Adam McDaid

Nick, This is really nice work. There's a nice progression from more interesting/abstract framings into movement and finally great wide/vista shots. I also loved the color palette (more desaturated/bleached out tones) and the subtle use of grad filters. Really nice stuff. I'd hire you. Best, Adam

Hey Nick, I'd love to be considered for your project. Like many of the folks replying to your post, I'm a cinematographer based out of Los Angeles and I'm always willing to travel for a good project. if you'd like to see some examples of my work, please go to the following sites: http://www.thinklab.com/video/alexandra/ and http://www.adammcdaid.com (this site also has my resume, which details my training and experience). Hope to talk to you soon. Best, Adam

I was hoping to get some criticism of a relatively recent project that I'm trying to put the finishing touches on in terms of final color correction. It's a project I shot on 35 as a final degree requirement for my MFA. Any notes would be greatly appreciated. http://www.thinklab.com/video/alexandra/ Thanks, Adam

Hey Francisco, I just finished watching Broken in the narrative section of your reel and was really impressed. What struck me most about your images is that they were always telling me something abut the story and character, which is the most important thing we can do as cinematographers. I have yet to see the film and I got a strong sense of the story and the struggle of this boxer - the pain and loss he feels from losing his father, who, possibly, sacrificed everything for his family. In regards to the images themselves, I found them to be very beautiful. The compositions were beautiful and the operating had a great sense of urgency that was appropriate to the subject matter and the character's struggle. I also loved the desaturated colors in how they evoked the way the protagonist saw his world. How was this accomplished? Did you do some sort of ENR or skip bleach or was it accomplished in a tape to tape color correction? Again, I'm very impressed with your work, and I look forward to checking out the rest of it on your site. Best, Adam

Hey Jason, So good to hear from you man. I really appreciate them because they're quite helpful. Yeah, I think the slow-mo's got to go because, as you correctly guessed, it was accomplished in post rather than in camera. I've been struggling with the new cut and I'll definitely consider the notes. I hear you've been super busy. That's great to hear because that first year out of AFI can be daunting. It gives me hope. Please, keep in touch and let me know what you're up to and if you ever need any help on any projects. See ya, Adam

Thanks so much for the compliment Christie, I appreciate it because I think my stuff needs a ton of work. If you'd like to see another example of my work, go to the following site: http://www.thinklab.com/video/alexandra/. Do you have anything online? I love seeing other people's work because it inspires me and it's always intersting to see how others see things.

Cool, thanks for the notes, I appreciate it. The filckering that you see in the subway shot was an accident that I'm actually happy with. I shot at an unsafe frame rate and caught the flicker of the overhead fluorescent lights. I agree, I need to get some more static wide shots into my reel. Hopefully I'll get a new project that'll help me in this area. Again, thanks for the notes.

I just finished cutting my new reel, but it's far from final, and would love any critique and feedback so I can make a stronger cut. http://www.adammcdaid.com/ Thanks, Adam

I went and saw 300 today. Visually, the film is definitely stunning. The scan lines and artifacts must have been aberrations in the trailer you watched because the print I saw was perfect. 300 is definitely an effects film and serves as a text book example of effects work and the DI process of finalizing a look. The script was kind of lame and certain depictions of good and evil were a bit crazy in terms of perceptions of culture, but, overall, it's a fun popcorn movie.

Thanks for the advice John. I've shot the 5218 before, but I've never had the chance to work with the 5279 and I want to see less into the shadows. In regards to the Skip Bleach, I'm going to avoid it and rate at 1000 and then push 1 stop like you suggested. I want to bring up some grain and contrast. Doing the Skip Bleach in such low light conditions may have proved to be to difficult when considering the limited lighting package I'll be working with. Thanks, Adam

David, Thank you for your advice. However, I have one more question. Would you still do a Full Skip Bleach on the negative when shooting in such low light conditions? I'm only using the available streets lights and a Lite Panel for lighting. Will the shadows go completely black? Will my contrast ratios be too extreme to successfully pull off this type of processing in these types of conditions? Thanks, Adam

I'm shooting a 35MOS as my final MFA requirement in cinematography for AFI next weekend and I had a few questions for those with more experience. For the final day of the shoot, we plan on shooting around Los Angeles streets using available light. My camera is the ARRI 35-3 with the 5279 500T (rated @ 500) and I'll get a little help from a Panel Lite mounted on the camera. I'm also shooting the Zeiss Super Speeds (T1.3) to help me out with the low light conditions. The plan is to shoot wide open in order to have a super shallow depth of field. But, I also was considering doing an 80% Skip Bleach on the negative to bloom all of the sources in the background. I know that I should compensate one stop for the Skip Bleach, but am I insane in shooting this way when working with such low light levels? I won't have a genny on this project, so I need to work with what I've got. Or would I be better off rating the 5279 at 1000, processing normal to achieve more grain and dirtiness and then achieve the Skip Bleach look in the post from my telecine? Unfortunately, I don't have time to shoot a test for this before I shoot and any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Adam

I'm shooting a 35MOS as my final MFA requirement in cinematography for AFI next weekend and I had a few questions for those with more experience. For the final day of the shoot, we plan on shooting around Los Angeles streets using available light. My camera is the ARRI 35-3 with the 5279 500T (rated @ 500) and I'll get a little help from a Panel Lite mounted on the camera. I'm also shooting the Zeiss Super Speeds (T1.3) to help me out with the low light conditions. The plan is to shoot wide open in order to have a super shallow depth of field. But, I also was considering doing an 80% Skip Bleach on the negative to bloom all of the sources in the background. I know that I should compensate one stop for the Skip Bleach, but am I insane in shooting this way when working with such low light levels? I won't have a genny on this project, so I need to work with what I've got. Or would I be better off rating the 5279 at 1000, processing normal to achieve more grain and dirtiness and then achieve the Skip Bleach look in the post from my telecine? Unfortunately, I don't have time to shoot a test for this before I shoot and any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Adam

Thanks for the advice John. -Adam

Any helpful suggestions on bringing up the grain with the 7205? I was considering underexposing by 2/3 of a stop and pushing one stop in the processing. I have a project coming up and would like to go for a much grittier look. Thanks, Adam

David, Thank you for the advice. If I could compare the desired graininess to another film it would have to be 21 Grams by Rodrigo Prieto. I love the grain of that film. It is also a great example of my lighting approach, which will be more naturalistic. I want to implement and augment practical and available lighting as much as possible. That's part of the reason I wanted to underexpose the film and then push it. Any increased stoppage I can buy will make my life a little bit easier on this shoot. I would love to be able to shoot another test, but we load the trucks in less than a week and I have a list a mile high of logistics that need to be taken care of if we hope to shoot this film. What are your thoughts? I would greatly appreciate any more of your insight. Thanks, Adam

I'm ok with the increased contrast because I want a bit more contrast that is sometimes lacking in the 7218, which seems less contrasty to me. I guess I'm trying to determine how much I should push it when considering the film well end up being blown up, which will add more grain to the image. I'm also comfortable with underexposing it by 2/3 of a stop and then pushing one stop because it will still result in a dense negative, which, hopefully, will give me the latitude I need in timing. I'm just new to this and nervous and need to hear about other cinematographers' experiences who have faced similar situations.

I?m about to shoot my thesis film for AFI and I?m going for a grittier, grainy look that reflects the main character?s environment ? a small, depressed and oppressed town. The majority of the film is night interiors with some day interiors and two night exteriors. The plan is to shoot Super 16 and ultimately finish on 35mm. I plan to shoot 7218 and 7205. To achieve more grain and contrast, I was going to underexpose each stock by 2/3 of a stop and then push it one stop in the processing. I tested for this and I liked the quality of the image. But once I spoke to my cinematography chair, Stephen Lighthill, ASC, he thought it would be better to rate the stocks normally and the grain would then be achieved in the blow up. Now I?m confused about the choice I made. It?s not that I don?t trust or value his opinion, I would just love to get some second opinions based on other cinematographers? experiences that have shot a project in a similar fashion.