Josh Bass

Am I missing something? Some of his work looks better than some of mine, and I make more than that. Quite a bit more if I provide gear. Granted, I'm not really a "DP/cinematographer" except when clients decided to call it that, more like corporate video/ENG/documentary/etc. videographer. Is that the difference? Do "real" DPs have to fighter harder to make the same money as we do for less work? That seems backwards. $265 is really low in my world.

I can tell you that for me, it has been a problem in the past. Having a location/certain angles locked down, shooting in "the dark", and trying to find some way to believably motivate a light source (or several).

The one I always have trouble with is when people are supposed to be in total darkness are there are pools of light or a key light from nowhere.

Sup Y'all? I hardly ever post here! Anyway, if I may offer another perspective: storyboarding, and then making a "mock edit" USING THOSE BOARDS (actually taking the drawings/stills and cutting them together in an NLE), can help you really see how a scene/shots will cut together. On my last little short film, it would have helped me because of the oddball style of the piece, and I could have said "oh I need a shot to get the guy from here to here, and then something to go here, etc." I ended up having to make a fake MCU by zooming in/cropping a wide shot, whereas if I'd boarded/done the mock edit I could have seen I needed to shoot that MCU in the first place. Depending on complexity of scene, a shot list may not bring those those types issues to light, where mock edit/boards will.

Hi. As an avid gamer, and not so great DP, here's an observation: I've never felt that games have gotten soft light right. Say light coming from a window, character lit by that light, shadows always look wrong/wrap doesn't look gentle enough. Also I would like to see the light quality change realistically in terms of softness and output as the character moves closer or farther from that soft source a la the inverse square law. I'm talking in-game engine here where I've never really seen this done right, that I can think of.

Good to know about the sharpness for the future. I've been DPing a friend's short film off and on for about year (WHAT????--yes you read correctly) and we've always had sharpness down so no changing now. Looks good to me with the 24-105 Canon L.

Heres what ive been using... Neutral pp with Contrast all the way down Sharpness all the way down Color sat -2 Anything else untouched Approve?

That makes sense in a from a technical standpoint (especially if handheld), but seems weird that a director or production would be concerned enough about operator comfort to let it ride, seems like it's more of a directorial decision to have the shot composed that way, no? I'm thinking specifically at this moment of an episode of 30 Rock I saw the other night, where Salma Hayek (likely not very tall) was talking to Alec Baldwin. Camera was way below baldwin, but even on her, it was either at her eye level or at chin/neck level. I'm just wondering if most folks agree there's something aesthetically pleasing about people looking slightly over the lens for their eyeline rather than below or at the same level, or if it is usually more flattering for backgrounds (obviously depends on the BG), or what.

What if its used for everyone all the time? That seems to be the case.

So watching various narrative tv shows and movies recently, ive noticed that even in "typical" shots (that is, not a low angle/high angle/sylized shots), and even on closeups, the lens seems to be below eye level, about level with chin/neck. Now that i look for it, i notice it happens a lot. I never think too much about it, and when im shooting usually set lens height to eye level with the subject, but im not seeing this much if ever in high end tv/movie camerawork. Just wondering if theres a reasoning behind it? Insights? Thanks.

Thanks. The kind of shoots I grip on, there is no key. Tiny 2 or 3 man crew shoots is what I mean. I've just heard different things from different people. Just find it fascinating that there is not only different advice out there, but contradictory advice as well.

So, I thought I had all this stuff straight. I'd always heard when setting up a c stand, you put the weight over the longest leg (example, 300w fresnel attached to c stand arm, that arm goes over the long leg), and then you bag the long leg if a bag is deemed necessary. Recently I heard the bag was no good if not touching the ground, and it'd be better to put it one of the lower "back" legs if doing so allowed the bag to touch the ground. I always thought the bag SHOULDN'T be touching the ground, because if it's resting on the ground, it's not really putting weight on the leg at all, it's just there. What's right?

I have an XL2. I did a test years ago involving a light meter, grey card, and a fresnel light. I came out with 320 ISO (though it might have been the XL1s, which I also used to have, that I did the test on so forgive me).

I'm assuming that link is the orange/teal rant? yes, I've read it, and it is cute. And I realize basic color theory says these colors work well together and it's not like you can go purple/magenta instead, but still. . .it's like every trailer, horror, comedy, drama, doesn't matter. . .same gritty aggressive orange/blue look.

Vaguely related to this topic: Is it me or does every movie have the same "look" these days? Talking the mainstream stuff, of course, but not only limited to these. Seems like every movie now is super contrasty, deep orange skin tones, blue everything else, etc. Maybe it's my TV? Maybe it's the way they all look on my TV? Even something a little off the beaten path like "Cedar Rapids" had a somewhat aggressive desaturated look to it. Can't anything just "be" any more? Everything has a "look" to it. No more natural looking colors anywhere.