful images there, and I commend you on them. Way to go. However, I do not consider that Cinematography. I believe that Cinematography is a craft wherein motion picture images are created, as creatively as is possible, for the fundamental purpose of telling a story. I did not see any context for the images presented. I believe that if you want to call yourself a Cinematographer, you should be able to demonstrate that you can craft images, with creativity and technical consistency, that can be edited together to facilitate the story being told. I do not believe that this was demonstrated in the above video.
Well, cinematography is an art form used in filmmaking and films do need to tell a story. However, I'm not convinced cinematography itself needs to tell a story. It can, and often does help tell a story, but it doesn't need to.
Still images can tell a story. Or not. A still image can convey an idea, an opinion, a question, etc. And since film or video is a series of stills, there is no need that it tell a story simply because there are many of them.
With that being said, regarding the OP's question, I answer yes, if the definition of cinematography is the art of exposing images on a light-sensitive element. Is it good? Yes, there were many fine sequences.
Still images can tell a story. Or not. A still image can convey an idea, an opinion, a question, etc. And since film or video is a series of stills, there is no need that it tell a story simply because there are many of them.
With that being said, regarding the OP's question, I answer yes, if the definition of cinematography is the art of exposing images on a light-sensitive element. Is it good? Yes, there were many fine sequences.
Last edited:
cyclone
Well-known member
The ASC refers to cinematography (and I agree) as a creative and interpretive process that culminates in the authorship of an original work of art rather than the simple recording of a physical event. (Oddly enough, I quoted this in another thread just a few weeks ago.) Based on this definition, I would call this reel an example of a Cinematographer's Reel. However, when I bid projects, I always try to match the director and the DP to the requirements of the project. With that in mind, I would agree with others in the thread that your reel would not sell your skills as a narrative cinematographer.
With no context, it's an impossible question to answer. Give the pieces context, maybe. Or maybe not.
The individual pieces aren't bad, but most of it is just what I would call "random stuff." It doesn't appear to serve any particular purpose and there's no cohesion to it at all.
In my opinion, cinematography involves a level of control over the final image. Did you light the material that is in the above piece? Did you craft the composition with specific purposes in mind, including such elements as arranging the actors and set elements? If you just had control of the camera and not much else, then it's videography, not cinematography.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I would strongly disagree with this 'limitation'. While it may be that artificial lighting requires various skills, control over the set elements, etc. are significant factors in narrative filmmaking, shooting with nothing more than the 'available light' (hey that 18K was just standing right there so it was 'available'... right...), or not having control of 'elements' (as if the cinematographer had total control of a city scape... or wilderness shot...), does not mean that is 'videography'...
I might use 'videographer' for such 'event' coverage as news camera work, the ubiquitous wedding work involving 'moving pictures'... but I would consider a 'documentary cinematographer' in a different category than 'videographer' despite only 'controlling' the camera.
In fact, these days I'm pretty much not using the term 'videographer' much beyond someone who uses a 'traditional' video styled camera... and even then things are pretty vague about the transition from 'videography' to 'photography', as in 'cinematography'...
I wouldn't even be specific about 'use'... because these days, a filmmakers work may never be shown in a 'cinema'...
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
The shots were pretty disjointed and in many cases the edited was too short to really 'see' the image. Also, in many cases, it seemed they were 'dutched' or not enough time to setup parallel lines correctly ( 0:24 (or so, where the floor tile lines are 'wonky'... one of my 'things' about architectural shots... unless there's a reason... the lines should not be canted... in that shot it could also be due to the camera not being placed exactly 'centered', and angled slightly off from perpendicular... There were other similar problems with other architectural shots, some of which appeared to be 'hand held'...).
nycineaste
Well-known member
I think OP is struggling with a sense of direction- I suspect he doesnt want to tell a dramatic story but yet feels like his stuff might not be technically polished enough to market himself as a cinematographer????? (yes im assuming a lot) if this is the case my answer to the question is that you can make these pretty travelogues put to generic techno music for the rest of your life if you want. your creative goals are up to you. lots of nice shots, yes.
Last edited:
Realdvxuser
Well-known member
Well it depends on the definition of cinematography as stated by others, but it at least shows you have skills and vision to become cinematographer if you aren't one already.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Of course!... You have some great images. You can definitely use that reel to get more work. Good luck.