Tobias Marshall

Care to elaborate on why you think this way? What happens when a "top" cinematographer shoots a TV pilot, or a high end commercial? Is he now not a cinematographer? Exactly, his title relates to the project, however a person has the right to label themselves as a Cinematographer but only if they have shot something in the 'top' (I do not relate this to budget or gravitas)form of the visual arts - Cinema. Some title/honor has to be reserved for this. Short Films with this in mind included. But also the role encompasses a tight visual collaboration between costume and production designers, also maintaining a style of shooting with the Director whilst lighting (the crux). He is the artistic chief of the technicians, who the director relies on to help get his vision on screen. If the Director doesn't know the answer the Cinematrographer should. (yes DP's do the same) Right this could be the 'pompos' bit, I feel Cinematrograher has to be someone who is able to work with film, but not necessarily uses it at every given moment, but atleast as experience. Film or exposing a latent image is the greatest test for any photographer (Ansel Adams would agree), once you set that stop you have to know without actually seeing what is on that negative for the perfect exposure. For me this is photography. We are moving away from the art in this digital age. However if A Cinematographer works on for example: a outside boardcast, he is a Lighting Camerman (he hasn't lost his above status) for that project. It would be ridiculous for him to be credited as Cinematographer. Here come the tricky part for my argument!, I feel those who shot the Dekalog and Band of Brothers were Cinematographers for that project, although made for TV. I could argue that they are both 10 hour features, but thats a whole new discussion!

I believe the term 'Cinematographers' to only be viable to the top echelon of Camermen in regard to format and distribution. Basically shot on film and shown in theatres. I would argue a DoP lights for television where as a Cinematographer lights for Features.

Idziak uses colored grad and ND filters heavily. Color gels on lights too. Most of the look is done in camera. Are coloured grad 85A, B, C etc., but have a different density at top to bottom? How do you feel about colour in your work David, is it dependant on the project or do you have perticular style where colour is concerned?

After watching The Double Life of Veronique and Three Colours: Blue recently I have become more interested with his style, something I may look at in his 'Hollywood' pictures to see if he has maintained his vivid use of colour. I mention the above films as I feel one is excuted perfectly, while the other difficult to accept at times. The Double Life of Veronique look is yellow, the film is set in autumn however the colour is so strong and even over the negative. I found it difficult to accept, just that bit too far. The overall lighting is beautifully soft and natural (I fell in love with Irene Jacob because of how he lit her!), as in Blue, where I feel the colour works to an advantage - not distracting the viewer, used with more contrast (The colour isnt as even over the Negative) and more subtle use of blues. I'm sure this style was deliberate so I'm wondering why it was made so overt in The Double Life of Veronique. Also I would like to know was it done in camera, filters/gels or in post (Or a combination). Any other information on his lighting would be greatly appreciated. Which other cinematographers also use colour to effect? Dante Spinotti work on Manhunter (1986) was also heavy on colour, an excellent film in my opinion.

I'm interested in shooting tests on my stills camera using actual Kodak stocks. I believe there is a tool that can load 35mm stock off a core into a regular SLR cassette. Does anyone know where I can purchase the tools needed, preferably in the UK. Also any other information about this process or ideas will be appreciated.

Are you basically saying that relative distances and focal lenghts that produce a 'similar' sized subject in the frame (Be it a different angle of view) will result in the same DoF. For example, 50mm at 5ft is the same DoF as a 100mm at 10 ft (Same stop for both).

I hope you don't write that in your book! If the image size on the film or sensor is identical and at the same F stop, DOF will be the same regardless of lens focal length! Stephen, Sorry to to contradict, however depth of field relies on three elements: The Focal Length, (Longer equals less) Aperture, (Wider equals less) Subject distance to film plane. (Nearer equals less). Depth of field should never be an insurance, even with large DoF there is only one point that is truley in focus, the rest is acceptable.