Jump to content

The Colours of Woody Allen's Paris and Rome


Recommended Posts

A slight detour from a few of the more recent posts above this one I have a few things to ask about, but spot on as an answer to this whole thread is a brief tutorial colourist Juan Melara wrote in October 2015 about the look of Midnight in Paris:

 

http://juanmelara.com.au/midnight-in-paris-reverse-engineering-the-grade

 

Here is something I don't understand: If a Kodak 2383 LUT with the D55 whitepoint means modifying, warming the digitized imagery by changing its white balance to 5500 K, how come picking a whitepoint lower than the actual one, the one under which the film was shot, ends up in warming the imagery?

 

If "Moderatly Overcast Sky" has a white balance of between 6500 and 8000 K and "Shade or Heavily Overcast Sky" between 9000 and 10000 K, how come picking the daylight one ("Daylight with Clear Sky (sun overhead)" is between 5000 and 6500 K) ends up in warming the imagery?

 

I thought that picking a white balance higher than the one you shoot in ends up in warming the image, and picking the lower one end up in cooling it.

 

I'm a bit confused. :blink:

Edited by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm confused too, so don't worry.

 

Certainly if you actually picked D55 as your white point for the monitor and the material was graded for D60 or something higher, it would look warmer.

 

If you can understand the discussion here, it may yield some light on the subject, but the gist seems to be that the actual projector light in theaters measures closer to 5500K?

http://www.lightillusion.com/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=11&topic=73

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't understand why he used a print emulation LUT when the image he is matching to almost certainly didn't go through the print stage. Presumably, all the video masters were scanned from negative or interpositive sources, not a film print. But whatever, as long as it looks right in the end. Colorists are weird.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, David, for the link. I certainly did understand something, but not a lot. Perhaps someone will pop up and enlighten us.

 

In the meantime, let me try the Satsuki approach.

 

I was watching this scene and was wondering if any of you could tell me what's going on with this scene when it comes to lighting? Looking at the shadows, why are some of them missing? For example, if I look at Owen Wilson and Marion Cottilard, I think light is hitting them from above and from behind. But if you look at the street lamp at the extreme left of the frame, it seems to be lit by a slightly different light. Then there's the prostitute in black (how weird, I only now notice that one is dressed in red, the other in black, and the third one in white, perhaps a coincidence), who seems to be lit from her right side. But then there's the prostitute in white and the street lamp next to her, yet that light is creating no shadows from Owen and Marion.

 

vlcsnap_2016_01_15_09h13m56s766.png

 

By the way, Satsuki, have you thought about that scene with Carla and Owen in the Square Jean XXIII?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I was watching this scene and was wondering if any of you could tell me what's going on with this scene when it comes to lighting? Looking at the shadows, why are some of them missing? For example, if I look at Owen Wilson and Marion Cottilard, I think light is hitting them from above and from behind. But if you look at the street lamp at the extreme left of the frame, it seems to be lit by a slightly different light. Then there's the prostitute in black (how weird, I only now notice that one is dressed in red, the other in black, and the third one in white, perhaps a coincidence), who seems to be lit from her right side. But then there's the prostitute in white and the street lamp next to her, yet that light is creating no shadows from Owen and Marion.

 

vlcsnap_2016_01_15_09h13m56s766.png

 

--------------------------------------------

 

There are lots of different lighting units used here all motivated from different sources and thus coming from different angles. You could say that each actor has their own unique key light. Let's start from the background and work our way forward. In the far background on camera right, the waiter is lit from the left by a light coming through the window. It appears to be a fairly hard source, possibly a fresnel from inside the cafe, aimed above the yellow curtain.

 

In the mid-background, the woman in the red dress is toplit from another fairly hard source (see how the shadow falls), possibly a small fresnel rigged above her or more likely a practical light like an MR-16 globe built into the location. There is another similar source immediately to the right on the pillar which is just catching the woman the black dress with the edge of its beam. And behind the same woman is another toppy hard source on the yellow poster. This one has a hard cut on it that looks like barn doors, so it most likely is actually a fresnel.

 

In front of all of that is a soft, subtle raking 3/4 backlight form camera right that just misses the front of the building and edges the two actors walking through the scene. You can see it reflected on the pavement on camera right behind the foreground woman in the white dress, and it is just picking up a glint on Marion Cotillard's forehead as they are just on the edge of the beam. I suspect that as the shot progresses, they will walk into the edge light. They are also backlit by a fairly large dim source on camera left (see how their shadows fall in front of them on the pavement). You mostly see it on her shoulder, her arm, and her leg, separating her from the background. This is a strategy called back-cross keys, though not used as keylights in this case. by placing two sources as backlights from both left and right, you create a continuous edgelight around the subject. It is used very subtly in this case, but it still adds some dimensionality to the scene and is motivated by street lights at 90 degrees which makes sense since they are at an intersection.

 

Their keylight is a toppy frontal source, probably something like a small softbox fairly high. It is not completely soft, as seen by the shadow on the dress. The light covers them from head to about the waist and then starts to fall off, probably flagged so as not to leave a visible shadow on the ground. The downside of this is that by the time the light gets to their knees, the light has faded off completely. I suspect they walk though the key pretty quickly as they get picked up by the edge light and possible another unseen key off camera right, so they played it dim to the point of almost just being a fill light.

 

Finally, in the foreground on camera right, the woman in the white dress has her own key coming from a classical high 3/4 front angle (again, look at her nose and head shadow). Because she is several feet in front of the walking couple, there is room to keep the key off of them. If they continue to walk behind her, then they will eventually cross the edge light but not the woman's key light. If they cross in front, they will walk through her keylight and lose the edge light which will be flagged by the woman. So watch and see what happens I guess.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

By the way, Satsuki, have you thought about that scene with Carla and Owen in the Square Jean XXIII?

 

You mean this shot?

 

vlcsnap_error418.png

 

It's pretty clearly a large soft key from frame right, which the BTS photo that you linked to shows: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/VNng8xUcPW_/Carla+Bruni+Set+Midnight+Paris+2/Q2_1yGTgagJ/Woody+Allen

 

The key specifically appears to be an HMI in a lighting balloon, but essentially fulfilling the same function as a softbox. There is a 4x4 frame of diffusion in front of the HMI to further soften the shadows. On camera left there appears to be a large frame of bounce material to act as fill on the shadow side, resulting in a low contrast ratio on the faces. There is no sunlight or artificial light on the bounce, so the quality of the fill light is very subtle, what we would usually call a passive bounce. Since the actor on frame right is quite a bit closer to the key, he appears to have a greater contrast ratio than the actress on frame left.

 

So daylight sources (5600K) used all around - key bounce, and the natural ambient light as well as real sunlight on the background. This would indicate that if the film were graded 'normally' the colors would be neutral with no color cast like so:

 

post-5721-0-80016600-1452940605_thumb.jpg

 

I used Photoshop's Color Balance adjustment which approximates what a 3-way color corrector performing a primary adjustment can do. As expected, I added blue to the midtones and subtracted a small amount of magenta. I slightly tweaked the color balance in the shadows and highlights to compensate for any skew due to the large midtone swing. This took me about 30 seconds to do and one global adjustment, so if it was that simple for me to undo, then it must have been even simpler to apply in the first place. The real trick here is putting together all of the elements in the frame, the actors, the location, the quality of the natural light, wardrobe, props, greens, extras, the framing, lensing, additional lighting, and color grading in a pleasing way that supports the story and captures the mood that so impressed you in the first place.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Have you changed your mind now?

 

Not really, I don't see why anyone (especially someone of Khondji's stature) would leave such a substantial change to the look of the picture to the DI, when it can be achieved quite simply through filtration.

 

I'd love to know what the actual answer is though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I'm going from the end upwards.) Yes, I know; this is something David and you mentioned in the very beginning. But here the trick wasn't so much, actually – at all, to reproduce the exact shot, but to give different situations and different shots the same colour treatment. So the locations wouldn't be that much of a problem. The quality of natural light? I don't know. The scene on the bench seems to be from 28 July 2010. On any 28 July in the afternoon, and I think this is afternoon because of the way the sunlight falls onto those two guys in the background, the Sun will be at the same position in the sky. One only has to assure for it to be sunny. And you can't control that. Same would happen with all other locations. The trick is only knowing the date when they shot, or the elevation of the Sun from a shot to be able to calculate when it happened from that data. Wardrobe? Not that much of a problem. Props I could do without or with; they aren't my main thing here. Greens? You mean everything green in the frame or plants? Extras? Fluid. Framing can be approximate, but the point is to apply it to a wide variety of frames, remember. Lensing can be reproduced in film, but less so in still photography. Additional lighting? This one is quite a task. Colour grading is a big key. Unfrtunately, no one's interviewed Joe Gawler to tell us how he did it. And I'm even thinking about if he would say or if it is some sort of secret.

 

Great job, Satsuki, in Photoshop! :) Now I like the shot both ways, even when it's cooler. Why didn't you do it in the first place, but the other way around and on a different, random scene?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You mean this shot?

 

vlcsnap_error418.png

 

It's pretty clearly a large soft key from frame right, which the BTS photo that you linked to shows: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/VNng8xUcPW_/Carla+Bruni+Set+Midnight+Paris+2/Q2_1yGTgagJ/Woody+Allen

 

The key specifically appears to be an HMI in a lighting balloon, but essentially fulfilling the same function as a softbox. There is a 4x4 frame of diffusion in front of the HMI to further soften the shadows. On camera left there appears to be a large frame of bounce material to act as fill on the shadow side, resulting in a low contrast ratio on the faces. There is no sunlight or artificial light on the bounce, so the quality of the fill light is very subtle, what we would usually call a passive bounce. Since the actor on frame right is quite a bit closer to the key, he appears to have a greater contrast ratio than the actress on frame left.

 

Yes, that shot. :) Even in the shadow, cinematographers prefer backlighting. :) (I'm referring to the Sun shining from the west in that scene.)

 

The behind-the-scenes photo is playing tricks on my mind. I thought that the HMI in a lighting balloon was pointed through the diffusion frame towards the bounce panel and that such light is the key light. But now I'm thinking 'Is it pointing towards their legs somewhere?' Where is it pointing to? In any case, I found it interesting to see such a huge light and such a big bounce panel for a scene which I thought was already lit pretty much as they would like it to be lit, and that such huge equipment wouldn't add much. But it did, didn't it? I still can't understand what and why such a huge source and bounce panel were needed.

 

and one global adjustment

 

Which one?

 

 

Not really, I don't see why anyone (especially someone of Khondji's stature) would leave such a substantial change to the look of the picture to the DI, when it can be achieved quite simply through filtration.

 

I'd love to know what the actual answer is though.

 

So you're thinking tobacco or antique-suede filter. How about straw?

 

What do you mean 'would allow such a substantial change to the look of the picture to the DI'? Wouldn't he make sure he got everything right on film in terms of contrast and time of day and stuff like that and then direct the colourist as to how to manipulate the colours?

 

This wasn't a whim of the colourist. Surely Woody talked to Darius all the way back when they filmed Anything Else together, which I heard was warm, but I haven't seen it, so I don't know what the colour palette is, and Darius knew what kind of warmth Woody would like. Woody said in an interview I quoted somewhere how he likes to make everything "red" in postproduction. Surely, this isn't red, though To Rome with Love is a little bit red, so that tells you what kind of thing he mandated. Perhaps to him "red" means "make it warmer". Though I'm surprised he didn't mention yellow, gold, butterscotch (thank you, David), or anything like that.

 

And then wouldn't using filters be much more limiting, especially since something like that is easy to do in post, by the look of things, and the usage of filters can't be corrected, and you have to get it right. It's very fidgety, isn't it? At least, that's the impression I have.

 

So, in the end, you mentioned tobacco and antique suede, and perhaps you will say something about straw, but what about this?

 

Look at the clouds.

 

to-rome-with-love.jpg

 

2ilzv45.png

 

vlcsnap_error489.png

Edited by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't know whether Khondji uses warming filters or not. Even for DP's who do, generally you wouldn't use them for a night exterior where you need the exposure, you'd do the warming in timing and/or in gelling the lights. But I don't know in this case.

 

From my own experience using filters like Corals, etc., I found it was easier to just add the warmth in printing (pre-D.I.) and later in the D.I. rather than deal with an extra filter on the lens. This was because half the time, the dailies colorist accidentally corrected-out the filter effect, and even if he didn't, when I got the first answer print, the timer had corrected out the warmth to start clean and neutral, so I found myself trying to select a combination of printer lights to get back the warmth anyway.

 

Since it seemed so easy for them to add or subtract warmth at the lab, what I started doing was shooting my grey scale at the head of the roll under a light gelled blue, or with a blue filter on the camera -- by correcting that to neutral, then the scene that followed (having pulled the blue filter) had a warm cast without any warming filters.

 

Now if I wanted something a little more complex than straight warming, like that yellow-gold Antique Suede look, or a Chocolate filter, etc. then I'd still use them outdoors when I had a lot of light, but not inside or at night, for those scenes I'd just do my trick with the blue-lit grey scale and figure on tweaking the shade of warmth later in the final color-correction to match that Antique Suede, etc. look.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So given your extensive knowledge and wide experience, what would be some other situations when a filter would be indispensable?

 

My reasoning is that Darius would've said he used filters in the interviews he gave, but he didn't. Would there be reason to hide it? Do cinematographers hide it, considering it to be some sort of secret of the trade?

Edited by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Maybe he didn't mention it because a warming filter is no big deal?

 

As for me, I'd only use a warming filter for a very heavy effect when I wanted to seriously push the image away from the blue channel (or layer, if film) and was worried about picking up noise or grain from such a heavy correction. But then I'd be committed, it would be hard to remove the heavy filter effect without picking up noise or grain.

 

And being heavy, it would make more sense in daylight situations where I had a high light level to compensate for the filter factor. For low-light stuff, I'd stick to warming it up with lighting and/or post correction.

 

An example of where a heavy filter would be useful would be on a western where you wanted to use a heavy Chocolate or Sepia to get rid of all of the blue colors, almost desaturating the image towards brown. Of course, I think one could still do this in post today but I might be tempted to bake that into the day exterior work by using a filter. Or not.

 

It's more the run-of-the-mill warming filters that I don't see the need for, especially the lightest like an 812 filter or an 1/8 Coral, a colorist could easily add or subtract such a look with a tiny turn of a knob, so why deal with an extra piece of glass in the matte box that might create double-reflection problems, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, dear, I really don't like that brown western look. Something similar popped up in Google image search when I typed "antique suede" a few minutes ago. I didn't like that look at all.

 

I keep watching that scene above shot on location at the Villa of the Quintilii, and I'm torn: at times it seems as if there was some sort of pinkish (I presume coral) filter involved, but then I look at the sky in that frontal-sunlight wide shot, and it might have been keyed out in colour correction. But then I look at the first and second picture above, where Ellen Page and Lino Guanciale are checking a photo on their Canon, where the first image is a movie still, and there the sky is quite pink, and the filter question comes up again.

 

If it were coral, what coral might that have been specifically?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do. :)

 

But the Villa of the Quintilii scenes don't appear yellow. Pink. Perhaps magenta.

 

Oh, well. One day Mark Kenfield and I will find out. :)

 

By the way, for all the fans of the dolly grip on the phone: here he is again! :lol:

 

http://roma.repubblica.it/cronaca/2011/08/31/foto/il_set_di_woody_allen_a_villa_dei_quintili-21095807/1/

 

With the phone!

 

You can also see Darius Khondji and the chief camera operator Daniele Massaccesi in the same photo.

 

Every once in a while when it comes to these two films you think you got the main gist covered, and then there comes a gallery like that, and you wonder what on earth did that diffusion mattress serve for in those scenes, when in the film you just can't see it, and why is the light directed towards the interiors of the villa yellow just after sunset yet white in the night. :blink:

Edited by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

(I'm going from the end upwards.) Yes, I know; this is something David and you mentioned in the very beginning. But here the trick wasn't so much, actually at all, to reproduce the exact shot, but to give different situations and different shots the same colour treatment.

 

The point I was trying to make is that the image that you enjoyed so much is the sum total of many, many choices made in pre-production and also on the day of shooting by many artists, craftspeople, and technicians. Yes, if you just want to deconstruct all of the technical elements and copy the image after the fact like a lesser painter making forgeries of Monet or Vermeer, then that is usually not too difficult, as I think we have all demonstrated. But to be able to combine those elements into something new, to express something inside yourself, and move people with what you have created from your imagination - that is what the best filmmakers do.

 

Yes, in the beginning, understanding the technical side of how something was done is important. But once we understand the method, the more important question becomes why that choice was made in the first place. In this way, we can start to understand the artist's thought process and begin to formulate our own. And that is really at the heart of cinematography and filmmaking.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Do you have Photoshop? I would recommend that you try downloading some frames from the film and trying to color grade these shots from the film yourself. First, balance them back to neutral using only the Color Balance adjustment tool. Then try to re-create the same warm look again with the same tool. It should be a simple reverse process. Once you do this, I think this will all begin to make a lot more sense to you. There's a limit to how much you can understand by only reading. You need actual hands-on experience to go further.

 

A primary correction (aka global correction) in color grading simply means an adjustment that affects the entire image. So a primary color balance would affect all colors in RGB/CMY across the frame. If you wanted to only affect the green trees and reduce their saturation while keeping the reds and blues as is, then this would be called secondary correction. Stick with primaries for now until you get the hang of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point I was trying to make is that the image that you enjoyed so much is the sum total of many, many choices made in pre-production and also on the day of shooting by many artists, craftspeople, and technicians. Yes, if you just want to deconstruct all of the technical elements and copy the image after the fact like a lesser painter making forgeries of Monet or Vermeer, then that is usually not too difficult, as I think we have all demonstrated. But to be able to combine those elements into something new, to express something inside yourself, and move people with what you have created from your imagination - that is what the best filmmakers do.

 

Oh, I don't know how we came to this, and it kind of makes me both sad, and wary, and frustrated. I feel like it's all my fault in trying to explain what I want, and it somehow ends up in a totally different world of its own, and I don't know how.

 

OK, I think we sorted out the whole reverse engineering process of how Midnight in Paris was done. I think Juan Melara explained it as best he can and in the best manner possible with what we know. So that part is over.

 

Rome is a bit undecided yet. No one is stating their best educated guesses regarding the pink highlights. In due course, I'm sure that one will be sorted out, too.

 

You told me my approach was wrong. It probably was when I poured a thousand questions at once, but at that time, I thought that that was the best way possible to do it. I didn't want to keep nagging all the time.

 

Which is what I feel I'm doing right now. I hope you all aren't too annoyed.

 

Because I have a thing or two to sort out regarding lighting in this film that I feel weren't clarified in any interview or anything such.

 

So may I ask?

 

I feel like I should. Look at what happened with Carla Bruni and Owen Wilson scene. After my second try, a lot was clarified. We still haven't determined what that light is pointing towards, but I'm sure we will. Something I asked about with some other minor matters in one of the previous posts after yours.

 

Now that I think about it, I feel like I've already said this before. This whole 'We're past colour correction: now we're at lighting'. I'll try to find that post.

Yes, in the beginning, understanding the technical side of how something was done is important. But once we understand the method, the more important question becomes why that choice was made in the first place. In this way, we can start to understand the artist's thought process and begin to formulate our own. And that is really at the heart of cinematography and filmmaking.

 

Well, yes. I never stopped anyone from stating his or her opinion on why this film looks the way it does. I would like to know, but no one offered to reply, to try to decipher 'why that choice was made in the first place'. I'd love to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The level of precision you want in learning these things were done could only be answered directly by the people who did the work -- we can only make general guesses and clearly that's not good enough for you.

 

All I can say is that ultimately you would be better off concentrating on the general principles if the goal is to apply this to your own work, because none of us ever can recreate all of the circumstances that produced a very specific result, nor should perfect mimicry be any artist's goal. So I am hard-pressed to figure why you need to know exactly how a certain shade of pink was achieved in the highlights when we have already told you that this can be done in post color-correction.

 

As for exactly which knobs to turn on which software, either you need to be trained by a colorist to become a colorist, or you need to spend a lot of time with some color-correction software yourself and learn. Some cinematographers are skilled with color-correction software but most us just have basic skills at that for doing personal work and rely on an experienced colorist when doing a professional project. So all I have to do is tell the colorist the effect I am trying to achieve and let them figure out which knobs to turn. If I want the highlights to have a different color cast than the shadows, then that's what I ask for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The level of precision you want in learning these things were done could only be answered directly by the people who did the work -- we can only make general guesses and clearly that's not good enough for you.

 

All I can say is that ultimately you would be better off concentrating on the general principles if the goal is to apply this to your own work, because none of us ever can recreate all of the circumstances that produced a very specific result, nor should perfect mimicry be any artist's goal. So I am hard-pressed to figure why you need to know exactly how a certain shade of pink was achieved in the highlights when we have already told you that this can be done in post color-correction.

 

As for exactly which knobs to turn on which software, either you need to be trained by a colorist to become a colorist, or you need to spend a lot of time with some color-correction software yourself and learn. Some cinematographers are skilled with color-correction software but most us just have basic skills at that for doing personal work and rely on an experienced colorist when doing a professional project. So all I have to do is tell the colorist the effect I am trying to achieve and let them figure out which knobs to turn. If I want the highlights to have a different color cast than the shadows, then that's what I ask for.

 

That's because my premise was wrong, not my attitude. I thought cinematographers are schooled in colour correction. Which, now obviously, they're not. I thought they gave very precise instructions to the colourist. But they don't.

 

I already said that the software part of questioning is over.

 

I just don't get this constant onslaught of posts trying to paint me as a villain for asking something in detail. Especially since I was polite, I tried carefully not to be annoying (though that, it seems, didn't go as well as I thought, for unknown reasons), and I said that we settled about 90 % of the software stuff. Who knows, maybe a colourist pops up and resolves the remaining 10 % with his best knowledgeable guess.

 

Knowledgeable guesses were all that was asked for. Not fireproof exactness. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's lots of stuff taken out of context which might be worth thinking about:

 

I wanted him to describe the approach to colours in both films as something else other than “warm” and that I wanted him to tell me what he thinks might have been done in the various options

 

 

You talk here about wanting things from people. It sounds like you expect answers!

 

 

I don’t want this to sound blunt and confrontational, because it isn’t intended to, but let us remind ourselves that you talked about production design in a subforum dedicated to colour correction in a topic about the specifics of colour correction of two films.

 

He talked about it elsewhere so he now owes it to you to reply here about this.

 

I asked twice about the film. You haven’t replied.

 

He owes you a reply?

 

I ask to tell me the specifics. Have in mind that I am not only talking to you, but that I think that perhaps some other people, too, will chime in.



Sounds demanding.

 

Great job, Satsuki, in Photoshop! Now I like the shot both ways, even when it's cooler. Why didn't you do it in the first place, but the other way around and on a different, random scene?

 

Great job but not good enough for you?

 

I already said that the software part of questioning is over.

 

You make it sound like an interrogation! This made me laugh in fact! ;)

 

 

I've posted this in the hope that it will help you see how you are coming across when people are going out of their way for you. It's obviously all taken out of context but it creates a weird atmosphere which is probably the opposite of what you intend.

 

People are not making lots of attacks on you they are being polite and trying to help you.

Edited by Freya Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's lots of stuff taken out of context which might be worth thinking about:

 

 

You talk here about wanting things from people. It sounds like you expect answers!

 

 

 

He talked about it elsewhere so he now owes it to you to reply here about this.

 

 

He owes you a reply?

 



Sounds demanding.

 

 

Great job but not good enough for you?

 

 

You make it sound like an interrogation! This made me laugh in fact! ;)

 

 

I've posted this in the hope that it will help you see how you are coming across when people are going out of their way for you. It's obviously all taken out of context but it creates a weird atmosphere which is probably the opposite of what you intend.

 

People are not making lots of attacks on you they are being polite and trying to help you.

 

So now explain to me why did you go to such efforts – completely wrong, by the way – to paint me as villainous, trolling, and annoying? I'm intrigued.

 

Wanting is demanding. Wanting is wishing. Hoping. You are looking at the wrong synonym.

 

He talked about it elsewhere so he now owes it to you to reply here about this.”

 

Come again? I didn't understand this. :blink:

 

But it is interesting that you should mention this. We came a long way from blaming production design to me posting to you all the recipe by Juan Melara. Imagine if I hadn't insisted this much. We'd be far, far away from bringing this to a close. The thread would have been hanging from a cliff unfinished.

 

Sounds demanding.”

 

Does it? You are imagining things. Asking may be interpreted as asking for help. Is that demanding?

 

Great job but not good enough for you?”

 

How on Earth did you get this idea?! :lol: Funnily enough, no one's paying attention to the fact that I was honestly thankful to Satsuki. I just asked how come he didn't mention his prowess in PhotoShop back when we were talking about those production values there up there. Just a curiosity.

 

Anyway, Freya, let's not get into this anymore, because, simply, trying to make me look bad when I had no such intentions at all is offensive and wrong. It's rude. It's persecutory.

 

I'm going to ask questions. People will reply if they wish. And they did. Just look how detailed and inspired Satsuki was when talking about the lighting of that scene in Place Pigalle. He answered in even more detail than I was hoping for. And I truly appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...