What is Great Cinematography... Really.

Steve Laramie said:
Great cinematography should technically go un noticed to the un trained eye.
Click to expand...

Well said. But if you think about it that presents a bit of a catch twenty two. If great cinematography is that which goes unnoticed to the untrained eye, then those with a "trained eye" can never really know what it is. There is no way we can measure what the average person perceives. Kind of brings on a wry chuckle.
 
TimTheFoolMan said:
Turn the sound off and watch. Does the story still come through? If so, that's great cinematography. - Tim
Click to expand...

In a narrative film, the image sans sound falls just as much on the actors, if not even more than the quality of light or composition in frame. Moviegoers watch characters actively; they subconsciously make assessments about those characters based on the quality of light exposing them. The craft of a film without sound could be judged dually on the talents of the director, who is guiding the performances, and the actors who give them.

Great cinematography works in tandem with, rather than in independence of, the other attributes of the film.


In sum, I'd say great cinematography doesn't draw attention to itself but also never dulls, invoking feelings about characters and places that engage the audience. After all, art is meant to do two things: to be witnessed and to generate a reaction.
 
in case someones lurking here for actual tips, its not all -that- magical:

-lots of depth (thru lighting, camera angle, distinct foreground and background- everyone likes low dof cause it makes this easier. Put stuff in the foreground of the shot shoot past/over it
-low key lighting lots of dramatic shadows unless its a comedy then high key little shadow
-dynamic compositions - space divided in an interesting fashion- rule of thirds helps
-one single focal point in each shot no distracting elements- take the box of cheerios out the frame dont shoot in front of a blazing walmart sign

depth and clarity

howd i do
 
there are great films where cinematography is obvious. Great cinematography doesn't always have to go unseen. Check out jean luc godard for those who havent already.
 
It sounds like you are asking on the deepest, most philosophical level, What is great cinematography? And so you will identical responses if you walk into a musician forum and ask, What is great music? Or into painter forum and ask, What makes a great painting? Or into a writer forum and ask, What makes great writing?

At this point I would warn you that if that is your question --- if you are not just asking for a few tips about lighting, depth of field, and framing --- then you are walking into a topic that is very controversial. You will get conflicting advice. Some might say, whatever is most beautiful, while others might say, whatever most accurately conveys the scene's meaning. Still others, consummate pragmatists, might say, whatever tickles the audience's neuro-circuitry so much that they will pay to come see it again.

Many will say that we will never know the answer, because "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." They say everyone has a different opinion, so there is no truly great art, just art that different people like. This is a horribly wrong philosophy, and at the risk of starting a flame war I will not argue it. However, I will say that beauty can be found, and I implore you to keep searching!

So, my answer is, great cinematraphy is cinematography that is beautiful.

:)
 
combatentropy said:
It sounds like you are asking on the deepest, most philosophical level, What is great cinematography? And so you will identical responses if you walk into a musician forum and ask, What is great music? Or into painter forum and ask, What makes a great painting? Or into a writer forum and ask, What makes great writing?

At this point I would warn you that if that is your question --- if you are not just asking for a few tips about lighting, depth of field, and framing --- then you are walking into a topic that is very controversial. You will get conflicting advice. Some might say, whatever is most beautiful, while others might say, whatever most accurately conveys the scene's meaning. Still others, consummate pragmatists, might say, whatever tickles the audience's neuro-circuitry so much that they will pay to come see it again.

Many will say that we will never know the answer, because "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." They say everyone has a different opinion, so there is no truly great art, just art that different people like. This is a horribly wrong philosophy, and at the risk of starting a flame war I will not argue it. However, I will say that beauty can be found, and I implore you to keep searching!

So, my answer is, great cinematraphy is cinematography that is beautiful.

:)
Click to expand...

Well then what is beauty?:) I agree with you entirely, there really isn't an answer. When I posted the thread I wasn't looking for a single answer, but a dozen answers. I think as artists, noobs and pros alike, it's a question we have to keep asking. Obviously it doesn't have much practical application, I mean if you spend all your time philosophizing but can't pull focus/frame/ect.. well I guess your not really helping anyone. But sometimes I think we can get so wrapped up in the technical that we become craftsmen instead of artisans. At leasts thats how it is for me.
 
Bonedog said:
But sometimes I think we can get so wrapped up in the technical that we become craftsmen instead of artisans. At leasts thats how it is for me.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the internet. In my opinion there is and always has been way too much technical discussion revolving around cameras than practical application and usage. There are a lot of times where I get quite frustrated reading thread after thread of users just fighting over which camera is better because of this spec or that spec, or this feature or that feature. When did it become about the cameras and not the art? I feel like there are so many people who sit around in front of their computers reading tons of information about cameras, but not actually out shooting with said cameras.
 
Cinematography is "show, don't tell": storytelling using (moving) pictures. It is strongly related to photography: good photographs tell a story without sound.

GREAT cinematography is like great design. In addition to telling the story, every shot is simplified and composed using design principles, depth of field, and lighting, influencing the audience to focus only on what is necessary.
 
I agree with you 100%... shot design is the key in cinematography! Its not just about looking pretty, but achieving its goal with purpose.
 
You know it when you see it, but it's hard to nail and not easy to pull a set of rules from it, that you just apply like a magic formula.
Aside form the sheer technique, it's also talent and even just luck sometimes.

Some of the best cinematography I ever saw, was Dion Beebee's work on "Memoirs of a Geisha".

Frank
 
Maybe someone already said something like this - I haven't read all 6 pages of this thread.

My all-time favourite cinematographer is Roger Deakins, not even so much because I love his images, but because I love his philosophy - that if the cinematography, or even a certain shot, draws attention to itself then it has failed because it has directed attention away from the story. That's what I love about Deakins' work - it is simultaneously so impressive, yet so unimpressive (and by unimpressive I do not mean "bad").

Recently a lot of my friends saw War Horse and kept telling me "you've got to go see it, the cinematography is so amazing." So I went and saw it... and HATED it. I know it was a stylistic decision made by Speilberg, but I thought the cinematography came across as self-absorbent on the part of Kaminski, like he seized this stylistic opportunity to puff up his chest and show off. Of course I'm sure that's not what was really happening, and I know Kaminski was Oscar-nominated for it, but that's how it came across to me. I felt the cinematography was not subservient to the story, and while beautiful, in my opinion it was far from "great."

That's my 2₵, I know the majority will probably disagree with me.
 
brynsank said:
Recently a lot of my friends saw War Horse and kept telling me "you've got to go see it, the cinematography is so amazing." So I went and saw it... and HATED it. I know it was a stylistic decision made by Speilberg, but I thought the cinematography came across as self-absorbent on the part of Kaminski, like he seized this stylistic opportunity to puff up his chest and show off. Of course I'm sure that's not what was really happening, and I know Kaminski was Oscar-nominated for it, but that's how it came across to me. I felt the cinematography was not subservient to the story, and while beautiful, in my opinion it was far from "great."
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Kaminski's 'blooming highlights' either... The Wife and I watched the new Bluray release of the "Indiana Jones" tetralogy, and while watching "The Crystal Skull"... the Wife kept commenting on 'why is this 'soft/blurry/hazy'?'...

Kaminski...

And that's despite the fact that he was supposedly given the 'mission statement' of match the other film cinematography style... which was mostly sharp and clear...
 
Erik Olson said:
A lot plays into "great cinematography" - it's composition, blocking, lighting, knowing when to move the camera and when not to. It is, to a great extent, the cummulative result of the various departments working in perfect synchronicity. There are very few of these, but perfect films tend to draw very little attention to the technical, but it is all there, invisibly supporting the telling of the story.
Click to expand...

Which is a good point.

If you're noticing the cinematography, then you can argue it's not "great."

Of course, in general, this is one of those questions like "how long should a man's legs be" or "how long is a piece of string?"
 
Warhorse had a distinct look of Wizzard of Oz to me. Took me totally out of the story the whole time.
Especially that huge bounce lights of outdoor scenes, that looked like shot with two suns.

And Crystal Skull...

Well that one should be burried at the ground of the sea and never talked about it again anyway.
 
Postmaster said:
Warhorse had a distinct look of Wizzard of Oz to me. Took me totally out of the story the whole time.
Especially that huge bounce lights of outdoor scenes, that looked like shot with two suns.

And Crystal Skull...

Well that one should be burried at the ground of the sea and never talked about it again anyway.
Click to expand...

Well... I was using that as an example of where Kaminski was 'requested/ordered' to change his style to match something else... yet didn't really do it...

For some reason I can accept the 'bloom' on "Schindler's List"(1993) or "Saving Private Ryan"(1998), despite the fact that in that 'period' Hollywood films had a much 'sharper' look, except for female 'beauty' shots.

I also liked "McCabe and Mrs Miller"(1971), though I've not seen it in a very long time... which had this sort of 'soft haze' everywhere, but then the film is set in Seattle.. is it some sort of Central European thing?

But then Zsigmond has done other styles...
 
Good cinematography is the successful guidance of the viewer's POINT OF FOCUS in terms of the story. It is like watching a conversation between you and your friends only YOU are not allowed to say anything (which makes it harder to focus your attention; if you know what I mean. In fact, in such cases you either have to be an extremely good listener OR the subject your friends are talking about has to be REALLY damn interesting)
It is like in those times you were a kid and the teacher would read a wonderful story; focusing your attention suddenly becomes self-evident. It takes no energy. It just happens. And suddenly there's no more sense of time. As if you're transported somewhere else. And you only realize when you suddenly 'snap back' / wake up.

How do you do this with cinematography?

1. the image has to look or feel real (convincing) OR hold up in a consistent manner so that the viewer has time to adapt to the his new "vision" (= the visual style/theme of the film)
2. use of composition, light and colour to draw attention to subject, message: story (those 3 things have no other function; if you like to make beautiful pictures, go work for a fashion magazine)
3. NO FLASHY WOOPSIE DOOPSIE FLINGY FLANGY ATTENTION DRAWING NON SENSE. (everything that distracts the viewer from the STORY, THE MESSAGE; get rid of it)

Now... that's just the cinematography part.

Also directing, acting, art, decoration, sound has to be spot on. Most of the time cinematography alone isn't enough to draw people in (although there are a few movies that are able to do it because they are mainly visually in the first place).

Great acting can draw people in. Great sound FX as well. Wonderfully realistic decoration creates the illusion of a real reality...

Cinematography is just a part of it.

When someone gets the prize for best cinematography, they shouldn't give it to the DoP. They should give it to the whole technical team.
 
There's people who are crazy about cinematography but don't realize it is about more than just a camera. The camera is just one piece of the entire audio/visual chain. Very pretentious and egocentric are they.

The most valuable ability you can have as a camera man in fiction is the capacity to understand or at least thin about the importance of the mechanisms behind human consciousness/awareness.
 
With this "cinematography is not meant to be notices" mantra you guys are walking a very specific - and narrow - path - but it's one of many paths. The same is true of the edit or direction. Yes, sometimes there is nothing else in the film but the story so you do your best to deliver adequate images that say nothing, but sometimes the images NEED to be noticed - often images ask not to exist as some prosaic illustration of the story but rather as punctuation point - a sentence where you skip question mark or an exclamation point changes meaning. This Hollywood notion of what cinematography (or editing, or direction) should be and how it shouldn't be noticed creates a very boring body of work.
 
Cinematography is an art, and there are many subtle theories about its purpose.

The one the remains constant is that cinematography must support the story being told in an appropriately effective way.

Everything else is circumstantial to style and approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top