Serge Teulon

It's funny you should say that John. Not so long ago, I was having a similar conversation with a couple of mates of mine about Avatar. Neither work in the film business but both are photographers. I was basically saying how I couldn't believe that they didn't resort to good old traditional methods with todays technology. I mean, the technology of today was all that was missing from those films in 70's and 80's, right?! And as far as I know Avatar is actually quite an interesting story, so I found it to be a real shame. They're argument was that the whole CGI created a different realism/world. A good point but I couldn't remove myself over the fact that when I watch a film I want it to have some inconspicuous fantasy but with a firm, solid foundation that relates to our everyday life. That for me is where the magic is! You grab something, run with it but you keep the interest by making our world a direct relation to whatever is being depicted. That is what Star Wars, Buck Rogers, Battlestar Galactica, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek etc....did. I feel like I've deviated a bit over the heading of this post but in the same breath I also think it relates to 2012. IMO where it is going wrong is that CGI is the MAIN ingredient in too many films......but then again who am I to say that these studios are making the wrong choices!

Hey Fuad, There is a recent post which has some really good information as to what a dop should excel at. In relation to your own assessment about your still photography and your moving photography. I think you need to assess the differences between them. They are both very closely related. In still photography you have to capture the whole story or suggestion in 1 frame, whereas in moving photography you can tell the same story/suggestion within several frames. Neither is easier than the other. They both require the right feeling.

100% Agreed!!!

Absolutely. I would also add that he/she would need some very strong collaborative skills, patience, understanding, a good listener and a good delegator.

Just to add to Stephen's response. It gives an impression that zooming has taken place. It's also a sign of a cheap lens. But as with everything, if used in the right way it becomes a creative tool.

That was exactly my thoughts as I was writing my last post.

You're right Dominic. If you really think about it, it is absolutely amazing how the whole process represents the colours as the eye, in some cases, sees it. Specially as there are so many stages where the film could be 'tricked'. A better dye density could be the thing....but it would be very interesting to hear/read an actual bonafied reason as to why it reacts the way it does. In both cases... Anyone?

Hey Adam, To me, and I'm pretty sure that it is, it looks like a coloured screen that was backlit. In this way there is not only freedom of movement from the artist but also consistency for the DoP. Both equally important! Additionally, if you have a hard & spotted source that is overexposed you can create that 'white' spot. I'm not a big fan of the hip hop of these days. I'm from the Houdini, PE etc days but Kanye West is very good...great song!

That's really interesting... I had no concept about pioneering stocks like these and the responses have made me research and learn more. What I would like to also know is, why does the fact that Agfacolor, with its multi emulsion layered structure, not reproduce exact colours? Where as with Kodachrome, as it was added in the process, it did.

Those pics look like they're a two colour process.

A friend emailed me this link and I thought that it would be of general interest to everyone in here. http://saturnic.livejournal.com/174828.html

I follow the histogram and make my final decision with the help of the traffic lights. The red prefers a slight overexposure to underexposure as it can generate alot of noise if pushed in the one light.

That type of photography was definitely nice in places and its become one of the many styles in our palette. But Willis' lighting was always so much more interesting.... it has so much more depth. He just wasn't recognised at the time because he was breaking the mould.....as we all know, in most industries the pioneering mould breakers never get the recognition they deserve until much later in life!

You don't catch it like the flu! It is something that sometimes can be quite a hindrance. Which means that you have to work twice as hard....

Indeed he does.....my dyslexia plays havoc with me sometimes. I take it back Geovanne ;) I retire with my tail firmly between my legs

Hi Chris, I really liked the video and the track. Congrats!

Hey Geovanne, When I read the title of your post I had to fight myself to come in and have a look. I've had film stock in my fridge for 2 years....shot with it and it was completely fine. Now, if that is what you call flimsy, then I don't know what to say.

Hey Stephen, How are you? From those pics what is clear is that the exposure is set on the fill side with key being a hard edge and shallow dof. The flare that lowers the contrast of those images comes from the hard key. If you follow that method I'm sure you'll get what you want mate. Additionally you can use a very subtle soft filter or some 'smoke' to further lower the contrast. As for shooting with film, my only advice if light by eye first, then get your exposure right. Film is ALOT more forgiving than digital! Here is a still from a promo I shot last friday on 35mm Anamorphic, which employed the same 2 light style as your stills with smoke dry ice smoke. The light set up was an open 2k fresnel about 6 feet behind her and one of those rectangular light panel lights that sit on the camera. But in this case it was on a magic arm set below matte box with full cto gel on it.

Ditto on the all the above

Hi Cait, You can always use a digital stills camera with the settings you require to do your colour test.

That's very interesting. Do you know if there is any footage out there already?

Hey Jack, David is right....get that book. In the meantime the reason nobody has mentioned to shoot with an 85 because there is no such thing as needing to shoot with an 85 by default. Unless you are shooting tungsten balanced stock whilst relying on natural daylight. In the 85 filter set there are 3 individual ones : 85, 85b &85c. They are all amber coloured. Each one represents a different colour temperature. I.E 85b = 3200K(tungsten)

With an adapter.....the world is your oyster!

Ok I understand. You're referring to a company. I'm self-employed but not a company.....

Hey Ben, In our industry most ppl are really helpful and accessible. What you are getting in here is solid advice. A bit harsh and blunt but hey, you need a thick skin in this industry and this is as good an intro as poss. So keep your chin up and if you do decide to go onto film school make sure you get some work, at the same time, on shoots as a trainee, runner, PA etc.... Good Luck