Shooting with steam

B

bogatyr

Active member
We need to shoot a scene of someone taking a shower with a lot of steam. I wonder if anyone had done that before and have recommendations as to how to create the atmosphere of bathroom with a lot of steam. I saw that in one film, apart from using what look like actual steam, they had some mild vignetting on the edges of the frame, as if they applied some substances to the edges of the lens, I wonder what could that be.
Thanks for any ideas!
 
Hmm, condensation on the lens (and the rest of the camera) must be a big issue - but we see these shots onscreen often enough that some reliable simple methods must have been worked out over the years.

It would be pretty easy to enhance steam effects - either vignetting or simply adding more - in postproduction too.
 
You don't want to bring the camera into the equation. Remember, the audience is somehow magically watching events unfold, not seeing things captured by a camera. It's as if you were standing there watching someone take a shower. Your vision would not vignette.
 
Thanks everyone for suggestions. We went with vignetting on the lens and actual steam. We had to blow hot air on the lens to prevent it from fogging up. Haven't seen the footage yet but I feel it worked out quite well.
 
William_Robinette said:
That is a rather large assumption.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a regular feature in Roger Ebert's movie column. I don't remember the title of the segment but the jist was that readers could write in with inconsistencies or flubs that they discovered in movies.

One reader wrote how inaccurate it was to see a starfield through windows in spacecraft because there was no camera at the time that could actually properly expose the stars to be visible. Ebert actually thought this was a good catch! We're not supposed to be thinking about cameras fer Chris'sake!

Not assuming anything. We suspend disbelief, we buy into what we are watching is real for a couple of hours. There is no camera!
 
jimpatro said:
Reminds me of a regular feature in Roger Ebert's movie column. I don't remember the title of the segment but the jist was that readers could write in with inconsistencies or flubs that they discovered in movies.

One reader wrote how inaccurate it was to see a starfield through windows in spacecraft because there was no camera at the time that could actually properly expose the stars to be visible. Ebert actually thought this was a good catch! We're not supposed to be thinking about cameras fer Chris'sake!

Not assuming anything. We suspend disbelief, we buy into what we are watching is real for a couple of hours. There is no camera!
Click to expand...

That is just one approach to filmmaking. Many, many films use a more expressionistic approach to their image making. Neither approach is right or wrong, it is just part of the artistic choices the filmmaker has to make.
 
Not really a complex answer but if the setup is possible you could move the camera out of the bathroom and zoom in a great bit. That way you get the feel like youre IN the bathroom but dont actually have to have the camera in there.
 
I was an idiot and didn't think about this issue when trying to grab a shot of a steamy shower head. The lens proceeded to immediately fog up. Artificial steam (of the non-warm and watery variety) would have worked best.

Ah, the things you learn every time you shoot....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top