morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Sorry. You didn't directly. You were, I believe, however, arguing for the OPs premise which does, doesnt it?
S
Lazy Cinematography?
- Thread starter jambredz
- Start date
Sorry. You didn't directly. You were, I believe, however, arguing for the OPs premise which does, doesnt it?
S
Perhaps, yet I made where I was coming from very plain, three posts down from the top:
(emphasis added)
And if you happen to click on the link I also provided:
(emphasis added)
So, to be explicit, I'm talking about so-called "cinematographers" who cannot show you any material that they are responsible for that does not make sole use of available light. I never said using available light was bad, just that if you've never set up lighting in a controlled shooting situation, you are a "camera operator" (as gonzo_entertainment pointed out), a "lazy cinematographer" (as jambredz seemed to be getting at), or a "videographer" (my preferred term).
Does that makes sense?
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
It does. I think it is worth considering those the have set up a light, but rarely do set up lights!
Ive been making images for a long time (1994 full time), stills wise I could not tell you how many lights I have, at least 20, ive got maybe 6 video lights, I have a small truck of gear, literally
I also happen have primes from 14 2.8 to 600F4
Yet I choose to shoot mainly with 2 lenses and no lights.
To qualify that no lights I would add, that I make a lot of use of reflection, location, shade.. a lot .. and I think that craft took years to get.
Also my ideal working day starts at 0400 hours, runs till 1000 hours, lazes by the pool for four, and starts again from 1700-2000
I have a colleague in stills world - we joke - 'this 50mm cost a lot of money' refering to the lenses we bought, used, and use no longer, in the process of honing in on our lens. We keep those other lenses for 'emergencies' of course.
For example my 14mm - I would never/rarely choose it, but it is my 'hotel bathroom' lens and fulfills a client need so is kept and cherished. Similarly I have a 'blaster' light which is always with me for those shots of the MD in front of his factory at midday. I photograph one wedding a year (for my sins) and again, always take enough lights to do a group shot of all the visitors, those lights only leave the truck if the weather is terrible.
S
Ive been making images for a long time (1994 full time), stills wise I could not tell you how many lights I have, at least 20, ive got maybe 6 video lights, I have a small truck of gear, literally
I also happen have primes from 14 2.8 to 600F4
Yet I choose to shoot mainly with 2 lenses and no lights.
To qualify that no lights I would add, that I make a lot of use of reflection, location, shade.. a lot .. and I think that craft took years to get.
Also my ideal working day starts at 0400 hours, runs till 1000 hours, lazes by the pool for four, and starts again from 1700-2000
I have a colleague in stills world - we joke - 'this 50mm cost a lot of money' refering to the lenses we bought, used, and use no longer, in the process of honing in on our lens. We keep those other lenses for 'emergencies' of course.
For example my 14mm - I would never/rarely choose it, but it is my 'hotel bathroom' lens and fulfills a client need so is kept and cherished. Similarly I have a 'blaster' light which is always with me for those shots of the MD in front of his factory at midday. I photograph one wedding a year (for my sins) and again, always take enough lights to do a group shot of all the visitors, those lights only leave the truck if the weather is terrible.
S
Last edited:
I think reflection is fine for outdoor. I mean, otherwise you really need a grip truck with 5ks and generators and scrims and such to actually have a chance at competing with/against the all-mighty Sol. Nothing wrong with outdoor shots using a reflector. But if that's all you can show me, then I'm not going to consider you for anything involving indoor/night shooting.
All of my primes are fast, most of them f/1.4. And yet I still set up lighting. It's not simply about exposure.
All of my primes are fast, most of them f/1.4. And yet I still set up lighting. It's not simply about exposure.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Then you are hiring an operator/technician. To do what you want - which is fair enough on your gig.- its your money. You want to hire techs that can fulfil your brief - too right!
But does not address the concept of people being to create, without stuff.
As CP said, he will do shots without stuff today, but if the director want the reverse angle, then he will need stuff, lots of stuff
CP knows this, and will or wont use stuff to fulfill the directors needs, if the director does not go for the reverse CP wont use any stuff, he's no less skilled for that.
BTW I often use reflectors indoors, white muslin sheets, through to a roll of tin foil, one of the joys of operating from a van is that I have a unique asset in the size of poloyboards I can handle compared to someone who is operating from a car or taxi or subway .. like a lot of kiddos that call themselves cinematographers.
S
But does not address the concept of people being to create, without stuff.
As CP said, he will do shots without stuff today, but if the director want the reverse angle, then he will need stuff, lots of stuff
CP knows this, and will or wont use stuff to fulfill the directors needs, if the director does not go for the reverse CP wont use any stuff, he's no less skilled for that.
BTW I often use reflectors indoors, white muslin sheets, through to a roll of tin foil, one of the joys of operating from a van is that I have a unique asset in the size of poloyboards I can handle compared to someone who is operating from a car or taxi or subway .. like a lot of kiddos that call themselves cinematographers.
S
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
And dont get me wrong I find it very frustrating to compete against people who have a few nice shots, but I know they are unlikely to actually be able to perform when the going gets tough.
Really its all about the director/client. If he needs wants to fly a camera out a window, he's (or of course she) probably going to spend a lot of money on stuff, or get a bad result, as his DOP we need to tell him how that can happen, what it will cost, or suggest other solutions appropriate to his budget. Similarly the DOP will put him in the picture with shooting against a panoramic picture frame window. It aint gonna happen, properly, without stuff, nor will certain 'artistic' looks
S
Really its all about the director/client. If he needs wants to fly a camera out a window, he's (or of course she) probably going to spend a lot of money on stuff, or get a bad result, as his DOP we need to tell him how that can happen, what it will cost, or suggest other solutions appropriate to his budget. Similarly the DOP will put him in the picture with shooting against a panoramic picture frame window. It aint gonna happen, properly, without stuff, nor will certain 'artistic' looks
S
Last edited:
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
And take those brushes away from the painters, that will free their creativity, we are no in the 50s anymore. :beer:
Lighting a scene is one of the most creative tools a DP can have. Why take that out of the toolbox?
What if the available light sucks, or there is not enough light available, to give the sensor what it needs?
Oh yeah, I forgot, that's the new "gritty" look everybody loves.
If you take my lights, reflector and flags from me, you could also peel out my eyeballs - maybe that would lead me to even more creativity.
It's a myth that restriction from tools makes better material.
It just takes more time to get different material.
If it would be THAT great, a money or time saver, the studios would have it adapted quite a while ago.
But they still bring in several k of light, when they need to.
More sensitive cameras may lower your need for wattage, but you still need the same amount of lights (and lighting), to get good results.
Frank
Al MacLeod
Well-known member
I feel a Helen Keller joke coming...
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Sometimes an available light "look" might take a 5 ton grip truck. Sometimes it might take a bounce board. Being a cinematographer is about being able to get that look (or a very constructed, noir/hard light look, or any other "look") on demand at any time of day, in any location.
Personally I despise the soft, even, ambient light look very popular right now. We shoot almost everything with hard directional light, because that's my aesthetic. A GOOD DP, could do either, both, or anything else I asked them to do.
Personally I despise the soft, even, ambient light look very popular right now. We shoot almost everything with hard directional light, because that's my aesthetic. A GOOD DP, could do either, both, or anything else I asked them to do.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
'More sensitive cameras may lower your need for wattage, but you still need the same amount of lights (and lighting), to get good results."
^ this X 1,000,000,000,000
^ this X 1,000,000,000,000
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
The Wife use to have a studio. She would mainly meet people at some convenient place, Starbux to go over a shoot, and we used the Studio about 2 or 3 times a year... it became a 'storage unit'. All other shoots for her portrait work was 'available light', and wedding coverage we used strobes to boost the existing light levels... or during the reception put any light on the subjects at all...
When I was active as a photographer, I did mainly architectural shots, except on 'rare' occasions for a 'light painted' night shot, I only used strobes on interiors. But even then it was usually to kick light in to dark areas, if there was any 'natural' light at all... of course I did have the benefit of being able to go down to 1/2 second at high F-stop if required...
Recently I was given permission to use the sacred 17-35 F/2.8 Nikon lens... I've not actually used it on any moving pictures shooting as of yet... but we bought that one for the specific problem of small rooms and low available light (for her full frame 35mm stills...).
hscully
Veteran
I was on a shoot this weekend. We were house powered and I shot into the windows by ND'ing them. That's an option. There was still a lot of light from them, of course I wouldn't let faces go dark so I filled with daylight kinos, got a nice eye light and exposed correctly without blowing out the windows. My camera is one that I need to guard highlights. The OP suggested that the laziness is in expecting a camera to have attributes that make it unnecessary to account for these conditions. I sort of agree. If you know that your camera is kind to blown whites (i.e. bloom to white instead of clip to yellow) and you don't mind them, then good for you, but don't be lazy about it, work the light. At least that's what I got from the original post.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
I think people specialize, and while one can do 'basic' lighting across a spectrum of styles, there is just something about certain lighting setups that some cinematographers do 'better' than others.
This is why I follow Roger Deakins, because I've liked his lighting 'look' for most of the films I've seen, and then reading his comments, such as 'use unbleached muslin drop cloths'... for bounce... or wiring up a set of tungsten bulbs for an effect, is just what 'i'd do'... if I knew what I needed... the most obviously thing I don't have available to me is really strong 'hot' lights... so my current activity is centered on 'what look' can I achieve with what I have...
This was not always the case... back in the olden days, I did use a much stronger lighting setup. Since I shot stills that meant a strobe system that could produce a 'ton of light'... I've mellowed... even with strobes these days I don't shoot over 400 Ws... and even then about 200 Ws, and always through diffusion.
The Hurrell look had its day...
In sort of the same way... Rembrandt use to be a 'guiding' painter model for me... these days it is more along the lines of Vermeer...
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Oh absolutely. Everybody has a style or a way of working they excel at, but a "good DP" would know the principals of lighting and color to have a go at a lot of different styles.
I get what you're saying though. If their work tended to have a certain "look" I probably wouldn't hire them unless I wanted something in the ballpark of that look.
My stuff (and my DP's strength) is a hard/directional light retro look. Won't say we never throw a silk up or bounce a light, but in 4 films have never once used a softbox which I basically consider the devil incarnate.
I get what you're saying though. If their work tended to have a certain "look" I probably wouldn't hire them unless I wanted something in the ballpark of that look.
My stuff (and my DP's strength) is a hard/directional light retro look. Won't say we never throw a silk up or bounce a light, but in 4 films have never once used a softbox which I basically consider the devil incarnate.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Then if this were true, that the camera have 'attributes' that make up for 'sloppy lighting'... all cinematographers should then go out and buy a GH-2... rather than an Alexa... because the Alexa with its 12-14 stop dynamic range just makes it to 'easy' to shoot scenes with a 'wide range' of values...
To me the 'lazy cinematographer' would expect the same results from the GH-2 as the Alexa (see the Zacuto shootout yammering...) at 'no extra cost'... that's 'lazy'... same is true for the ever popular 7D or 5D...
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
So many aspects, so many ways to shoot. So many trade offs.
So what is a good DP?
-has a house style. -might be 5 trucks of lights and a technochrane, or a GH2 and a 25/0.95 - you may like the syle or hate it, it is never wrong - art is never wrong - but as a client this might not be who to hire, if your brief differs from their house style
-can produce a style to a brief, and will own or rent the appropriate equipment to make it happen
-will guide the client to getting close to their brief while surprising them with the budget, due to some intelligent compromises.
-will no when to say no - because the brief and the budget cannot match
None of these things are lazy.
So what is a good DP?
-has a house style. -might be 5 trucks of lights and a technochrane, or a GH2 and a 25/0.95 - you may like the syle or hate it, it is never wrong - art is never wrong - but as a client this might not be who to hire, if your brief differs from their house style
-can produce a style to a brief, and will own or rent the appropriate equipment to make it happen
-will guide the client to getting close to their brief while surprising them with the budget, due to some intelligent compromises.
-will no when to say no - because the brief and the budget cannot match
None of these things are lazy.
Gabel
Well-known member
Best quote so far. It's not about the amount or how big the lights are, it's about picking the right instrument for the right situation and how to shape it. For me, natural light means not doing any lighting, which isn't cinematography. I prefer to think of sunlight or practicals as "natural light sources" and treat them just as I would an instrument, to shape them with flags, diffusion or gels to what I want. Perhaps that entails waiting until the sun is in the perfect spot, but then that is what one has to do. That's why I love metering: it was when I got my meter I got that cinematography wasn't all about cameras, but rather getting picture to look as you want it in a camera.
hscully
Veteran
I agree. That's what I meant. That the laziness is not taking into consideration working the light to get the best out of your camera like in the 2nd phase of Revenge. Saying... lazy would be "How come my AF100 doesn't have the same DR as an Alexa? "
jambredz
Veteran
Well someone who actually got what I was saying lol.
Its cool my topic opened a can of worms for discussion though. I was simply making the point that there seems to be 2 much complaining nowadays about the weaknesses of this camera as opposed to the next. I also pointed out Dynamic range as being one such argument. All I was saying is if one is knowledgeable enough about lighting and their particular camera (a good DP) then they will know how to get that camera in the range they need it to be to look good (for the project) and that would lead to less bitching about a camera's shortcomings. Don't just set up your fs100 and ***** about the blown horrible yellow highlights and that you wish you were shooting on an Alexa, make the necessary adjustments to MAKE the camera come into its own. Don't set up an Epic in low light and ***** about its lowlight flaws and you wish you were shooting on a c300 so you could bump the ISO to whatever ungodly clean ISO it can do....light the scene and make the camera come into its own. Point is I see way to much bitching (and not doing something about it hence "lazy") and not enough application of knowledge. That's all i was really saying.
And yes i'm aware there are many other aspects to cinematography. I just chose to concentrate on this aspect.
jambredz
Veteran
Oh i agree with that. I also made the point in my original post that alot of grip equipment may be needed to get there. People throw around the term natural lighting and suggest that natural lighting is not lighting. However I disagree with that notion. I use natural light for outdoor scenes alot because guess what..the budget cant handle a big ass HMI (and sometimes its just not called for). So what do i do....rent alot of grip. Overheads... reflectors...bounce and nets. Is that not natural lighting? But that is alot of shaping and manipulation of the natural lights. So i definitely agree that it will take some cost to get there but in relation to renting some heavy duty lighting...its peanuts. At least where i am located.
Also I fully recognize shooting on a certain camera will make life easier from project to project ...no argument there. I'm just saying...if you can't shoot on such a camera, dont ***** about it...find another way to get there by knowing lighting and knowing your camera's limits.
Last edited: