WHAT IS GOOD CINEMATOGRAPHY?????????????

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

Good cinematography...

Being original, yet being on the same wavelength as director and the story.

[Morgan Peline]

For me....

 

When every subsequent shot adds to your understanding of that particular story, whether it be on a conscious or subconscious level.

 

Have you ever noticed how when you watch a really good movie each new shot keeps adding to your understanding of what's going on; with what's at stake, through good use of the 'right' lighting, the 'right' shot size, the 'right' camera placement and the 'right' camera movement. To me that can mean really naturalistic or really expressive or somewhere in the middle...e.g. The Matrix compared to Dances With Wolves...both great films, but some of the cinematography and SFX in the Matrix really stands out and is 'noticeable' but for that film it really suits. Another case in point is Sin City. Dances With Wolves is more naturalistic but sometimes it's beauty is over-whelming but it is much less expressive than the other two.

[DJ Kast]

Good Cinematography is different for everybody. For me, though, you need to tell a story with the lighting. Everyone's job on a set is to serve the script, and I feel like you should be able to turn the sound off and not miss a beat. In my opinion the best I've seen so far, is Conrad Hall's "Road to Perdition". There's a log jam at number two, but I've never seen anything like Perdition.

[shishir dixit]

i once read a quote from a famous DP (don't recall the name) saying that every time someone tells him that the cinematography on a film he shoot is great, he feels he failed in his job cause he overcome the story.

i think that good cinematography is the one that when you watch the movie goes unnoticed.

you just moved by the story the mood and the cinematic journey

 

 

Yes i agree what Ram Shani says, bt i think if u incorporate some shots in every scene with unusual angle it will work as adding the spies to your recipe.If you able to reproduce a scene on screen as you see through normal eye it will be an achievement.

 

 

shishir dixit.

[Daniel Porto]

Yes i agree what Ram Shani says, bt i think if u incorporate some shots in every scene with unusual angle it will work as adding the spies to your recipe.If you able to reproduce a scene on screen as you see through normal eye it will be an achievement.

 

 

shishir dixit.

 

But why would you wanna create images that replicate what the normal eye see's if you arn't doing first person perspective. One way to create images which are interesting to the eye are too do angles/shots which the normal eye does not usually see. That is one reason why obscure angles appear to us visually

[Justin Hayward]

Right, right, righ, ri, ri, ri...

 

Of course the person telling you the cinematography was good makes a huge difference. If you're mother-in-law (assuming everybody's mother-in-law knows nothing about film other than what the latest Hollywood Chistmas blockbuster is) comments on the cinematography, then you might have made a mistake.

 

But, if several of your fellow filmmakers comment on how good you did... take it as a compliment.

[shishir dixit]

But why would you wanna create images that replicate what the normal eye see's if you arn't doing first person perspective. One way to create images which are interesting to the eye are too do angles/shots which the normal eye does not usually see. That is one reason why obscure angles appear to us visually

Iam saying this because it is very difficult to recreate what you see with naked eyes whatever you do it will give a touch of artificiality, Iam not saying that don't use obscure angle, I'm saying mixture of unusual angle unusual shots with the vision of naked eye but keep in mind that it will go with your story smoothly.and if we try to create a first person perspective it will involve the audience in our story.

 

shishirDixit.

[Paul Brenno]

Good Cinematography to me means images or the photography helps tell the story, pure and simple and doesn't become what takes your attention away from the director's vision...

 

Dean Semler said on a video about lighting not to have your photography look too beautiful, because then it takes away from the story...which I really agree with. Good cinematography, to me, means you are total captured in the moment, into the feel of the story...

 

I've seen bad cinemtography in movies/documentaries where images are out of focus, composition is amateurish (meaning off), over or under-exposed, color temperature not right, things like that...

 

I honestly think when you see bad cinematography, you'll know !!!

[Michael LaVoie]

I think it's a question that everyone can answer differently. As either the viewer, or the author of the images. For instance, if you take it personally, the cinematography that's your best is when you're connected to the story enough that you can offer choices to the director wherein you're expressing your own artistic sensibilities in relation to the script. If the director then decides to use those suggestions because they feel it's adding to his or her vision of the film, then that's as good as it gets. That's good cinematography whether the audience likes it or not. It's a cinematographer bringing something personal to the table that's in sync with the directors vision.

 

On the other hand, from the viewer's perspective, I agree with the aforementioned posts about how the cinematography should go unnoticed. Whether it's beautiful or ugly it shouldn't distract from the experience of the film. Case in point, In The Lives of Others was gorgeous to a fault. I thought it looked way too good. On the otherhand, In The Valley of Ellah looked godawful. Both films distracted me at each end of the scale and threw me out of the stories for different reasons. Both films had excellent cinematographers so I can only assume the directors were after specific looks. For me personally, both films failed on that level. But for others, they might have worked. In the end, it's all subjective.

[Joe Giambrone]

Jumping on the "subjective" idea, to me, good cinematography is a lot of things, and it changes during the film from moment to moment. Sometimes it's "unnoticed" because the action on screen is so engaging. Other times, as in establishing shots, it's very noticed, and purposefully so.

 

Like a symphony, the film is going to highlight certain aspects as it travels along, the sound, the music, the landscape, the room, the face, the mouth, the eyes, etc.

 

(I'm not a cinematographer, but a writer/director). Anyway, the ultimate power is going to pass to the editor to keep it moving along. Not just the pretty images, but the totality of the experience. And there is where the alchemy and mysticism takes what was shot and hopefully adds a little magic.

 

A flip side is that shooting beautiful cinematography on a crap movie is just a shame. There should be more boycotting bad movies, so as to discourage Hollywood from churning them out. Maybe there's a new thread in there somewhere. It seems the top cinematographers choose their projects carefully for the most part. But a lot of capable people participate in horrendous movies that no one should have to suffer through. Any thoughts on that?