The Artist and hi/Her Tool

[Tenolian Bell]

I'm currently in LA working on some projects, and recently met up with some friends from AFI. We had the discussion about differences between NY and LA. What is being taught in film school vs real set experience. We largely agreed on most points but one that we stood on opposite sides of. It seems that in the art of cinematography AFI really instills that their is no excuse for bad photography, I thought whoa that's a pretty broad statement. What happens with the image isn't always in the cinematographer's control. Along with that instilled is the lesson that its not the tools you work with but skill of the DP, which is true to a degree, but not totally true.

 

We discussed the DP's we really liked and I asked them what do those DP's generally have in common. Everyone talked about lighting and compositional differences but no one could agree on what they had in common. I said the most obvious is they have access and work with the best tools.

 

I argued if the tools don't matter why bother going through the trouble of flying a 40' by 40' solid and back lighting half a city block with a musco, camera flying in on a Technocrane.

 

Can you imagine Janusz Kaminski rolling up with a PD-150 and a basic Arri lighting kit planning to shoot "Catch Me If You Can."? Of course its a totally rediculous notion.

 

I did agree however that even if you have every toy in the toybox that does not replace raw skill and talent, without doubt is needed.

 

But if you shoot a scene on a bright sunny day (in HD) with a dark skinned actor. Brightly colored housesin the background frontlit by the sun and about 6 stops over the actors skin tone. You have a set of mirror boards and reflectors but the sun is at too odd an angle to catch very well, and their is no time to wait later in the day when the sun is in a more favorable place. If you have to shoot this scene does that mean you lack skill as a DP?

[Tenolian Bell]

I meant the artist and his/ her tools. Ignore one of these some how I post twice. Maybe subconsciously trying to add more posts and gain my advances membership. ;)

[David Mullen ASC]

I think their point is that you have to learn to make good images without the top-end equipment and without a lot of time -- because no one starts at the top. You can't put up a mental barrier to doing good work because you lack equipment, time, money.

 

Don't get hung up on gear. 90% of the greatest images in movie history were made with the most basic equipment: a camera, a light, a lens... and a subject worth shooting...

 

If you can do great work with meager equipment, then everything else is just gravy.

 

The other thing is that there's a limit to excuses you can make -- you can't hand out a flyer to the audience explaining why this shot sucks, etc.

[Mitch Gross]

I think there's also the consideration of "appropriate" images. When one talks of "good" photography v. "bad" photography often people fall into the misconception of a "pretty" picture equaling a "good" one. A movie like "21 Grams" illustrates that good photography is what works well for the film being told. As far as Kaminsky's work, he can certainly feel free to "ugly up" his work as he did liberally on "Saving Private Ryan" and "Minority Report." And some well-reguarded DPs have recently been working in MiniDV and winning awards for it. When appropriate it can be very good photography.

 

The old school ways of thinking have long ago crumbled. When Gordon Willis shot "The Godfather " back in 1970, there were plenty of old guard studio DPs who thought it horrid that anyone would light a scene so that the audience couldn't see the actors' eyes. So who is to say what is "bad" photography?

[Tony Brown]

But if you shoot a scene on a bright sunny day (in HD) with a dark skinned actor. Brightly colored housesin the background frontlit  by the sun and about 6 stops over the actors skin tone. You have a set of mirror boards and reflectors but the sun is at too odd an angle to catch very well, and their is no time to wait later in the day when the sun is in a more favorable place.  If you have to shoot this scene does that mean you lack skill as a DP?

Perhaps it means you lack the foresight required to avoid such a situation. Its what recces and pre production meetings are for. If unforeseeen circumstances placed me in such a position I would try to change the shot requirements to suit the 'tools' at my disposal. Its like asking what a director would do if one of the artists arrives with a huge spot on her nose - you adapt. ;)

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I'm not sure I agree. I often get told "you're shooting this, here, at this time," and have very little choice.

 

I think this goes back to the Oscar thing. It's easy to win awards if you're shooting huge, spectacular productions with infinite money. If you're not...

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

You've got to stop working for a..holes...

 

Seriously, even as a beginner, that's only an occasional problem (and it's still occasional.) Rarely after I've told a director that a certain shot is going to suck big time does he still want to do it without me being allowed to modify it into something that won't suck.

 

But there is always that one shot now and then...

 

It happened to me on "D.E.B.S." on the last day on the last shot. Because of budget overruns, we were stuck for the last two weeks of the shoot to keep to exactly 12 hours each day. On the last day, we had one of our biggest scenes with 100 extras running around in a panic in the lobby of the Ambassador Hotel. We owed a reverse angle, a POV shot of the main character, of some other characters emerging from the other room during the melee. We had already shot the C.U. of the girl reacting to seeing this. Well, we get to the end of the 12 hour day and we hadn't gotten that shot but my camera was positioned looking at the correct door -- but at the other end of the lobby (the POV should have been from 20 feet away, not ten times that.)

 

The director told me to zoom in from where I was to get that POV, which became an effective 300mm shot for something that should have been shot close and wide. And when I zoomed in, I could see into the next room and it was lit from the previous scene and was four stops overexposed compared to the lobby. And there was no light on the people stepping through the door. The AD would not let me move the camera back down the hallway and scrim the lights in the background. They ended up digitally repainting the overexposed background, so the shot is now usable. But it would have been better AND cheaper just to move the camera a 100 or more feet and scrim the background lights down and just go five minutes into second meal and pay the friggin meal penalties.

 

But under less panicked situations, I can usually talk the director into modifying a shot. All you have to say is something like "you won't see the actors" and they say "what do you have to do so you can see them?" and I'll say "well, if they step to the right and I slide to the left, then I don't have that white building behind their head and I can expose for the shade..."

 

As for shooting outside as the sun disappears, everyone has to deal with that and plan for it ahead of time, either by not scheduling to be outside when the sun goes down, or by ending up in a position that you can light. You still get screwed sometime but generally since you KNOW you'll get screwed when the sun goes down, you work out a plan to deal with it.

[Filip Plesha]

Mitch...

 

I wouldn't agree on your pretty vs. good thing

because not everyone sees pretty the same way.

I'll take your own example.

i like the way Saving private Ryan looks very much,and it

is pretty to me.I like that kind of look and those images

are very eye pleasing to me.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Unfortunately I am not good enough at cinematography to attract the attention of non a-holes...

 

For this reason I am currently planning a rather ambitious personal production, since I've decided not to work for freebies anymore - they always suck.

 

Phil

[Tony Brown]

since I've decided not to work for freebies anymore - they always suck.

good for you mate..... just be careful to never 'turn them down'......always be 'unable to fit them into your schedule'......

 

I'm serious - it makes a huge difference to the way people perceive you

 

B)

[Mitch Gross]

I wouldn't agree on your pretty vs. good thing

because not everyone sees pretty the same way.

I'll take your own example.

i like the way Saving private Ryan looks very much,and it

is pretty to me.I like that kind of look and those images

are very eye pleasing to me.

Actually you have just proved my point. I also liked the look of that film, but there would be others who might look at it from a purely technical point of view and hate the mistimed shutters, the grain of the bleach bypass, the strobing of the small shutter angles, the flaring of the uncoated lenses, etc. To you and I these made for beautiful images, but not traditionally pretty ones. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not something that is to be technically quantified. I would say that even forgetting the content, there is no way that a major Hollywood studio would have allowed a film to look like that back in the fifties. It's not easy to innovate, but modern sensibilities are at least much more open to it.

 

But that's not to say that one should ignore the rules and accepted concepts of the craft. All artists should feel free to break the rules whenever they feel it appropriate, but they must first fully understand and appreciate those rules so that they can more completely comprehend what it is that they are doing. Picasso studied classical painting styles for decades before breaking out with his revolutionary ideas. Every once in a while he would paint something with some traditional elements, such as a section of a classical 18th century portrait, in part just to show everyone that he could do it. And don't think that old craftspeople are too set in their ways. Robert Surtees was in his seventies when he went pretty wild visually on The Graduate. But for him to break all those rules he needed those years of traditional studio experience behind him, and they informed his stunning photography with every whip pan and snap zoom.

[Wendell_Greene]

David Mullen wrote:

 

I think their point is that you have to learn to make good images without the top-end equipment and without a lot of time -- because no one starts at the top. You can't put up a mental barrier to doing good work because you lack equipment, time, money.

 

Absolutely. And in support of that I offer the early work of Janusz Kaminski for consideration. We all think of him for "Schindler's List", "Amistad" & "Saving Private Ryan", yet seldom if ever do we talk about his work on films like "The Terror Within 2" or "The Rainkiller" . Yet if even on those genre films, you know he had to be doing good work and that he didn't let the budget or time constraints stop him from doing solid work, work that led to his shooting two TV films for Amblin and then "Schindler's List" only a few years later. And there are so many other cinematographers who also started out in low budget work, Zsigmond, Kovacs, etc. That they didn't give up and kept moving and growing is what I think they all share in common.

 

I shot a DV feature last summer, and did the very best I could with what I was given. I think I did some good work in it, and I approached it with all the gusto as if it were a 12 million budget and shot with Panavision in scope, but it wasn't. It is what it is, and as hard as I worked on it, I'm certainly not going to make anyone put my name alongside Darius Khondji or Phillippe Rousselot just because I used Chinese lanterns. :P You learn and then you move on and you try and think of that experience as a rung on the ladder that you've climbed past on your way to another one even higher.

[Bill DiPietra]

Actually you have just proved my point. I also liked the look of that film, but there would be others who might look at it from a purely technical point of view and hate the mistimed shutters, the grain of the bleach bypass, the strobing of the small shutter angles, the flaring of the uncoated lenses, etc. To you and I these made for beautiful images, but not traditionally pretty ones. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, not something that is to be technically quantified.

The cinematography of "Saving Private Ryan" served the story. Therein lies the beauty.

[Tenolian Bell]

I think their point is that you have to learn to make good images without the top-end equipment and without a lot of time -- because no one starts at the top. You can't put up a mental barrier to doing good work because you lack equipment, time, money.

I agree with this in general and in a certain context. But in another context....

 

I agree with Mitch, the rules of good cinematography change and blur. Largely its based on perception and taste of the time.

 

With that in mind, an image created with a PD-150 and a basic Arri kit, vs an image created with a Panaflex and 10 tons of grip and electric. A skilled cameraman may have created both images, but generally people will pick the later as great cinematograpy.

 

Theoretically both could be considered good work, but comparatively the later will be chosen as the better work, you will recieve awards for the later, and get more jobs from the later.

 

Not to say that that is should be the ultimate goal, but it is the reality.

[Brad Grimmett]

With that in mind, an image created with a PD-150 and a basic Arri kit, vs an image created with a Panaflex and 10 tons of grip and electric. A skilled cameraman may have created both images, but generally people will pick the later as great cinematograpy.

Hmm. Maybe you should talk to the Sundance jury about that. They obviously disagree.

[Filip Plesha]

@ Mitch...

 

Yes,you are right if you think of "beauty" the traditional way,then

good cinematography is not always beautifull.

 

but if you think about beauty this non-traditional way then

i think that there maybe is a connection between good cinematography

that serves the film and its beauty.

 

And besides, i think that people that consider images beautifull only if

they are lit traditionally beautifull are those that are less visual about films.

I think that everything can be beautifull if a cinematographer

knows how to bring out the best of it,the right way.

 

for example,the look and the psychological feeling of being in the midle

of a battlefield is perfectly simulated with that contrasty look with

a fast shutter.Allso the mud,the ruins,the war machinery would

not look so interesting if it was lit like a technicolor film. It could

even work perfectly in black and white,almost better than in color.

 

So i think that "pretty" is a relative thing,if it serves the setting of the film and

if it brings out the right characteristics of the objects that are being

shot then it will be beautifull.

Of course there is always more than one way to shoot something to make

it look great,depending of what kind of message do you want to sent

to the audience.

[David Mullen ASC]

Tenolian, the question for YOU is do you think that any DV photography constitutes "bad photography"? Because if you say it's a matter of context, then DV doesn't necessarily have to look bad.

 

I don't think your AFI teachers are saying that format doesn't matter or that great work can be done no matter what equipment you're handed -- I mean, what if the equipment doesn't WORK? You have to rely on your tools afterall and know what they are delivering.

 

But I think they are saying that to learn to be a great cinematographer doesn't require that you use a 35mm Panaflex because the tool is not what's going to make you learn to become a great cinematographer just like owning a hammer isn't going to make you a great carpenter.

 

Tools of course MATTER but a good artist knows what each tool can accomplish and uses them appropriately. Or learns to make the best of what he has.

 

You rarely just walk away from a job because you aren't going to get the best 35mm equipment, processing, etc. Not unless you're at the top of the business. So you have to be a lot more pragmatic about technology or else you're going to become paralyzed.

 

A good teacher will try and help you prioritize and organize so you know what really matters, what your core values should be as a cinematographer -- and they shouldn't be "I only use Primo lenses on a Panaflex Millenium."

[GeorgeSelinsky]

You rarely just walk away from a job because you aren't going to get the best 35mm equipment, processing, etc.  Not unless you're at the top of the business.

I couldn't agree more.

 

I think as the others here have suggested, there is an important challenge to being able to adapt. In my opinion some of the most succesful DP's have been the ones who've worked in very low budget situations for an extensive period of time. I think a DP should be particularly proud if they are able to shoot with lower quality equipment and get solid results. Otherwise what are you going to do, turn around and say "We can't film, I don't have enough X, Y, Z"?

 

On the movie I'm shooting now (my own film both as director and DP) I have situations where I know I need more, but I simply make do.

 

Just last night I was filming a scene that had to take place outside in an alleyway, we got a nice big yellow Hummer (friend of my coproducer's) and I had to film two characters talking inside of it. I had a fifty watt tungsten work light that works off of 12V cigarette lighters, which was my key for the interior of the car (I had hung a 1K outside for my exterior key). I tried to plug the 12V light into the Hummer's cig lighter (it actually has three in a row!), and then suddenly the cigarette socket plug cracked.

 

I had a bad situation. It was cold as hell outside and I had no crew. I had to work fast. I got my coproducer to turn his parked car around so it faced the Hummer. I cut the wire on the 12V worklight, stripped both + and -, hung it outside the window, and using jumper cables as an extension cord I got the light to work off my coproducer's car battery.

 

To me, that cheap little 50 W light did the job, even though it was not a reliable or flexible piece of equipment. I was wide open and pushing my film one stop, but I got the shot, and I think it will look just fine.

 

Most people in the big buiz use the best they can get because it not only can produce better results in some circumstances but because it also saves time, which is a prescious commodity. By that I mean it's not only better but usually also more reliable. When you're paying like $20,000 per shooting day, delays due to equipment faults cost a LOT more than they do on my set.

 

But a light is a light. I have cheap open face Lowell DP lights and they do the job as fine as a more costly Mole Richardson fresnel in many cases (and they're lighter, too). A silver fill card can do a lot (esp. for exterior shoots). And I've had cases where I couldn't use certain equipment even if I wanted to.

 

I've also had situations that seemed incorrectible but with some thought were corrected via editing. For instance, someone here mentioned lighting continuity with the sun. I had a situation where I didn't plan carefully and the sun just disappeared behind a tall building, totally screwing up the scene. Fortunately I realized that if I did a dissolve and changed location I could continue the scene elsewhere and establish a new space. It worked in that given situation.

 

Of course, there are situations where you simply have to put your foot down and say "Sorry, this is going to suck. I am wasting film and time". If I am underexposing 3 stops and there is no way to bring more light, I am not going to get an image worth the time and money - period. Time to move on to another location.

 

I think the best conclusion one can ultimately make here is that "it's not the wand, it's the magician". Sure, you can't be expected to part ocean waters (i.e. shoot an unlit chase scene at night in a suburban town with 50 ASA film), but you can get not only good but very beautiful images with very, very little. Sometimes even nothing other than a camera, a lens, your subject, and whatever Mr. Sunshine provides.

[Tenolian Bell]

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying unless I have a Panaflex I'm not going to take a job. My point is even in being a talented and skilled DP, the tools still make a difference.

 

I've taken a wind up bolex and garage lights and made magic with them also. I agree its a beautful thing. But at the same time skill and genious mixed with better hardware would produce a better image.

[Matt Pacini]

My Golden Rule of shooting is, get the best people you can afford, get the best stuff you can afford, shoot on the best format you can afford, then just deal with it and do the best you can.

 

However.....

I both agree and disagree with a lot of what's being said here, but the conversation has gotten a bit off track, if you ask me, in ignoring the original post's pertaining to what's being taught in film schools.

My feeling is that a lot of what's taught in film school is a load of crap, taught by many who learned what they know from instructors with little, no, or questionable actual experience, but who are teachers because they themselves graduated from film school! (and endless cycle that exists in many of our fine educational institutions!)

 

And if anything, most of those I've known that have attended film school (as opposed to us "on the job training" types) are MORE prone to think they have to do things the "right" way, with the best equipment, not the other way around.

I've had people on set who went to USC & UCLA literally laughing at me, because I was using home-rigged lights instead of pro, brand name lights, and in one instance, that I was using a Steadicam JR instad of a "real" Steadicam; "I wouldn't be caught dead with one of those cheesy things, it looks ridiculous" to which I replied "I don't care what I look like using it, I care what ends up on film", followed by the infamous, and oft-heard statement: "why don't you just rent a real one?" as if the cost is irrelevant.

 

In my (limited) experience, it's usually the self-educated person who comes up with innovation, like grabbing someone who's wearing a white T-shirt for bounce, when you're out of foam core or in a hurry, grabbing a windshield reflector instead of a "real" photo reflector, etc..

The film school types I've been around would never even think of that stuff, or if they did, wouldn't do it because they're embarrassed.

 

As you can tell, I'm not a huge fan of film school.

 

Matt Pacini

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, knowing some of the Tenolian's instructors at AFI (Bill Dill, Lisa Weigand, Guy Livneh), who have all worked their way through many independent features (Guy just did second unit on "Monster"), doing exactly the sort of cheap lighting tricks you describe, I'd say that you're way off-base here, Matt.

 

I'm mostly self-taught, having one to film school when I was 27, but who isn't mostly self-taught? And I appreciated my time in film school greatly. In fact, it not only got my feature career going, introduced me to the Polish Brothers, but now I've just finished working on the update to "Cinematography", the textbook written by my instructor at CalArts, Kris Malkiewicz. Which I read and memorized about seven years before I even went to film school, going back to the self-taught theme.

 

The fact that some people are stupid enough to not know the difference between being clever on a low-budget by using non-standard equipment and when it's a good time to use professional equipment, doesn't mean almost everyone who teaches at film school are stupid. Besides, if they all are just graduates being promoted, they are more likely to have experience using low-tech gear than high-tech gear. When I was in film school, it wasn't like we had the cream of the crop, equipment-wise. Ingenuity was just as necessary there as OUTSIDE of the film school environment.

 

If you went to film school and had a bad experience, I'm sorry, but I hope you're not just another one of these people who put down schools they never attended and faculty members they never met.

 

As for the stupidity of some film students, I suspect they would be just as stupid if trained on the job. A film school is not a trade school by the way even though people on the outside seem to think they should be. If you want to be a professional grip, then I don't really see the need to attend film school.

 

Considering a large number of the greatest cinematographers working today attended a film school, they can't be as bad as you make them out to be.

 

And it seems to me that you're actually AGREEING with Tenolian's instructors not to place too much emphasis on technology and formats and equipment as a prerequisite to doing good cinematography. Because they are NOT saying that you have to use this super-duper expensive gear in order to do things the "right" way.

[Filip Plesha]

I think this is a philosophical question..

 

how low in qualitty can you go untill it stops being goog photography...

 

I mean,imagine having 200 pixel wide image or less

with a really limited CCD that makes everything look flat and

poor. Can you make good photography?

You are doing good photography if you have a vitness on the set

saying: "yes i was there,the light was set up wonderfully and his ideas were great"

but it is not recorded properly.

 

So the final question would be:

What is good photography?That what it was ment to be if you had a better medium,or that what is actually recorded?

 

The other question would be:

 

What would you define as a minimum in qualitty?

How low can you go.

One thing is sure,and that is that you can't go down for ever,you have to stop at

some qualitty and say: "i can't do anything good wih this"

But where is the line?

 

Personally i think that the thing that matters most is the dynamic range and

the number of colors your medium can capture. This is what

gives great pictures and recreates the mood you created on the set.

[David Mullen ASC]

I'd also add that a film student is just as like to be put down by a professional film crew as you would be for using some non-traditional, cheap technique -- I'm not saying that's right either, only that the prejudice against not using pro gear and pro equipment is not limited to film school graduates.

 

Anyway, students by definition are not exactly experts so I'm not sure why you would even take their opinions seriously on how you are doing something. So they haven't learned all the tricks yet -- that's why they call them "beginners." And if they have an attitude against learning new tricks, they won't go very far anyway. But I don't think you can accuse their instructors of giving them attitude problems. Most of them had attitude problems when they showed up at film school! The ones that were eager to learn and were open-minded usually left film school the same way and the one's that were arrogant, stupid, prejudiced, spoiled, etc. all probably arrived at school like that.

 

That's the nature of ALL schools and students. It's not necessarily the nature of all faculty members who have to deal with them.

 

I just had dinner the other day with Tom Denove, who just got tenure at UCLA teaching cinematography. Here's a guy who is not only a technical genius (sold a light meter for years called the Cinemeter that he helped design) but also worked for years and years in independent feature production and was also second unit DP on "Star Trek: The Next Generation." He's definitely not the sort of guy to tell students that there is only one way of doing things and that it has to involve using the most expensive gear. Film schools faculties are full of people who worked for years in the trenches. Look at Judy Irola over at the USC film school. Again, someone who has had to deal with tight budgets and schedules, not someone who got spoiled on the best technology.

 

So I can only assume you are talking about the faculty at some really small schools and universities not known for the quality of their film program anyway!

[David Mullen ASC]

In an IDEAL world (which we don't live in) technical quality only has to be as much as the story requires. Shooting "Blair Witch Project" in 65mm would have been technically impressive but would have made no sense for that story.

 

There is no minimum technical quality level. Art museums show works by artists using Pixelvision cameras.

 

Even in terms of contrast and color, look at all the work I did on "Northfork" trying to remove color. Look at processes like skip-bleach or shooting on reversal, which all give you a more limited exposure range. There is no right or wrong latitude or color response. There is no right or wrong resolution level.

 

It's all only judged on a case-by-case basis against ARTIST INTENT. What did you INTEND for the image to look like? Did you use the right tools to achieve that? If the right tool is a Super-8 camera and a bare 500-watt photoflood bulb, then what difference does it make if there are technically better cameras and lights out there?

 

Should "City of God" been shot in IMAX? Now THERE'S a lot of picture quality for you. Even if they had ten times their budget, I don't think they should have changed the way they shot it.

 

Now in the REAL world, there are other factors to consider as well -- budget, efficiency, needs of the market, etc. And if compromise is required, and by which I mean that you feel that the project needs more technical quality to tell that story than you can afford, then the trick is to find ways of minimizing that compromise and using slight of hand to misdirect the eye away from the compromise (for example, you feel the project should be shot in 35mm but you end up using Super-16 for budgetary reasons, so you try and shoot on slower-speed film stocks to compensate.) Or you rethink your artistic concept to incorporate the technical limitations of the equipment you can afford to use. So either you are hiding your compromises through cleverness or you are taking advantage of your liabilities and turning them into positives.

[Filip Plesha]

Well i agree with you, but i was talking about people that do want better qualitty..

if you choose lower qualitty that is a compleatly different thing.

 

I'm talking about compromises.

 

And since you mentioned skip bleach...

even skip bleach requires a lot of image qualitty to start with,

imagine printing SD video frames to film and ENR-ing that print..

It is not the same as doing it with 35mm film originated material.

 

Back to cinematography:

 

Imagine wanting to do a beautifull scene with

a daylight interior with white curtains on the windows that

soften the light,and you want that mood you have on the set to

be recorded onto a medium.This kind of a setting is very challening

for any equipment because there are soft gradations of light all over the place.

This is where qualitty does matter,because if you record it

with a sony handycam it will never make you feel the

atmosphere of that room.You will be able to imagine how that scene

would look like in real life,or on some hi qualitty medium,but

graphically it would not be transfered to your eyes.

 

When i say that there has to be a bottom qualitty line,i am not generalizing

this for every film ever made.I'm talking about projects that need

qualitty to show something.

 

For example,if you want to express yourself with camera movement or editing,

you need less qualitty than if you are more photographically oriented and

treat film shots more like photographs than like film shots.