Jump to content

Painters and Their Art As References


Sam Kim
 Share

Recommended Posts

Realism in painting is where painting tries to look like a photograph. In this context one might say the painter is doing some sort of "realistic representation of reality". The work of Chuck Close is a bit different. His work is arguably photography rather than painting - once you understand the methods he employs.

 

Realism in photography is an altogether different concept. Otherwise one would end up with the rather peculiar concept of a "photographic representation of a photograph"

 

A photograph doesn't need to do anything at all to look like a photograph. It doesn't so much look like a photograph - but is a photograph. It is reality. Reality itself. So realism refers to this identity. Realism is it's natural state of affairs so to speak. There is no representation going on. If one uses the term "realism" it's not in the painterly sense of a "representation". Painting was able to understand this idea as well - and apply it to painting - to get away from representation, and pursue identity. The identity of a painting.

 

It is when photgraphy does work to look like something other than a photograph that it can risk working against it's own identity. The same goes for painting.

 

But this is purely a starting position. Not an end position. In addition to identity is the pursuit of difference, and this is far more interesting.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've always been a bit suspect of the notion that the highest aspiration of art should be a realistic representation of reality.

I supose that depends on the definition of reality.

It's been a modern habit for some time to confuse reality with the matereal, the physical. Supose instead we allow reality to include all from crude, particular things through to to the profound. And if reality is founded on or constrained by our ability to experience, then this too, our ability to experience, can encompass that same vast range.

 

I think painting can represent, give an indication of, almost anything. And some painters are drawn to the profound, the sublime, and will compulsively give indication of that. And when we see the work, something in us has an experience of recognition. Something in our spirit knows, this thing we see indicates what the universe really is, and this quality of my self, experiencing this, is closer to who I really am.

 

A photograph as distinct from a painting. I believe photography (ignoring digital here) is a direct impression of the physicality of the universe at that moment. The objects or personalities being photographed make direct impact on the film emulsion. And these direct impressions can encapsulate and traverse at will the vast strata of nowness that we might choose to call reality. This has (or did have) enormous impact on the potential of cinema as an art form.

 

So thanks David, for that prod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I supose that depends on the definition of reality.

It's been a modern habit for some time to confuse reality with the matereal, the physical. Supose instead we allow reality to include all from crude, particular things through to to the profound. And if reality is founded on or constrained by our ability to experience, then this too, our ability to experience, can encompass that same vast range.

 

I think painting can represent, give an indication of, almost anything. And some painters are drawn to the profound, the sublime, and will compulsively give indication of that. And when we see the work, something in us has an experience of recognition. Something in our spirit knows, this thing we see indicates what the universe really is, and this quality of my self, experiencing this, is closer to who I really am.

 

A photograph as distinct from a painting. I believe photography (ignoring digital here) is a direct impression of the physicality of the universe at that moment. The objects or personalities being photographed make direct impact on the film emulsion. And these direct impressions can encapsulate and traverse at will the vast strata of nowness that we might choose to call reality. This has (or did have) enormous impact on the potential of cinema as an art form.

 

So thanks David, for that prod.

 

If one looks at the history of the use of the term "realism" it varies quite considerably. But when talking in terms of painting there is a particular movement called "realism" of which artists such as Courbet were very much proponents. It is very much influenced by photography, or the idea of photography - and has precedents going back in history. It can vary a little between simulation of photography (to look like a photograph) and pre-chemical but quasi-photographic ideas (using a camera and transcribing, with a certain indifference, the pattern of light). The idea of photography predates photography.

 

But prior to chemical, or electronic/digital photography, there was a certain ambiguity that painters could exploit to blur the boundary between reality and unreality for whatever purposes - such as church propaganda.

 

Photography arrives to shatter this comfortable state of affairs into which artists could easily fall into - to make a distinction between reality and unreality - to put a knife through so much conceit - to make visible that world in which concepts such as angels (for example), or Gods, (etc) could resonate more easily as highly questionable. It arrives to situate an art which isn't just the domain of visionary artists. Or it redefines the scope of terms such as art and artists. Most painters of course will completely reject this idea - the photographer as second rate artist. With digital paint programs, such painters will feel a lot more comfortable - embracing such more easily than they could ever do photography.

 

In photography there is also a movement called "realism" but here it means something completely different. Here it is not the image as a representation of reality, but the image itself as a reality - in itself - an idea that will find applicability to painting as well. A painting as a reality in itself. Not as a represetnation of some other "reality" outside of itself but the painting itself as a reality - not just in terms of base materialism but in terms of the image produced.

 

On a third front is a very ancient but powerful idea of realism - and this is the suspect one - that an image can only ever represent reality: that reality is something different from what is visible (or audible etc). Reality as that which can only be represented because otherwise invisible.

 

C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David used the word "reality". I spoke to that. What is at stake is far more important than the constructions within art history. But I understand how discussing the "isms" seems easier, safer, or more practical.

 

There may be a point where, if one can move forward in conversation with terms such as "reality", even with a little risk, one could/should do so. And if one can't, one could be silent, metabolize the notions. Only speaking when more perfect, simple, realized forms are arrived at.

Edited by Gregg MacPherson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David used the word "reality". I spoke to that. What is at stake is far more important than the constructions within art history. But I understand how discussing the "isms" seems easier, safer, or more practical.

 

There may be a point where, if one can move forward in conversation with terms such as "reality", even with a little risk, one could/should do so. And if one can't, one could be silent, metabolize the notions. Only speaking when more perfect, simple, realized forms are arrived at.

 

Yes, I know that David used the word "reality".

 

I began with "realism" for my own reasons - not as any intended 'shirtfront' with David or yourself - but to disambiguate what I'm saying from any perceived conflict with David's comment. Or your own. And ultimately to set the stage for an agreement with David: that I also find the concept of "realistically depicting reality" to be a suspect concept, but for reasons that may or may not differ.

 

C

Edited by Carl Looper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

....On a third front is a very ancient but powerful idea of realism - and this is the suspect one - that an image can only ever represent reality: that reality is something different from what is visible (or audible etc). Reality as that which can only be represented because otherwise invisible.

 

 

 

Suppose we relate an expression to the quality of mind or consciousness of the entity that originated or propogated it. And consider the means and form of that expression. And consider the quality of mind or consciousness of the recipient (the one seeing the painting or photograph etc). If we allow these to have a sort of instantaneous wholeness, then what is the painting etc..? (rhetorical)

 

If reality is just what is visible, then please allow that what is visible depends most on the qualities of the observer. So much interest is given (within severe limits) to the qualities of the object, but little attention is given to the capacity for the observer to actually see. To one person a thing may be invisible. To another there may be a saturation of the refined sensibilities.

 

Seeing here stands in for any experience, any interaction with what is external to the self. Not wanting to overstate this, but not all objects of experience are crude, physical, tangible things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Suppose we relate an expression to the quality of mind or consciousness of the entity that originated or propogated it. And consider the means and form of that expression. And consider the quality of mind or consciousness of the recipient (the one seeing the painting or photograph etc). If we allow these to have a sort of instantaneous wholeness, then what is the painting etc..? (rhetorical)

 

If reality is just what is visible, then please allow that what is visible depends most on the qualities of the observer. So much interest is given (within severe limits) to the qualities of the object, but little attention is given to the capacity for the observer to actually see. To one person a thing may be invisible. To another there may be a saturation of the refined sensibilities.

 

Seeing here stands in for any experience, any interaction with what is external to the self. Not wanting to overstate this, but not all objects of experience are crude, physical, tangible things.

 

Reality has a double history - reality as something ultimately invisible - the mind of God - which us mere mortals can only imagine (and represent in crude terms) and reality as that which is only ever visible - be that visibility understood as a function of the observer (the mind of man or animal or AI for that matter) or as function of that which is external to the observer.

 

I have a bias for that second reality - reality as that which is only ever visible (or audible, etc). That which takes hold of the senses. A sensory reality. And of this version of reality I have a bias for it's location being exactly halfway between the concept of objectivity and that of subjectivity - that these tow poles (subject and object or 'world') tend back towards invisibility again, if in opposite directions.

 

cheers

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To bring the conversation back around a bit let me go to david's response to one of my posts...

First of all, speak for yourself when you say that older images from movies don't carry the power they once did.

 

Second, you are painting a lot of people of the past with a very broad brush. Gordon Willis' work in the 1970's is often imitated today by the new "realists" working today.

 

Also, you can take pictures in completely natural light -- for example, a storm clearing over the Rocky Mountains -- and have the results be dramatic, theatrical, romantic -- so does that make them non-realistic?

 

And while I understand, though never shared myself, this tendency among youth over the centuries to question the reverence for the art of the past, don't fall into the trap of thinking therefore that the result of evolution, whether biological or artistic, is that things get better over time.

 

And it's not like painting has become more subtle and realistic over time, so why is it so important that cinematography work towards that goal?

 

Finally, you run the risk of looking foolish by claiming the mantle of achieving greater realism than artists of the past, because each generation always feels that they are achieving greater realism, only to be considered stylized and unnatural by the next generation. One generation's realism looks like artifice to the next.

 

I feel a little like that great scene in "Mr. Turner" in which the critic John Ruskin, in praising J.M.W. Turner's ability to "truthfully" capture nature, also puts down the landscape painters of the past like Claude Lorrain, who was one of Turner's heroes, so the more that Turner is praised in comparison to Lorraine, the more uncomfortable Turner gets, to the point in which he stands up and says says to Ruskin, "So which is better? A ham sandwich or a meat pie?" (I don't remember the actual line but you get Turner's point...)

 

As this current conversation shows. Realism in photography is not necessarily about depicting reality ....a photograph is not reality and even your eyes do not see reality....reality is subjective and eventually it gets to the word "truth" which is just not an obtainable thing. But we try! and I think "realism" can include stylized imagery that gets maybe at an "emotional realism" ....but like I was saying I think we are now at a point where we are trying to do so in a more subtle way. Gordon Willis was for sure a great proponet of this and a huge inspiration to me as is someone like Savides

 

That said I do agree very much things do not get better over time, but I do also still beleive in progress ....things may not get better, but we try.... just like you say we always look back generation to generation at older work and find holes in it. Time exposes all. This is why some scenes from an older film might be "cheesy" now to an audience accustomedo modern cinema....that is not to say it was better or worse....but we have progressed since then in some ways. Again I think your right in saying the idea of progress is better is not true.

 

 

Going to your later point david

....But as I said, painting didn't become more realistic in the current age, so why is the natural progression of cinematography to become more realistic? Isn't it possible that realism is just another style to chose from?
I agree with this for the most part, but I don't think it's about acquiring tools ....like as if realism in itself was a style to draw on....I think the realism is just an evolution and because we all start from a place where we know any image we create with a camera is subjective and won't really be "real" this evolution toward "realism" in cinema now is more about being more subtle and less heavy handed. That said I think there is plenty of room for other approaches and again its less about creating images that appear as "real" and more about a subtly and finding new ways to approach a truth.
Maybe the next step will be an abstraction like in painting? I donno.....You actually do see that sometimes even now.....the idea of for example leaving a conversation off screen and showing something else or images so dark you can barley see what's in frame. Also now you see films calling attention to the fact that they are films for example the use of the Zoom lens has come back once removed from commen use because we felt it was cheesy now we are finding it interesting again to use sometime in ironic way or even just to call attention to the fact that we are watching a movie.
Many of these thoughts came to me well writing this and I just wanted to note your comments David did make me rethink what I was saying.....orginally I did not see how realism as creating images that appear more realistic was flawed....and it certainly is not what I was trying to get at or a strong approach.
Edited by Albion Hockney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Sustaining Member

That's fine as a personal basis for your own work, and I'm sure large portions of cinematographers will follow suite because subtle naturalism is all the rage these days, but personally I like diversity -- as much as I love Roger Deakin's work, or Harris Savides', or Gordon Willis', I'd hate for all movies to look like those three guys shot them and have no room for the Chris Doyles and Robert Richardsons or even funkier experimenters with images. There is no single right way to approach a movie, there are times when even a "heavy-handed" approach can be justified.

 

Otherwise it's like saying that the music score for a movie always has to be subtle and not get noticed, leaving no room for a loud operatic score when it might be appropriate. Or for that matter, saying that a performance always has to be subtle and low-key, never leaving room for a grandly theatrical performance. Not every movie has to be like a Bach concerto, some can be like a Wagnerian opera...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maybe the next step will be an abstraction like in painting? I donno.....You actually do see that sometimes even now.....the idea of for example leaving a conversation off screen and showing something else or images so dark you can barley see what's in frame. Also now you see films calling attention to the fact that they are films for example the use of the Zoom lens has come back once removed from commen use because we felt it was cheesy now we are finding it interesting again to use sometime in ironic way or even just to call attention to the fact that we are watching a movie.

 

Die ewige Wiederkehr des Gleichen... but it is never quite 'the same'...

 

The art of film, other than works done by a single worker... are prehaps more like artchitectural structures than 'paintings'... in that a group contributes to the end result.

 

As such, architecture tends to be a bit more conservative than more 'plastic' arts. The 'auteur' theory attempts to put a single person in the driver's seat of the work, but again, unless that is a sole person... or a fascist director... the work will be a composite of contributions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not to de rail the conversation, but the thing that is not talked about as problematic when people try to discredit the 'auteur' theory is that the collaberative process is generally intertwined with commerical intentions. there is no reason that interesting progressive work can't be made by collaberation...the problem is when the group around a director is more interested in the film making money and fitting into a box already made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, can't edit the above post....hit post too soon....please ignore.

 

David,

I tottaly agree and that IS the basis of my own work and moreover to talk about what is somewhat of the current movment. I mean when "cubism" was all the rage not everyone was painting disjointed perspective paitings and I think this is no different ....all kinds of work will be made and there is nothing worse then seeing some banal "natural" alexa cinematography ....I saw two low budget indies last week where the whole thing was handheld shot with a lot natural light and both just looked so flat and boring....and honestly, nothing like any reality I know.

 

 

To John's point:

not to de rail the conversation, but the thing that is not talked about as problematic when people try to discredit the 'auteur' theory is that the collaberative process is generally intertwined with commerical intentions. there is no reason that interesting progressive work can't be made by collaberation...the problem is when the group around a director is more interested in the film making money and fitting into a box already made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Realism in photography is not necessarily about depicting reality ....a photograph is not reality and even your eyes do not see reality....reality is subjective and eventually it gets to the word "truth" which is just not an obtainable thing. But we try!

 

Yes, realism in photography is not about depicting reality, but it is about reality - a concept of reality - a particular concept of reality. What it's not about is depiction (or representation). We can disagree with this concept, but to disagree with it we need some idea of it.

 

The simple concept is that the photograph (the image or sensory component of it) is reality. It is already reality, in no need of any additional layer of representation. We can treat this as a definition, rather than a question.

 

Now if we say that a photograph is not reality, then we must be entertaining a different concept of reality - one in which reality, for example, is not a photograph. Perhaps we entertain the idea that reality is a painting, to which a clarification might be: "no, reality is not a painting". The end of such an exchange would probably be that concept of reality in which there is no identity at all posed between reailty and any image.

 

According to this concept of reality, we can understand that images can only ever depict (or represent) reality. According to this concept, images themselves can not be reality.

 

However this concept is not that which inspired early photography. This concept of reality is a much more ancient one - and a very difficult one to shake off - it is about a belief in something beyond experience that determines experience - as if experience required some sort of transcendental controller, which held the keys of truth, and allowed us only a representation of it, as if we (subjectivity) were always trapped in some sort of inescapable mirage with respect to such a "truth".

 

But of course, if that were the case, by it's own definition, how could we ever know that was the case? It risks being more of a fantasy than a reality. Of course, mothing wrong with that. The problem is when it's posed as reality, or worse: as "truth", that it can rub us up the wrong way. It is because we're not given any way of arguing with it. Any way of convincing ourselves of it, or against it. It sits there in it's own inaccessable space, guarded by it's priests, who regard our inability to serve it, as our one way ticket to the world of the damned.

 

Against this concept of reality is the alternative one - that images (or sensory experience in general) is reality, where reality is a painting, and/or reality is a photograph, and/or reality is a rock concert, and so on.

 

And starting from this position, we can begin experimenting with reality.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, can't edit the above post....hit post too soon....please ignore.

 

not to de rail the conversation, but the thing that is not talked about as problematic when people try to discredit the 'auteur' theory is that the collaberative process is generally intertwined with commerical intentions. there is no reason that interesting progressive work can't be made by collaberation...the problem is when the group around a director is more interested in the film making money and fitting into a box already made.

 

I'm not saying that the collaboration can't be viewed as 'art'... just not quite equivalent to the single painter works, even in view of 'auteur' theory, unless of course the work is soly from the efforts of the single artist.

 

As it is, I gave up worrying about 'art theory', when I quite smoking, and the Hip Bagal in LA closed...

 

The 'best' theory I've heard since, is when I was in Melbourne and talking with a fellow about his group which would 'squat/tresspass' on abaondoned buildings, put up an art exhibit, and then move on when the police came and took everything down... (I think there's a European equivalent...).

 

How did he deal with the loss of the works... "They're just pretty pictures in the end, nothing more'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

 

 

The simple concept is that the photograph (the image or sensory component of it) is reality. It is already reality, in no need of any additional layer of representation. We can treat this as a definition, rather than a question.

 

 

I would say that intelligence is suffused in every layer of the universe around us. Even the most gross, particular, material layer. So just as the enlightened may see it (intelligence) everywhere, and potentially, personified, so the photographer, hence cinematographer, may find it.

 

So, if reality is to do with what we can actually see...what layer are we capable of seeing. In the limit (using that word like in a piece of calculus) one may start believing exclusively in the reality of the observable, but if refinement, the repeated, the reiteration is allowed, one should find that the refinement in perception of the object has played a part in the redefinition of the observer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

 

I would say that intelligence is suffused in every layer of the universe around us. Even the most gross, particular, material layer. So just as the enlightened may see it (intelligence) everywhere, and potentially, personified, so the photographer, hence cinematographer, may find it.

 

So, if reality is to do with what we can actually see...what layer are we capable of seeing. In the limit (using that word like in a piece of calculus) one may start believing exclusively in the reality of the observable, but if refinement, the repeated, the reiteration is allowed, one should find that the refinement in perception of the object has played a part in the redefinition of the observer

 

Yes indeed - every layer of the universe is suffused with intelligence - and the material world is no exception. If reality is to be found in the visible, its not a visibility limited to a single moment in time, but a visibility at any time, be it through repetition. iteration or the arrival of something entirely new. Indeed even the repeated is not identical with that which is repeated. There is a difference between one beat of the drum and two. The intelligence in a rythym is not to be found in any single beat.

 

And to speak of the visible is not to exclude the potentially visible, (the hidden). The potentially visible, or hidden, belongs to the domain of the visible. For all that holds the hidden and the visible apart is the time chosen. The photograph in a shoebox is no less visible, sitting in a shoebox. To open the box is to prove it's visibility. But this visibility does not depend on such proof. We can propose. It remains visible (potentially visible) regardless of any actual observation.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a great moment in Welle's F For Fake, in which he describes the potential fate of a medieval cathedral, potentially still standing there when all of humanity has long gone. The photography moves across the surface of the cathedral, selecting various marvellous details, while the sound echoes some distant murmur (the wind?). Welle's narration gives to this peaceful survey a significance which, he suggests, would be there whether anyone was there to appreciate it or not. Indeed the significance he accords the cathedral, becomes more pronounced, the more one considers it standing there without anyone left to ever see it.

 

A testament to those who built the cathedral, even if there was no-one left to understand it.

 

This accords with the concept of a visible without any need of an observer.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

... If reality is to be found in the visible, its not a visibility limited to a single moment in time, but a visibility at any time, be it through repetition. iteration or the arrival of something entirely new. Indeed even the repeated is not identical with that which is repeated. There is a difference between one beat of the drum and two. The intelligence in a rythym is not to be found in any single beat.......

 

 

This re-iteration reference (of mine) has nothing to do with time. As an experience, yes, re-iterative perception of an object may occur in the individual's experience within what other's may percieve as measurable time. But as experience floats toward more subltle layers, chronological time is not an absolute. One may not be able to meaningfully meter the timeline of those experiences.

 

The reference to the idea of (re)iteration is trying to provoke thought about how our awareness traverses from gross to more subtle fields of awareness. Time is not a problem in this model, this hopefully provocative idea. It (time) is not rigid, but almost completely plastic.

Edited by Gregg MacPherson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This re-iteration reference (of mine) has nothing to do with time. As an experience, yes, re-iterative perception of an object may occur in the individual's experience within what other's may percieve as measurable time. But as experience floats toward more subltle layers, chronological time is not an absolute. One may not be able to meaningfully meter the timeline of those experiences.

 

The reference to the idea of (re)iteration is trying to provoke thought about how our awareness traverses from gross to more subtle fields of awareness. Time is not a problem in this model, this hopefully provocative idea. It (time) is not rigid, but almost completely plastic.

 

Sounds good to me.

 

I have an affinity with the concept of experiences in which there's no necessity to anchor such in terms of any particular individual's experience. There are experiences that have a certain share-ability. And in that sense escape the confines of any particular perspective on such. Experience is not in any personal awareness as such. It has a certain extra-personal aspect. It creates awareness rather than requires awareness. It is the origin of awareness.

 

And certainly chronological time is not being implied in any elaboration of time I was posing. In the beat of a drum, for example, there is no necessity for any chronological organisation of such. Time as a rythym, or as a duration, rather than a once-upon-a-time-happy-ever-after organisation of time. Music is very much an expression of time in this sense. It doesn't depend on any narrative. The tick-tock of a grandfather clock, in which time is in the tick-tock, rather than in any particular sequence of numbers on the clock face.

 

Time as that which one might experience in the waiting room of a hospital. It is not chronology one experiences. It is duration. One shifts in one's seat. Looks at a magazine. Glances at the news on a TV. In no particular order, for the order does not determine time. For it is not time that occurs within narrative. It is narrative, if and when it occurs, which occurs within time.

 

Time as plastic. Definitely.

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil posted one of my favorite Caravaggio paintings (beheading of Holofernes). Caravaggio's use of chiaroscuro is practically what got me interested in cinematography.

Paintings, movies, photographs, even music and textures can inspire a style for lighting and composition. I've always been a Caravaggio fan because his works are so crisp and contrasty.

I really like researching old photographs when studying light. Even if it's not a period piece, there's something about old candid photos that brings me inspiration. In regards to the discussion of realism in cinematography... styles seem to be varying more than converging. With the flexibility of our tools today it seems like the trajectory is one of growing eclecticism.

 

Building-a-Model-Airplane-Texas-1942.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kodachrome?

 

My favorite images, but I've never shot on it.

 

For anyone interested Frank Glencairn has a nice article and LUT.

 

https://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/everything-looks-better-on-kodachrome-k-tone-lut/

 

Are any of those images in the article actually digitally acquired and made with the LUT in question? If so they do look pretty good. If not, it's a bit hard to make any judgement on the digital/LUT pipeline.

 

Generally I find mimicing another technology is really silly, but obviously there will be valid exceptions. That said I'm always intrigued by this sort of work. The desire to mimic. And the technical means pursued to get it just right. There's something to be appreciated in such. Not the look itself per se, but the act of emulating such. The challenge of it. It's also the well defined framework in which such operates. The historical record provides clear criteria for judging the methods involved.

 

But in that well defined framework is also a kind of security blanket of sorts. A kind of safe house. And as result, a kind of blindness.

 

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Tim Tyler changed the title to Painters and Their Art As References

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

FJS International

Film Gears

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Serious Gear

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...