Ben Schwartz

Hey Annie...I too am currently a film student...I've shot tons of short films over the last few years, some great, some mediocre, some appallingly bad. At this stage in our careers, there's no use getting worked up about clueless directors. It's all about the experience. If you learned just ONE valuable thing on that shoot, if you pulled just a few good shots for your reel...and I'm sure you did...than it was worth it. Just my $.02.

I felt that the DI in House of Flying Daggers was overdone. Particularly evident near the end just before the snow falls...the red foliage on the trees looked hideous!

Whatever. Identifying Parker with Bugsy Malone and Fame is like identifying Bertolucci with Partner, Scorsese with Boxcar Bertha or Coppolla (sic) with The Rain People. Obviously those aren't the "interesting and visceral" films I was referring to. Try Midnight Express, Birdy, Angel Heart and Mississipi Burning. And while I certainly wouldn't place him on the same level as the 3 you mentioned, I just think he deserves more than a C minus. How about a B minus? And hey, I agree with you...Angela's Ashes was beautifully shot. I wasn't comparing it negatively to Sleepy Hollow. But I liked the look of Sleepy Hollow, how the desaturated CCE palette was almost black-and-white except for the odd splash of brilliant blood red, how they relied more on expressive and steady compositions than camera movement, the frequent use of soft single-source illumination.

First, allow me to disagree with 2 things you said: While it's true Parker hasn't made a good movie since Mississipi Burning, I don't know if I'd go that far...he made some pretty interesting and visceral films in the 70's and 80's. There are many ways I would describe Lubezki's work on Sleepy Hollow, but "simple" isn't one of them. Oh well, different strokes for different folks... ;) But now let me second all the other stuff you said about MS...his photography is very often the best thing about the film, including all of his later work with AP. I too was glad to see him recognized for his work on HP3. I'm still interested to hear back from Max about why no one in the UK wanted to work with him.

-Masters of Light (finally) -ROTK Extended -Throne of Blood -- Criterion (my favorite Kurosawa film) Saw the note about Criterion releasing L'Eclisse next year...they are also releasing Kagemusha and Sword of Doom in '05!

Thanks, Bob...that's exactly what grabs me about his work. It's the ability to toe the line between naturalism and stylization. Even HP3 had a rougher, grainier feel to it that balanced out the heavy FX work, which I responded to more than the glossier work of John Seale and Roger Pratt in the first two. Much of his work with Parker seems to have that "naturally stylized" feel...which seems to me like something worth aspiring to, not to mention admiring.

Why's that?

After having been blown away by the cinematography on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (among the best work of 2004), I've been watching a lot of Michael Seresin's work with Alan Parker lately. Just had to give props to this guy...despite a relatively small body of feature work (considering how long he's been at it), his work is consistently engaging, innovative and inspired. Anyone care to share their thoughts?

I recently picked up a good condition used copy of Almendros' book off of half.com for $5!

IMDb says Nic Knowland shot uncredited pickups for David Tatersall on The Phantom Menace!!! :o This is an incredibly beautiful film. It's interesting to see how the visual style of directors who were previously animators - Gilliam, Jeunet, the Quays - is so precise and fetishistic about composition, lighting and mise en scene.

The Polish Brothers are acting in The Bridge of San Luis Rey, directed by Mary McGuickan...that's one of my favorite books, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what the amazing Javier Aguirresarobe did with that one.

This is something I think about all the time. I live in NYC and I'm 6 months away from graduating film school with an MFA in cinematography. I'm 27 years old and worked professionally as a photojournalist for years before school. I don't think I'm cut out for assisting at this point. I've assisted on non-union shoots, but if I were to try to assist full-time after graduating, it would take years just to get to second AC...after I did a year at CSC or Panavision earning just above minimum wage, I'd spend another year in the back of a truck loading. I think assisting is great if you start young -- like early twenties -- and have no pressing debts, real-world commitments or responsibilities. But if you're closer to 30 than 20, involved with someone, paying off debt etc., I think it's a bit late to start at the bottom of the crew ladder. I've also done some G&E work, but there again, you can get so wrapped up in it and used to the steady paycheck that DPing can fall by the wayside if you're not careful. Not too mention I love my girlfriend, and film crewing in my experience is detrimental to relationships...I've met one too many divorced gaffers. So I'm going to try to just shoot all I can, whenever I can, on whatever I can. And yes, I would love a mentor, just someone to shadow and observe...but I think reading the posts on this forum is like being mentored. I've learned so much here that I've been writing down everything that strikes me as important to keep from forgetting it! :D

The films that director Mikhail Kalatozov shot with his DP Sergei Urusevsky (Cranes are Flying, The Letter Never Sent, I Am Cuba) are some of the visually inventive films ever made. I'm not one to make lists, but I would say that they are among the 5 or 10 greatest director-DP duos EVER.

Take a look at Fuji 400T...I think it may get you closest to that desaturated, slightly musty feel of Ratcatcher.

I agree that Savides' work in Birth was stunning. Very warm, very ethereal, nicely underexposed (if only the script was as good!). And Nicole Kidman looked beautiful! Yes, I have lit women with direct top key, but of course I fill in the eyes. I'm not sure I completely agree with the previous posts...I think soft top key with eye fill is anything but unflattering, drab and oppressive. I find it very sensual, almost divine. Check out "Days of Being Wild" -- Chris Doyle uses it repeatedly, and his actresses never look less than stunning. David (Sloan), the method you describe for lighting women is certainly tried and true, but that's a more classical portrait-style of lighting actresses. I was thinking more about using top lighting as a naturally motivated source, kind of that old David Watkin "light the space, not the actor" thing. I was wondering if top lighting was the most logical choice in this approach.

Hi...trying to set the SDX to look most like film...can anyone recommend one or more particular scene file settings that most successfully achieve this?

When lighting both interiors and exteriors, I often find myself keying from the top, straight down Gordon Willis style. This isn't a deliberate choice on my part, but comes from what I perceive to be logically motivated source placement. I love the dramatic, sculpted look of top lighting - Chris Doyle uses it to beautiful effect in a lot of his work with Wong Kar-Wai - but I'm wondering if I do it too much. It seems to me that it should be the most common placement of the key, given how much light, both natural and artificial, comes from above in our world. I was curious how often other people on this forum key from the top straight down, what your thoughts are on the use of top key, etc.

Thank you! This answers all my questions. Mr. Brown's book is interesting, well-designed and informative, but so far I have found numerous errors in it -- both factual and typographical -- and I hope it is corrected in future editions.

Thank you Dominic for your response. Here is why I'm confused. On page 105 of Blain Brown's book "Cinematography: Theory and Practice", table 6.1 shows the relationship between lighting source distance and f-stop. It shows an f-stop of 4 with the source 64 feet away, and a f-stop of 5.6 with the source 32 feet away. Is this a mistake by Mr. Brown? If the distance is doubled, shouldn't the f-stop at 64 feet be 2.8, and not 4? :huh:

I'm reading about exposure and having trouble wrapping my head around the numbers. I never was very good at math. So bear with me if this seems elementary to you. I understand the general principles individually, but I'm still having trouble connecting the dots. Layman's terms are what I need. :blink: Ahem. The inverse square law says that if you double the distance of a subject from its light source, that subject will receive 1/4 the light. But if you double the distance of a light source, the exposure loss is one stop? For example, let's say you're metering at f/5.6 with a source 16 feet away. You move the source to 32 feet away. Now you're metering at f/4. How is it that doubling the distance of a source requires the aperture to be opened one full stop, yet doubling the distance of a subject from its source means that it will receive 1/4 the fc's? Shouldn't something that receives 1/2 the fc's require a full stop of compensation? Next, the cosine law. If you turn a subject away from a source, the decrease in exposure is equal to the cosine of the angle of the surface. Of course I haven't studied geometry since high school, so again, can someone explain this to me? Of course with light meters, I suppose it isn't absolutely necessary to grasp the mathematics of exposure, but I'd like to anyway...

Memories of a Murder was definitely a great film. There was some incredible Steadicam work in it. If you like Oldboy - and I personally did not like it, although there were some sparkles of brilliance, not to mention some truly unforgettable images - check out Park's other films, JSA and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance. Also, there's a Korean film fest later this month at Lincoln Center in NY.

Mr. Mullen, do you think you would have been able to pursue DPing full-time without your wife's support? I apologize in advance if that sounds too prying. It's just that I've heard other DP's say something similar, that they made it through the "tough years" with the help of their spouse.

Panasonic AG-LA7200 16:9 Anamorphic Lens The AG-LA7200 is an anamorphic lens adapter for the AG-DVX100A camcorder. This lens adapter is the highest quality solution for widescreen recording with the AG-DVX100, AG-DVX100A, AG-DVC80 and the PAL versions of those cameras. When attached to the AG-DVX100 or the AG-DVC80, the lens adapter will allow for the highest quality 16:9 aspect ratio recording. Higher quality than the in-camera LETTERBOX or DIGITAL SQUEEZE functions. The converter compresses the horizontal aspect of the image fitting a greater width view onto the CCDs. When viewed on a conventional 4:3 monitor, the image will appear stretched vertically. When viewed on a 16:9 monitor, the image will be a true widescreen picture. Lens was used on one short film for a total of 8 days, so it's like new. With original box, manual and soft case. Sells for $850 new. My price is $600 + shipping. I'm selling this because I need the money... :( benschwartz@excite.com

Wow, that's quite a list. Thanks, David. You aren't kidding about David Watkin -- he obviously had a thing for shooting on Agfa. How has he adapted since they ceased making Agfa stock? Is his later work shot on Fuji 400-T? Arthur Jafa used it twice. Wish he shot more. :( To get that Agfa tone, what filter might you use on top of the 400-T?

I've recently watched Out of Africa and The Mission and was, of course, quite taken with the cinematography in both. I know these films were shot on Agfa XT, which seems to be a more low-con, desaturated stock. I have a few questions if anyone knows the answer(s): 1. What are some other notable films shot on XT? 2. I know Agfa doesn't produce negative stock anymore, but is expired XT still available for purchase anywhere? 3. How does XT compare to 5277 and other more desaturated stocks? 4. If anyone has actually shot with it, can you describe your experiences/impressions? Thanks!