Stills photographers on set

[Alfeo Dixon]

Hmm, it's hard to imagine the unit stills photographer doing all the continuity shots and having time to do all the important marketing shots as well.

Just got off the phone with my friend Wynn and my speculations where true. Still did ALL of the continuity shot, but some prima donnas wouldn't or just plain wouldn't do them. So with the SX-70, the other departments started to do them themselves.

 

He said also on Bound for Glory, that Haskell called him into his trailer to tell him that Hal Ashby wanted to fire him. He went to talk to Hal and because Wynn had not taken enough continuity shots for scripty, they missed doing a reverse scene. He got to stay on the job but got a second Land Camera and always had one around his neck.

 

As to when the contract changed, still not sure.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Alfeo Dixon

[Brad Grimmett]

Just got off the phone with my friend Wynn and my speculations where true. Still did ALL of the continuity shot, but some prima donnas wouldn't or just plain wouldn't do them.

I don't know about being a prima donna....I'm just not sure how they managed to be in all those places at once. Wardrboe and makeup (with multiple actors), props, art, scripty, lighting reference shots for the DP....that's a lot of photos. Oh, and you have to do your REAL job too.

[Alfeo Dixon]

I don't know about being a prima donna....I'm just not sure how they managed to be in all those places at once. Wardrboe and makeup (with multiple actors), props, art, scripty, lighting reference shots for the DP....that's a lot of photos. Oh, and you have to do your REAL job too.

Don't forget that if it didn't make it on camera, then you really don't have to worry about it. So really you stay near the camera all the time would be my best guest. Come to think of it, I had to help do continuity stills for a low budget, my first show and I was shooting film then, it wasn't bad. They just had to wait until I got film back from the lab. I do recall we had to rush a few rolls to a one hour because I think wardrobe put the wrong shirt on...

[Tony Brown]

[/]

 

 

 

I've been on shoots that, to an extent the operator is autonomous; in that they choose lens and set up the shot with the director rather than the dop, who would just light. Or in a few cases set up the shot while the director works with actors.

 

While the stills photographer works on their own, in a studio they are relying on the dop's lighting for their shots. A rather average shot can look fantastic due to it being lit well. Lit by the dop, not the photographer.

 

Most UK DoP's operate themselves now..... its been that way for 20+ years

 

Stills on set get 'a credit'....not 'the credit'

[Tony Brown]

Just got off the phone with my friend Wynn and my speculations where true. Still did ALL of the continuity shot, but some prima donnas wouldn't or just plain wouldn't do them. So with the SX-70, the other departments started to do them themselves.

 

In 30+ years I've NEVER seen a units stills photographer do Continuity shots.. Why would he? Continuity girl just jumps in and shoots them... she's on set 100%... Stills drift in and out.....mostly out :rolleyes:

[K Borowski]

True and most DP's carried a Land Camera in their kits, not other departments.

 

 

I disagree with this part. The skill level needed to shot and handle the processing of Polaroids moves into pure photography. Not saying it's not hard, but until the SX-70 and then the Polaroid 600, Land Cameras where toys of the photo enthusiast, tools of the photographers and mantle pieces of the upper-middle class.

 

As to only DPs carying them, perhaps you are right, but they *were* on sets probably since being invented in '63. There was B&W peel-apart Polaroid before that, in the mid '50s.

 

Its expense probably kept it in more-limited use, but compared with having to do a reshoot for continuity purposes, I'm sure they caught on before SX-70 came out. Even on "2001" they were using B&W Polaroid, probably due to expense, and judging shades of grey to determine which exposure would render the correct shade of yellow on the colored astronaut helmet in the article I read. So they were being used for things even *more* critical than continuity, actually gauging exposure on the OCN.

 

As far as the "skill", that basically just necessitates staring at a wrist-watch until you peel them apart, and knowing, roughly, how hot or cold it is, as development time varies with temperature. You need to know what an F-stop and shutter speed are, but these can easily be stolen from the camera crew's readings.

 

I don't think still photographers were/are being pompous not shooting continuity. That is a relatively skill-less endeavour, whereas publicity photos are actually shot wiht aesthetics in mind just as the movie photography is. It is even more difficult because you have to imply motion in a single frame rather than being able to render motion in real time.

[K Borowski]

1963 for peel-apart colour, 1973 for SX-70.

But alas no more. Polaroid film is out of production. Fuji still make some peel-apart stocks for professionals, and Polaroid was hoping to license some production, but unless that happens, SX-70 is dead, I'm afraid.

 

The amateur formats are dead, and IDK if Fuji will ever make film for Polaroid-designed cameras. But they do make a camera for a mere $70 now here in the United States. It'll probably be offered in Europe as well. It takes Fuji's eqivalent of Polaroid, an 800-speed professional quality color film.

 

So the use of instant materials is still quite viable, albeit more expensive than digital. It is something like $1/shot, maybe more. But the advanatge is that it is low-tech and trial-and-error, easy for an amateur to figure out.

 

 

What would drive me nuts would be trying to judge continuity off of an LCD monitor, finding the right shot, etc. After all, what is the biggest LCD screen size going to be on the back of one of those cameras? Sure you can add a laptop, but that is anotehr order of magnitude of technological complexity.

[Alfeo Dixon]

As to only DPs carying them, perhaps you are right, but they *were* on sets probably since being invented in '63. There was B&W peel-apart Polaroid before that, in the mid '50s.

Read back on my post Karl, never denied the use of polaroids being on set. I also tend not to include cinematographers as photographers... it's a given they have that background. So when I stated the use of the Land Cameras being a tool of primarily photographers, DP's where assumably lumped into that group. My bad for not being clearer. The peel-apart is the Land Camera Polaroid.

 

Its expense probably kept it in more-limited use, but compared with having to do a reshoot for continuity purposes, I'm sure they caught on before SX-70 came out. Even on "2001" they were using B&W Polaroid, probably due to expense, and judging shades of grey to determine which exposure would render the correct shade of yellow on the colored astronaut helmet in the article I read. So they were being used for things even *more* critical than continuity, actually gauging exposure on the OCN.

SX-70 is the camera that made it easy for any Joe Smo to get a good and practical (key word is practical) image without the skill sets of basic photography. These request come from all different departments, but it was done by the still photographer. Even I had been asked to do something of the sorts to judge what color a dress was going to render.

 

As far as the "skill", that basically just necessitates staring at a wrist-watch until you peel them apart, and knowing, roughly, how hot or cold it is, as development time varies with temperature. You need to know what an F-stop and shutter speed are, but these can easily be stolen from the camera crew's readings.

I agree that it's not the hardest 'skill set' to learn, but even photographers (I included) have difficulty with the pull apart type polaroids. In regards to pulling that information from the camera departments ALSO involves being able to do the conversions needed also. 1/50th is the easy part... 24fps ~ 1/50th shutter speed... "hold very still for clear image please." These film speeds where from 75, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1000 and 3000 ASA's. Cameras commonly had fixed iris' f/8.8 or f/42. I know I some times have difficulty doing the math correctly on the fly and this is my field of work. I wish it was as easy as "hey mister focus puller, what number you got on the lens..." but unfortunately it is not.

 

I don't think still photographers were/are being pompous not shooting continuity. That is a relatively skill-less endeavour, whereas publicity photos are actually shot wiht aesthetics in mind just as the movie photography is. It is even more difficult because you have to imply motion in a single frame rather than being able to render motion in real time.

 

It was under the union contract that the any camera allowed on set was operated ONLY by camera personnel. It was the still photographers job to do so. There are also two photographer classes, one is still photographer (the set guy) and the portrait photographer (gallery, photography studio away from set). Pompous is exactly why they are not doing continuity to this day. To them it was mindless work, not worthy of their time. You don't have to tell me how difficult it is to capture great stills, I did it day in and day out and found plenty of time to nap also, which would have been my continuity time.

[John Brawley]

They were affordable enough that they were used extensively in "2001" as an aide to gauging proper exposure. So they've been around on film sets at least 40 years if not longer.

 

Further, the Polaroid land camera was available in the '50s to the point it was affordable to families. I'm certain that productions were at least renting them by the very early '60s, if not the late '50s.

 

 

Well I've been using Polaroid's for lighting (using a 600SE) like....this century !

 

There's nothing like an actual photographic print produced in seconds just before you roll. Even digital with a printer requires a bit more fussing and the prints just aren't as nice.

 

And to reiterate what David said. You're kidding yourself if you think unit stills are *optional*. How do you think the key art and publicity is generated for a film ??

 

jb

[Gil Wertheim]

Just Curious. . .

 

What type of equipment would be good to get for on set stills

[K Borowski]

Just Curious. . .

 

What type of equipment would be good to get for on set stills

 

I dont' know if you'll get a consensus on this thread, Gil.

 

I think, optimally, you'd still want to mix 35mm, Polaroid, and digital for publicity and continuity, respectively.

 

Polaroid is still the best method for on-set continuity between setups and shots, because you have a decent sized photo to look at rather than an LCD screen or lugging around a laptop.

 

Digital is probably best for makeup and wardrobe continuity because they actually can sit down and take the time to hook up a computer and look at files.

 

35mm and digital probably are your best bet for publicity photos.

[David Mullen ASC]

Most studios now require digital stills for publicity purposes. I've only seen unit stills photographers shoot film for more "arty" things like b&w behind-the-scenes photos.

[Alfeo Dixon]

Just Curious. . .

 

What type of equipment would be good to get for on set stills

 

I posted a kit forsale in the Classified forum.

 

You may also need a laptop and I would suggest getting a self powered Mini G-Drive for storage. Make sure that your not ever dependent on house or set power supplied by the electrics. Either one can go down at any moment and could possibly cause data corruption from a complete loss of power, surge or flicker. So if your on a laptop and a self powered storage drive you can plug up to those sources and still be good if they fail.

 

I also had a medium size rubber made with the large wheels like an AC cart to work off. A small point-n-shoot will do for continuity stills <_< if you have to do them, but more than likely the other departments will do their own. It's also good for crew shots... I always wanted to pass one around and let the crew take shots of themselves... that could be dangerous in the hands of the grips.

 

That package put me behind $8K plus the second body I added later, but more than paid for itself.

[Dan Salzmann]

I don't think the camera operators skills are truly demonstrated by screen grabs, it's in the framing during the camera moves and framing throughout the film where their skills are shown and that's what they're proud of. Their work is not intended to used as stills, the "grabs" you see are usually taken by the stills photographer during production rather than from the film camera.

 

The only studio feature film that I can recall that used real "grabs"from a film camera neg for publicity is "Barry Lyndon". However, it's unwise of any producer to save money by not using a stills photographer and use the production camera (s) for the stills they need. These are a key past of your film's marketing, which could cost just as much as the budget of the film itself, so to save money on the stills is very foolish.

 

The DP is the head of the department, so they represent everyone in the camera department. However it's not difficult these days to find the names of his crew and they'll receive a credit in the film.

 

Just wondering where you got this information about original film camera neg images being used as publicity stills for "Barry Lyndon". Since Kubrick himself started as a stills photographers for magazines in the 50's as well being a real stickler for quality I do not believe he would have accepted the look of that. All "Barry Lyndon" promotional stills that I have seen looked like they were done by a photographic camera.

[David Mullen ASC]

Just wondering where you got this information about original film camera neg images being used as publicity stills for "Barry Lyndon". Since Kubrick himself started as a stills photographers for magazines in the 50's as well being a real stickler for quality I do not believe he would have accepted the look of that. All "Barry Lyndon" promotional stills that I have seen looked like they were done by a photographic camera.

 

No, that's pretty well-known -- Kubrick did not like publicity stills representing shots of the movie, he preferred using actual frames from the movie because it was a more accurate representation of the photography, framing, filtration, etc. The Ciment Kubrick book has an interview with Julian Senior, a publicity director at Warner Bros.

 

Quote:

Everything is supervised by him. At the moment, we are having a problem with photographs for the press. Stanley refuses to have a stills photographer standing beside him, taking photographs of every scene. In his opinion, the photograph that best represents a shot from the film is one enlarged from the print itself. And that's what he's done on all his films since '2001'. All the important magazines, from Time to Newsweek downwards, have raised objections to this. But Stanley won't be budged, even though it creates a great deal of work for him as he has to view the film frame by frame on a Steenbeck to select the particular one he wants. But for him, it's the only way to catch the precise angle and lighting of the shot itself.

 

If you've ever seen lobby cards for "Barry Lyndon" or the American Cinematographer article on the movie, which has dozens of shots, they are all clearly actual frames from the movie, with the same Low Con filtration, etc. and somewhat grainy compared to the clean 8-perf FF35 stills that are normally taken for a movie.

[Mark Dunn]

Indeed. One of my desktops is a frame enlargement of (IIRC) the Barry/Quin duel. It's obvious because it's hard-matted and there's a hair in the gate.

[K Borowski]

The Ciment Kubrick book has an interview with Julian Senior, a publicity director at Warner Bros.

 

Quote:

But Stanley won't be budged, even though it creates a great deal of work for him as he has to view the film frame by frame on a Steenbeck to select the particular one he wants.

 

If you've ever seen lobby cards for "Barry Lyndon" or the American Cinematographer article on the movie, which has dozens of shots, they are all clearly actual frames from the movie, with the same Low Con filtration, etc. and somewhat grainy compared to the clean 8-perf FF35 stills that are normally taken for a movie.

 

You'd think this would actually become more common, what with the advent of non-linear editing and 2K scans of everything. Also, with some digital stills shooters using much lower-res. 6MP and 8MP sensors still, or these settings on 10+MP cameras, there isn't as much a difference as there was with 3/4- vs. 8 perf.

[Brian Drysdale]

Just wondering where you got this information about original film camera neg images being used as publicity stills for "Barry Lyndon". Since Kubrick himself started as a stills photographers for magazines in the 50's as well being a real stickler for quality I do not believe he would have accepted the look of that. All "Barry Lyndon" promotional stills that I have seen looked like they were done by a photographic camera.

 

David explains where I found my information.

 

However, it would be interesting to know of Kubrick was so obsessive that he needed to use the actual neg used in the final cut for the stills or just neg from the out takes. Of course, sense would tell you the latter...

[David Mullen ASC]

David explains where I found my information.

 

However, it would be interesting to know of Kubrick was so obsessive that he needed to use the actual neg used in the final cut for the stills or just neg from the out takes. Of course, sense would tell you the latter...

 

I don't think he used the neg at all, but probably had a dupe made -- he was also paranoid about damaging the negative, after the lab scratched some of "Clockwork Orange".

 

On the other hand, with his high number of takes, I suppose pulling a frame from an unused take's negative would not be unheard of.

 

I mean, it's not a hard thing to just make a dupe off of the cut negative, use a workprint to identify which frames to use, and then cut-up the dupe. Back then, magazines were used to getting dupes of color slides anyway.

[Brian Drysdale]

I don't think he used the neg at all, but probably had a dupe made -- he was also paranoid about damaging the negative, after the lab scratched some of "Clockwork Orange".

 

On the other hand, with his high number of takes, I suppose pulling a frame from an unused take's negative would not be unheard of.

 

I mean, it's not a hard thing to just make a dupe off of the cut negative, use a workprint to identify which frames to use, and then cut-up the dupe. Back then, magazines were used to getting dupes of color slides anyway.

 

 

Yes, there would've been a number of options available at the time.