The Automatic Pretty Button

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I was speaking to a member of a local photographic society recently who claimed that he liked black and white shots, and colour shots as long as there wasn't "too much colour". We examined members' work, agreeing on our regard for those exhibiting limited colour range and muted colours.

 

I don't know if this is a Janusz Kaminsky thing, a bleach-bypass thing, a DI thing, or if being an identifiable "thing" makes it invalid, but a lot of current movies seem to be going for a very desaturated and colour-coordinated look. In order to please people with glossy-looking shots, I find myself relying very heavily on colour coordination, whether that's production design, lighting to hide inappropriate things, or pushing things around electronically later on. And here's the thing - once you've done all that, the fashion seems to be to drop the saturation to about a third anyway. I like it, but I don't know if I'm just being bandwagon-jumping.

 

"Underworld" got me thinking about this. Underworld is, to all intents and purposes, a monochrome movie tinted blue. For a vampire film you might consider this appropriate, to bring out the inevitable red blood, but when it does happen it's practically black. However, this kind of thing was happening to a lesser extent twenty years ago - Ridley Scott spraying the Nostromo set essentially the same colour as the alien creature, for the latter part of the film, springs to mind. In many cases you get a desaturated look with a single hilight colour, which is a print technique (spot colour) established since newspapers could afford to print mono with a splash of red. "Alien" had the orange safety lights, "Underworld" was white and blue, "Saving Private Ryan" had green, as was "The Matrix".

 

Thing is, isn't this kind of cheating? Taking it to the extent used in "Traffic" seems almost to be an attempt to force colour coordination onto a scene without having to bother with production design. Yes, I know it was done for a specific story reason, but in other places it isn't - it's just being done to make everything look coordinated and cohesive without having to take any effort. It isn't what the world really looks like. Watching "The Bourne Supremacy" today (and yes, it is too bouncy) was interesting - it seemed more realistic than these fantasies obscured by yards of special processing and near-duotone colour reproduction.

 

Maybe I'm just becoming too self-analytical, but you don't want to end up liking something just because it's fashionable!

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, the question is whether an unattractive color image is better because it's more like the real world -- uncoordinated, clashing, obnoxious, etc.

 

It depends on the script I guess, but I believe that (1) Reality is overrated -- all movies are forms of artifice and more akin to dreams; (2) simply shooting the real world may not transpose into greater realism because it is the nature of photography to alter reality, being 2D for one thing, not 3D. In other words, it may look real to your eyes but on-camera some things may seem too dominant, too aggressive, or simply may not stand out enough. You sometimes have to unrealistically coordinate things simply to create a natural look in the 2D medium of film.

 

But considering how much I admire Vincent Minnelli or Michael Powell movies -- and that I'm going out to see "Hero" this weekend, I can't say that overly-coordinated color bothers me much!

[David Mullen ASC]

I'd also say that there's very little that's "automatic" about making a pretty color image.

[harryprayiv]

It kind of saddens me that people go for this bleach bypass thing as of late. I mean, one of the things that I always wanted to recreat about the real world that I see if the beauty of richly saturated colors. I definitely understand why people do this, but I just love the way that saturated colors look to my eye.

I just love it when a yellow caution strip on the sides of the T tracks in Boston blares out at me at high noon. I love it when a lime green or bright yellow has the ability to draw my eye and make me hungry/thirsty. But, maybe I am not as hip as some of the cinematographers in the world and I just value the way that things look in real life too much. Persoanlly, I think that the bleach bypass thing is a total fad at the moment and it's really blase to me by now.

 

Although it (monochomaticism) IS just another way to create a mood, I think it is starting to get overused for dramatic effect and is starting to become part of the whole Hollywood look...especially on movie posters (Gladiator, Lord of the Rings, and others). Just as Amelie was a movie for enhancing and oversaturating colors, movies like Seven, Northfork and others intentionally desturate what the camera may be seeing to bring you into a mood more readily and there's nothing wrong with that. I just dislike when there is no reason except for the film to look glitzy.

[DanStewart]

Just got back from seeing Hero. All of the above techniques are used amazingly well - prod design, lighting and digital post. The images are stunning and very colourful. Perhaps it can even overcome the British joy in grey misery!

[David Mullen ASC]

I love the surreal saturation of an old 3-strip Technicolor movie like "The Red Shoes" but the saturation of the real world usually looks tasteless to me because all it does is scream for your attention -- usually to sell you something. Certainly by focusing on specific color details like the yellow of a Shell station sign, the red of a fire truck, etc. one can create an artistic effect -- it's just that when it's all going on at once in the frame that it becomes like a symphony orchestra where every instrument just plays as loudly as it can, or having three rock groups playing simultaneously at full volume.

 

I love beautiful images, and those can be super-saturated, super-desaturated, or b&w. I can't imagine only finding one type of image or color level to be attractive.

 

I don't really care if something is fashion or fad, I just care if it works or doesn't work. The desaturated look of "Saving Private Ryan" was appropriate and visually compelling so it doesn't matter to me how many other people are doing it or not doing it.

 

You can't really say that bleach-bypass is a real fad -- how many films released this year used it? I'd say that 95% of the films released have a "normal" color level. It's just that some of the desaturated ones are sometimes more prominent at the box office. But taking all films made per year, I don't think the majority are doing anything particularly experimental with the color levels. Even a film like "Van Helsing", other than the b&w opening, has a normal color saturation -- it's just that the production design is monochromatic and much of the story takes place in overcast weather or in moonlight. But in terms of color levels, I don't think they were significantly deviated from what the stock normally creates in those situations.

 

What I'm always attracted to is the sense of control, that an artist is expressing a point of view. That's why a monochromatic image with one splash of intense color can be so beautiful -- it's like a painting.

 

Your EYES may find the yellow of a caution tape attractive, because your brain is isolating that detail, but that doesn't always guarantee that it will be just as interesting if you point a camera at it, hence why you sometimes need to manipulate the image just to create the effect of your brain noticing something. You want a color to stand out, you may need to surround it with the opposite color or less color.

[harryprayiv]

Your EYES may find the yellow of a caution tape attractive, because your brain is isolating that detail, but that doesn't always guarantee that it will be just as interesting if you point a camera at it, hence why you sometimes need to manipulate the image just to create the effect of your brain noticing something. You want a color to stand out, you may need to surround it with the opposite color or less color.

David, I am not trying to be argumenative (sp?), I actually think that we totally agree for the most part.

 

It's kind of sad that you associate loud colors with advertisements...I happen to associate most vibrant colors with vegetation/flowers on sunny days and they always make me feel really good inside....maybe that's just me.

Anyway, I can definitely see the value in desaturation just as I can see the value in saturation. I was merely saying that bleach bypass has become a fad in some film circles because so many people are starting to use it. It doesn't matter to me that most films don't use it...most films don't use contrasty lighting neither....comedies especially yield more towards the traditional Hollywood beauty before realism approach. I am just saying that every time I see it, the images give me a similar feel due to the heavy handedness with which the color is eliminated.

All I am saying is that I'm annoyed by films that emulate eachother to the point of looking like their footage is interchangable...most of the epics from the past few years have had this annoyingly plastic and fake looking DI/color correction work that just takes a lot of the feeling out of the picture for me. Maybe it's the fact that certain films (Lord of the Rings comes to mind) have this philosophy that EVERYTHING in every frame must work perfectly with the story or it will be corrected/cg'ed out. I guess I am just reacting to my opinion that color grading has gotten to the point where images can be ruthlessly controlled by squeezing unwanted colors out of the frame to the point of making everything feel fake/desolate of even slight hints of colors not in the DP's "pallette" even when this is not the obvious intent of the particular scene in question. I guess I am just saying that they can try and retain at least a LITTLE bit of their unwanted hues in their films to make them still feel like humans are acting in them.

BAH nevermind ...I can't explain what I am saying with all of this, but please indulge me further as I elaborate on why I stated any of this.

 

Also, what I was previously talking about was that I just happen to like the way that real life situations can bring colors together and I like the fact that my hand doesn't always have to be IN everything to make it beautiful or artistic. One of the things that annoys me about big budget cinema is the control over everything the DP and Directors have and how it is very apparent to me as a viewer as something that is artificial in that way...nothing is as singularly motivated as how Hollywood tries to make it. This is mostly true in films that are intended to be artful, but it makes its way into a lot of the traditional methods of filmmaking that I wouldn't want to strictly adhere to (at least when I am pushing myself to create something that is REALISTICALY believable to not only my audience, but me as a viewer...I am not referring to fiction/fantasy/things that are obviously dream states or recreations thereof)

In my opinion, sometimes what makes an artist is the ability to be captivated by something that others would pass by without thinking twice about and be able to recreate that for a viewer so that they see it my way.

Other than that, if I were to create a look from the ground up (production design and all) I would choose my pallette based on what my story was to be.

If it were to be about real life, I would be completely unspecific about colors for that extra added realism. If I didn't like a specific color object, I would throw it out, but that would be it in that circumstance.

However, If I were telling a story like Northfork (which you did a GREAT job on...I saw it last night) I would work towards a similarly controlled production design because of it's ability to convey the mood of the piece....which was done VERY well with cinematography.

I hope none of this seemes condescending or rude (binary forms of communication have a way of making me sound like a jerk)...I am just trying to clear up what I think and even come to terms with what my philosophy actually is perhaps even for myself. It's weird how I don't really know my opinion unless I truly decide to write about it.

 

By the way, it wasn't caution tape, it is a rubber caution strip next to the tracks that is part of the ground to warn people not to step too close to the trains coming by. I could have also used examples like a flower garden on a sunny day, but I strayed from that because its such a rare vision in Boston (where I reside).

[David Mullen ASC]

Well certainly it's EASY to NOT do something rather than to do something about a color in the real world. There are plenty of low-budget indie films that just step out in the real world and don't change a thing, mainly because they can't anyway. And they can seem more "real" or realistic in a sort of documentary way than a big-budget Hollywood film. I don't have a problem with honestly capturing the reality of the world -- it just interests me less as a viewer than something more obviously altered by imposing an artistic vision. Documentary realism is a little too easy for me.

 

I'm up for a project set in South Central LA about some street criminals and the director wants to shoot it handheld in 16mm to "make it more real". It's not a bad idea but it is also, perhaps, the most obvious and cliche way to approach the material.

 

Remember, I live in Los Angeles where color DOES mostly come from advertisements and fast-food buildings.

 

Your thoughts are certainly valid about overly controlled colors detracting from the realism of the image -- I'm just not that interested in realism. To me, honesty and emotional truth are more important issues than realism. And sometimes to capture the "truth" of that world, you may have to alter colors -- i.e "lie" -- in order to recreate your emotional IMPRESSIONS when you saw that world in real life. And sometimes you don't need to manipulate the colors; sometimes you want them to clash.

 

I'm mostly interested in intent and artistic selection, which even a still photographer shooting the real world will employ. But that's what I was referring to when I said that how your eye sees a color and how a still camera sees color may still not be the same way that color is perceived in a movie. A still photographer who takes a photo of a yellow stripe generally wants you to notice the yellow. Your eye notices the yellow. But in a narrative scene, usually the emotional truth you are trying to illuminate may have nothing to do with how yellow that stripe is -- the yellow stripe has nothing to do with the scene. Yet if it is too distracting, you notice it instead of the actors' faces. In a still photograph, the yellow stripe may actually be the subject.

 

Narrative movies are a little different in that everything, color included, is generally subservient to the story and acting. It rarely becomes front and center. Therefore it's not so much that saturated colors are not allowed, but like a loud musical instrument, the more prominent it becomes, the more it needs to be controlled.

 

So if NOT controlling the colors gives you the right emotional tone for the scene, then that's fine, but if it makes it harder for the viewer to know what to pay attention to in the frame, then it's usually not fine.

 

But like I said, I have a prejudice towards artifice. Like the cliche goes, I can step out of my door and see the colors of the real world -- why go into a movie theater and see the same thing? I go to movies to see someone's artistic mind at work in how they select and alter and transpose the real world. We leave it to engineers at Kodak or Sony to try and give us a realistic image and then we, as artists, screw around with it -- because we aren't engineers, we're artists. The mechanical reproduction of reality is only a starting point.

[David Mullen ASC]

You know, if you were writing a novel, you'd never have an "accidental" color -- any color you mention would be intentional.

 

As you make movies with budgets where you can control everything in the frame, then it's very hard to NOT make choices. "What color do you want the car to be?" asks the transpo department. You can't really say "surprise me so I don't have a controlled looking color pallete" because if you don't make a choice, then someone else will be applying their taste in making a choice. And where simply not commiting to a color may mean that you have a yellow car parked in front of a light-green house by accident in a wide shot, what if you now have a dialogue scene right in front of that car -- suddenly a non-distracting background color becomes a major thematic element in the frame and people will be asking you "what did the yellow of the car symbolize?"

 

This is the reason why artists feel compelled to try and exert some control over the colors of the real world.

[Jason Maeda]

be careful how wrapped up you all become with prettification. remember what bresson said: "painting taught me to make not beautiful images but necessary ones."

jk :ph34r:

[harryprayiv]

You know, if you were writing a novel, you'd never have an "accidental" color -- any color you mention would be intentional.

 

As you make movies with budgets where you can control everything in the frame, then it's very hard to NOT make choices. "What color do you want the car to be?" asks the transpo department. You can't really say "surprise me so I don't have a controlled looking color pallete" because if you don't make a choice, then someone else will be applying their taste in making a choice. And where simply not commiting to a color may mean that you have a yellow car parked in front of a light-green house by accident in a wide shot, what if you now have a dialogue scene right in front of that car -- suddenly a non-distracting background color becomes a major thematic element in the frame and people will be asking you "what did the yellow of the car symbolize?"

 

This is the reason why artists feel compelled to try and exert some control over the colors of the real world.

Very good points. I guess I would have to base some of my decisions on what I have observed in the real world if that was my intent. At this point, I just can't wait until I get the chance to actually control everything!

[Wendell_Greene]

At this point, I just can't wait until I get the chance to actually control everything!

 

and a few posts earlier:

 

One of the things that annoys me about big budget cinema is the control over everything the DP and Directors have... way...

Would you care to clarify? Thanks

[David Mullen ASC]

Obviously there becomes a problem with "prettification" when it works against the dramatic intent of the scene AND it reduces your ability to make an image stand out as being "pretty" when you need it to -- just like how your close-ups lose their dramatic impact when overused.

 

On the other hand, we all define beauty differently -- some gritty b&w photographs of decaying factories or inner cities can be graphically beautiful in their textures and tonality and yet also capture the harsh reality of the scene.

 

When I think of "prettification" I think of visual cliches, like beautiful sunsets, etc. Postcard beauty or glossy advertizements.

 

The problem here is trying to talk in the abstract when these choices tend to be (or should be) driven by the needs of the specific project. So while of course I would object to the notion of a style applied irregardless of content, in most of these cases of stylized movies, the director and DP do have reasons for their choices, if sometimes facile -- it's just that someone else may have a differing opinion.

 

I remember this discussion I had with someone about "Minority Report" in which he felt that while this harsh gritty look was appropriate for the D-Day invasion in "Saving Private Ryan", or in a decaying dystopic world like in "1984", it seemed to be forced awkwardly over the world of the future displayed in "Minority Report", which only was set in urban decay in one sequence. While there is some truth to this, I felt that perhaps the visual approach was done in order to NOT make the movie too much of a "look at the bright and shiny future" kind of movie, but ground the movie in a certain criminal grittiness DESPITE all the high technology. But clearly a different director/DP combination could have chosen a different style.

 

I am reminded here of something Gordon Willis said, to the effect that it is better to make the wrong artistic choice rather than make no choice at all. On the flip side, I'm also reminded of something Zeffirelli said to David Watkin when he was spending too much time getting something right: "Good is better than Perfect" -- i.e. don't ruin something that is already good trying to make it perfect. Zeffirelli did admit though that he said this in regards to the time Watkin spent trying to get the image of Christ staggering back into Pontius Pilate's residence after being scouraged, the best image in the whole mini-series: Christ appears in a blinding white doorway, almost invisible, shimmering, and staggers into this amazingly powerful close-up. So it was worth getting it right.

[Elhanan Matos]

Controlling the colors in your image, in my opninion, is the most important aspect of cinematography. Wether you like it or not there are rules as to what looks good and what doesn't. Now I'm not saying that art has rules, what I am saying is that there are rules when it comes to aesthetics. If you are trying to show people how beautiful that yellow stripe is, then immitating reality isn't the right way to do it, you have to remember that your perception differs from everybody elses, that yellow might look amazing in your mind because your isolating it from the rest of the image, some body else looking at that same image might not notice that yellow stripe they might notice the bright red fire hydrant next to it, or they might notice that green stop light. Having control over your scene is what helps you show people how you perceive the world around you.

[Jason Maeda]

The problem here is trying to talk in the abstract when these choices tend to be (or should be) driven by the needs of the specific project.

 

true. also true is your point about beauty being subjective. in fact i think you really hit on the role of the artist: to take something he or she finds "beautiful" and present it for the rest of the world to suddenly understand. i hope i am available for that inspiration and prepared enough to properly craft the presentation.

 

jk :ph34r:

[harryprayiv]

At this point, I just can't wait until I get the chance to actually control everything!

 

and a few posts earlier:

 

One of the things that annoys me about big budget cinema is the control over everything the DP and Directors have... way...

Would you care to clarify? Thanks

I have a right to sound like I conflict with myself.

 

When you think about it though, I would be conscious enough about not making things look too controlled for my films (no matter how controlled they really are visually) to ever really make it apparent to a viewer that I was the control freak that say, Jean Pierre Jeunet is known to be! Phew...saved myself from looking like a hypocrite...or did I? ha ha

[harryprayiv]

Controlling the colors in your image, in my opninion, is the most important aspect of cinematography.  Wether you like it or not there are rules as to what looks good and what doesn't.  Now I'm not saying that art has rules, what I am saying is that there are rules when it comes to aesthetics.  If you are trying to show people how beautiful that yellow stripe is, then immitating reality isn't the right way to do it, you have to remember that your perception differs from everybody elses, that yellow might look amazing in your mind because your isolating it from the rest of the image, some body else looking at that same image might not notice that yellow stripe they might notice the bright red fire hydrant next to it, or they might notice that green stop light.  Having control over your scene is what helps you show people how you perceive the world around you.

I agree completeley. But, I think framing is one of the other most important aspects of cinematography.....you can frame out offending colors too!

[Elhanan Matos]

That is true you can frame out everything else, but then all you have is your yellow stripe... what's left to compose in your shot? What you could do is try and show people how you perceive the world, how you perceive color. One way is by taking color away, which you don't seem to like. Another way would be to add color, to bring out that yellow stripe you would want to surround that yellow with its compliment, which happens to be purple. Adding some purple (wether it be in front of the camera, in the camera, or in post, it doesn't really matter) will make that yellow pop and sizzle. Now you don't have to sacrifice composition to get your idea across to everyone else.

 

The best way to understand why everyone is desaturating their images is to first understand why people like it, why it looks good. I would recommend you take a painting class, even if you can't paint, you'll learn alot about color and how it works.

[harryprayiv]

One way is by taking color away, which you don't seem to like. Another way would be to add color, to bring out that yellow stripe you would want to surround that yellow with its compliment, which happens to be purple. Adding some purple (wether it be in front of the camera, in the camera, or in post, it doesn't really matter) will make that yellow pop and sizzle. Now you don't have to sacrifice composition to get your idea across to everyone else.

 

The best way to understand why everyone is desaturating their images is to first understand why people like it, why it looks good. I would recommend you take a painting class, even if you can't paint, you'll learn alot about color and how it works.

I don't really understand how this turned into an attack Harry thread. Let's get back to talking about other stuff. I eventually was driven to agree with David about the story dictating the look, so let's all just climb off my back and talk about something a little more productive than trying to prove someone wrong who has already admitted that he was wrong in the first place.

 

As far as taking a painting class goes, I have taken many. I go to Massachusetts College of Art and know plenty about the use of colors in art...I also worked at the Museum of Fine Arts for three years and got to look at paintings by the likes of Van Gogh and Renoir more than most people have gazed at their own wive's eyes. I am not coming from a background of sheer ignorance, I merely said that I enjoy the use extreme color saturation in film when necessary...so sue me....please sue me.

[Sam Wells]

So what's the problem here ? You can film the yellow stripe. Find a time when the light makes it pop out, frame it according to some geometry, let things move in relation to it. etc etc.

 

If you've gone to Mass Art, have you've taken Saul Levine's class ? If not, you should.You must have some clues about how you could approach all this in terms of color etc.

 

-Sam

[David Mullen ASC]

Don't take it so personally, Harry -- you (and Phil's original observation) has just provided some impetus for a lively debate on color, a subject we all care about here. That's all. You didn't say anything wrong. You questioned why film people feel the need to control or elimate color when the color of the real world can be interesting; I think we answered that question: it's the nature of artists to alter reality for effect. And it's the nature of narrative storytelling to suppress all forms of visual information in order to control where your attention goes.

 

But I think it is valid to wonder if the reality of a location is lost when the color is too carefully controlled. I tend to think though that considering it costs time and money to control color, IF someone wanted to NOT do something about a background color that is naturally there, it's not a big deal to leave it alone and they probably would accept it.

 

Speaking of yellow caution lines (or red stop signs, etc.) it's interesting to look at "Payback" which went for a desaturated cool b&w look -- I noticed that all the red fire hydrants were painted gray!

 

For most of us, we can't exercise ENOUGH control over the colors of a location. We tend to be limited by our budget. I'm about to shoot a small film that mostly takes place in a house and a high school and we want only cool colors, but we can't afford to paint much at all so we are trying to pick locations that already have these tones. On low-budget films, you take an extreme concept ("let's only use the colors blue and green" "let's paint everything gray") because you know that you'll only achieve it 60% of the time, so the final product will not look overly biased in one direction -- i.e. the limitations of the budget will make your concept more subtle than it sounds.

 

As for whether too many films are desaturating colors, I tend to believe that most movies do not change the basic color saturation of the film stocks involved and that control is mostly being done in front of the camera. That may change if DI's become more common and one can adjust color levels willy-nilly. Then I'd probably expect to see more of an alignment between popular trends in commercials and features, whereas often commercials are a few years ahead of features in terms of stylistic trends (partially because of the nature of feature films to take a year or more to be posted.)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

That grey cake!

 

Phil

[harryprayiv]

So what's the problem here ? You can film the yellow stripe. Find a time when the light makes it pop out, frame it according to some geometry, let things move in relation to it. etc etc.

 

If you've gone to Mass Art, have you've taken Saul Levine's class ? If not, you should.You must have some clues about how you could approach all this in terms of color etc.

 

-Sam

I am glad to see this discussion going back into a friendly, constructive direction. After I got sort of frustrated about this topic last night, I watched some TV and found exactly what you are referring to, David. A lot of the more interesting commercials on TV showed me the value of desaturation more than had been going on in my mind, in fact, I've been looking at things with new eyes all day and have found that very few things in the natural world are really as saturated as I would like to idealize them as. I have an odd sort of cinematic memory that records things in color with sound...sometimes the movies in my head do get very very saturated with color compared to the original. So, yes, there is definitely a place in my work for every shade of color. It's also interesting that you note the budgetary limitations of control of a set's color. Thanks for shedding some light on a world (the larger, but not MEGA budget shoots going on around the world) I am still very new to, Mr. Mullen.

 

Sam, Saul is a good friend of mine and a valuable source of advice/support. His mentor/friend, Stan Brackage (sp?) died recently and he seems totally crushed by it. It's really sad to see such a talented man die. In film class last year, he often mentioned Brackage and I've learned to love a lot of the things that I wouldn't have learned at any other films school. I feel kind of embarrassed that I haven't been exposed to as much of Saul's work as I should be, but it's kind of weird because he rarely shows his own work. From his critiques though, I can tell that Saul thinks about things in a way that Hollywood couldn't even begin to scratch the surface of (mostly because of the impetus behind making work as a film maker focusing on non-traditional/non-narrative art) and I value his critiques more than just about anyone's on my work. It's good to hear that Saul has gotten some recognition outside of the Boston community. I'll let him know that someone mentioned him on here. It'll put a smile on his face for sure.

[Elhanan Matos]

I don't really understand how this turned into an attack Harry thread.

 

I wasn't attacking you Harry, and I'm sorry if I sounded that way. I just get very excited when someone mentions perception and color, and I'll usually just go on and on and on. I was just trying to help you out.

[harryprayiv]

I don't really understand how this turned into an attack Harry thread.

 

I wasn't attacking you Harry, and I'm sorry if I sounded that way. I just get very excited when someone mentions perception and color, and I'll usually just go on and on and on. I was just trying to help you out.

It's cool. Now that I read back, I think I was over-reacting anyway. Thanks though.