Danny Lachman

Everyday I browse on the internet I find a vast amount of photos from the "strobist" movement. These photographers are called strobists because they use primarily flash units to light their photos and the look is very distinctive: http://flickr.com/search/?q=strobist&w=all The reason I'm irritated with them is because they all think they're artists, but really they are all just xerox machines of a particular style. The mind frame they have is materialistic - they treat strobe lighting in their pictures like an extension of their equipment. I don't know how to explain it exactly, but an analogy might help: In order to make a great film you have to have Hollywood style cinematography. These people think that simply putting clean strobe lights in their photos is the final step in creating great photographs. Not to say strobes are bad, the light quality is very nice and I use them too, but I don't rely on them entirely. What if strobes stopped working all around the earth forever? I bet most of these "photographers" wouldn't know how to continue making good photographs. This makes me think of a particular photographer - Gregory Crewdson - he is in many ways the same as the strobists because he lights everything hollywood style. I find him ultra repulsive because he relies on an entire crew with movie equipment to create his "vision": I've seen his work and I know what he is trying to do. He's trying to create a moment of tension and make it look important. I don't think he really needs that lighting to get the idea across - If anything, the lighting in his stuff is obtrusive and distracting. The photos ideas are vastly overshadowed by their technical perfection. You can tell he's trying to show a deeper frustration but it's more of a side note in the photographs. In all, Strobists and Gregory Crewdson rely heavily on what society deems as good lighting - the hollywood style. It's not creative, it's actually quite limiting to think you have to conform to those standards. These people use lighting as more of a stamp on their images that says: "I'm a good photographer because I know how to give my images stylistic lighting" This frame of mind is what clearly marks posers from the real deal. Of course, if I were to present this idea to a strobist, it would be similar to an Aetheist trying be logical with a Christian. All the strobist thinks about is whether an image looks good or not - they don't like to question things because they have found something that makes them feel secure as photographers. They would probably think I'm some arsty fartsy prick. It's just that I've seen work that is better than what strobists do. Can anyone else describe similar things in the motion picture industry?

I'm glad that people like walter graff and others seem to agree about the equipment obsession. I pretty much learned my lesson this year after buying a bunch of grip equipment and camera stuff for my photo shoots (film). Most of it is useless and gets in the way of creating a great shot. A lot of my friends are raving about the RED and other digital cameras and I've become disgusted with their obsession. I used to be a techy too, and that's all I cared about. However, I went to art school and started to realize that the end product is the most important thing, and I saw my equipment as actually holding me back because of the way I sought how to use all of my equipment. Mark Twain once said "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" Now I just have lots of equipment that I can sit on. I'm glad I opened this discussion, I'm trying not to be part of the xerox generation.

Professional films provide cinematographers with every tool imaginable and the man power to use them. However for amateurs we have to be even more resourceful in terms of using equipment, but there many items out there that try to advertise themselves as being needed on set that really aren't. So what do we really need? Obviously a creative and resourceful mind, but equipment wise are there any general decisive things to keep in mind when getting the bare essentials? What I'm getting at is that equipment seems to often to easily get in the way of being a good cinematographer. If you get too much you can do lots, but it slows you down. If you get too little than your just screwed. I wanted to get some ideas about the things we should really be concentrating on in amateur shoots in terms of what we need to get the job done. A lot of people seem to get an equipment obsession, especially on the internet, where you can go immediately to a site to check out prices and specs on upcoming technology. I worry that this holds a lot of people back.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/18703513@N07/ My stuff's kind of tacky in putting it all together.

I have a feeling that this hype about digital is sort of fad. I agree with the first statement about the formats working simultaneously in the industry. I think the mentality of a lot of people about how digital will obliterate film use off the crust of the earth is a fad. While I can't fully back my argument, I just get this sense judging on what we've seen in history. For example when photography first came about and people first used it to recreate pictorialist style paintings, then steichen came along and shot photography as it's own medium. Sort of like how digital right now is trying to become cinematic but it's still deeply rooted in the culture as a reality medium for reality shows.

I'm sorry but why Delicatessen? I really found that to be one of the most pretentious art films I've ever seen.

I'm just going to put a link to the MORE short film for convenience if you haven't see it yet: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qo3mnXGbJlg that's what this list is ultimately for anyways.

Usually favorite films are chosen because someone wants to look like they have good taste or they see something in the films that reflects their interests - mine are the latter. La Femme Nikita (perfect blend of art, action, and story for me + it's just overall beautiful) Luc Besson French version BTW MORE - an Academy Award nominated claymation short film about happiness Fargo - I can't describe what it is about this film that makes it so great Braveheart - It is just such an inspiring film about scots standing up to the king of england. I would put one last one but a ton of films are tied for 5th place so nothing here.

I know Johnny Martin, I've worked on 2 movies with him when I was doing boom operating. He sings phrases of popular songs without melody randomly on set - very weird but funny. Part of the hard part about working in Louisiana is that it's hard to find good examples to follow when working on set. For instance, I've worked in camera and sound on a bunch of features and the only ones that set me straight were the crews from New York and North Carolina. I have to say that working as a camera assistant for New York people is like AC boot camp. Anybody know of any features looking for camera PAs in louisiana this summer?

About Gregory Crewdson... his goal is to get really well lit and super super sharp images - just my opinion but none of his photographs seem to have any soul - they are all dead inside, and while that may be his artisitic motif, I don't think all the perfect lighting and sets really need to be there to get that across. They almost seem like a mockery of "hollywood" lighting. I'm not even interested in what's going on as much as I am looking at the lighting. I think this carries well into the cinematography world and is relevant because too often you find DPs or general indie film makers who want to make everything look "hollywood" for the sake of looking professional with 0 artistic thought. Crewdson is the pinnacle of image "perfection" but who gets anything out of them being that way? Something to consider for both photographers and cinematographers. (BTW - Crewdson hires movie crews including a DP to light his shots for him)

In short, I could understand the term videographer being a dirty word - because the word has associations with weddings, news, porn, etc. Most of those practices are mainly run by money and not artistic vision. However, I believe that stereotype will fade in time when the general idea of video becomes associated with artful film as it is starting to do. I don't like being called a videographer, it's just not as classy as calling yourself a film maker.

I guess I don't understand why you need the exact numbers.

Is there any practical purpose to this question? I can see why you'd be curious in terms of canceling out differences by changing the relative perspective, but is there some advantage to doing this? All I can see is that you loose resolution trying to match with cropping - what might this provide otherwise? I'm actually curious.

Those look good for what they are - the only critique I have is that the pictures are vague family/home stuff - you should go shoot some interesting things and see how your skills hold up away from home. I mean that in a positive way.

Though kind of nifty - that's way overly cumbersome. Why can't you just memorize the approximate focus distance?

I've got an Angenieux zoom 12-120 F 2.5 that has the front two elements broken - the rest of the glass is fine though. I was actually able to shoot with it when zoomed in. It was broken about a year ago when dropped onto a carpeted floor - then used as a prop to be broken again - thus the two front broken elements. It still functions mechanically and has both front and back caps. $65 OBO shipping not included. I have pictures as well. thanks - I figure somebody might have use for this. Paypal please.

Luc Besson, in terms of seeing someone with total freedom and control over what he is shooting. On that note, I got to work as a camera PA with on a Vilmos Szigmond but I learned nothing because I was just a bitch making Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches for the camera dept. I did get Vilmos a Cafe au lait, but that was about the most of my contact - it was pretty dissapointing.

I had to comment on the paying your dues part. You only have to pay dues until you realize that your the only person who can get you where you want to be.

I browsed through the forums but didn't find anything that summed or specifically hit on this question: When Shooting on film to go to digital, Are there any rules of thumbs in regards to exposing the film for limitations in digital? My concern/ignorance is in the ability of digital scanners to read information on film negatives in regards to latitude range, and how to optimize the original exposure for digital. Currently, my thought is that I would try to keep the lighting ratio very narrow so that the digital can pick it all up. I hope this was not a stupid question. thanks

Does anybody have advice or knowledge in regards to "stale supermarket lighting"? For example - ONE HOUR PHOTO - I'm interested in recreating the aesthetic I get when walking into a very clean supermarket store like Brookshire's or Kroger - It's a very clean lighting often accenting in a superficial ways the fruit section and frozen dinner isles. Thanks

Couldn't quite get the thought down in the last post - so here goes - A photographer has a head-start in cinematography, but not necessarily any more potential.

Photographers know exposure, but not necessarily consistency. The mind set between photography doesn't translate directly into cinematography - cinematography is all about creating series of images that go together in context and photography is usually all about being out of context. I don't think anybody who strictly does photography or cinematography would transition quickly into the other craft because you become trained into a mind set of how to make the most effective images with your selected craft - adding/subtracting the time dimension is just that - an entirely new dimension to consider in your approach. I'm not saying a photographer couldn't transition into cinematography and make good stuff, but I think they would probably take some time to shake off the bad habits/ unoriginal types of techniques every one does. Like how an amateur photographer would at first think it's really cool to take every photo with a dutch tilt (shudders), or a cinematographer/editor overdoing the camera shake (shudders). (I moved myself from cinematography into photography) my 2 cents.

The Marantz is a great buy - you can record the audio uncompressed on the XD Cards. I've worked with DAT and the DIVA, and the Marantz is great - I personally feel that the microphone is what makes the biggest difference. Just as a disclaimer I've only boomed on 3 movies so yeah.

I've just ordered a 12' by 12' with a china silk and the one part I didn't understand clearly from the last post is the tying a rope to the sandbags - could someone explain this a little more clearly? Thanks.

I agree with patrick on that aspect of really old film camera's lookin good - it's just their nature - since the film does all the image work. I'd just like to add though, that I've had access to tons of digital cameras and 35mm adapters, and no matter what we do - the images are just not as entertaining as film. Digital seems more like a way of promoting a visual display of the potential of a movie - so when others notice, they'll put up money for you to shoot on high quality cameras. Just my two cents