J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR

I come from a stills background but I was the same way as you I always loved cinema. I learned photography through cinema but it was always so impractical to do it that I just started shooting stills and the ocassional motion picture piece. I did that for about 10 years and then I decided at 30 to quit the stills and DP full time. I'm like anybody else now just another face in the sea but I feel Dp'ing is the right thing for me because of my past experience. Now at 34 I've proven that, and I like where I am professionally and I'm still learning, always learning, you can never stop that in this profession. If I didn't have that many years in I would definately spend some time AC'ing to learn the craft and equipment. I just kind of grew into it and it has been like starting over because only your David LaChapel's get to cross over at the top flight of cinematography.

Well I'm no ASC DP but I've been in my share of critiques. It seems to me that the levels should be tweaked a bit. It should be darker in the first shot as David said but the insert of the light flicking on should also be darkened or the whole scene after lightened because it's a little mis-matched. It seems you were going for a stylized look which is cool but I was left wondering where and what the source was and whether it was a day or night interior. I think the lamp at the bedside would have been a great source to work from. It would have given you a source for the characters as well as a source for light to go into the drawer. BTW, the drawer looks white throughout the seqence then it looks brown on that push in, not sure why. I guess the way the light was reflecting off it. That push in, I think would have been a lovely moment for that light to have been on and revealed as the source. The shot after the bedroom, the single on the guy is beautiful, I like the DOF and the color of the candles red/white is carried forward in the sofa. Very nice. However, the following master shot seems a little like the bedroom, neither here nor there source wise. IMO, it would have looked a little better if the light on their faces weren't so chopped up and felt more like an off screen lamp.

I usually stick to a more subtle mix of color temps if I allow them to mix at all. IMO, the cardinal sin of mixing color temps is using Daylight film or 5600K WB video then lighting faces with tungsten sources. You run the risk of giving everybody the red-face syndrome. It can be espescially awful looking on video.

Look in the classified section of this forum or click the link below. There you will find a very good price on a leading digital meter, wink wink... http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?showtopic=6614

For Sale: 1 Spectra Professional IV-A Digital light meter. Bought new from Film Tools only 1 month ago. It has never been used except to check that it was working. It still has the box and warranty card. Film Tools sells them around $372. I'll sell this one for $300 plus $5 shipping. I will only ship to the lower 48 and I only accept U.S. Post Office money orders for payment. PM me through the forum or send an email to, colorfulweapon~at~gmail.com

Hey, they released a NEW Super-8 stock. I say that is very good news. Super-8 lives on. Though, this does mean I'll never get to finish my animated Lego Castle epic begun when I was 13.

Here are some frame grabs from 7212 exposed at e.i. 50 with the 85 filter + Pola. It also does fine at straight or a 1/3 over for telecine. Great stuff, I love it. If you need headroom for overcranking or DOF you might go with the 250D it's very fine grain.

Not sure what it is exactly but it's certainly a DV cam with a matte box and microphone.

Oh, been there, seen it... :rolleyes:

If it was stepped on, what was it doing on the ground? :blink:

It was a good story but the execution wasn't the best. Some of the shots really do look like they lacked any kind of lighting which really doesn't look that good to me. Some of the stuff you could tell was shot wide open due to a lack of light and the focus was down right horrible. That being said, I would rather watch a Primer shot on 16mm than another boring digital horror/relationship film any day of the week.

Never used one that screwed into the rosette but I have used a Micro-force controler with zoom and focus as a left side hand-grip for hand-held work.

A chamois can be a big help. I make it a point to always use one because you get a better seal with lighter pressure and it's much more comfortable. If you're getting pushed around so hard that you loose the image in the eyepiece you should use video assist to operate. If you don't have video assist try using the long eyepiece without the leveler and hold on to the eyepiece with your off hand. That seems to help me on agressive moves, just don't pull the wrong way on the eyepiece. It's much more natural for your head to stay with your hand.

Really you have just stumbled on to the reality of being in the DP business. It's a slow rising process, period. You have to build a reel and most importantly you have to meet people. You have to become known to people in the business, don't confuse that with fame. I haven't shot anything high profile but I manage to make a living, though a very meager one. PA's usually wear better clothes than me, drive better cars and live in better houses. :D

Ahh but that's the crux of the problem! Does it take a lot of light to light hair or did it just take that much because of the way you lit it? Of course the answer is, it can be done either way. It's up to your knowledge and skill as a DP to pick which is appropriate. Then you have to be able to execute your plan proficiently. Personally I love the challenge of lighting no matter if it is something I've done many times before or using a technique I never have. That's how you learn and grow as a DP.

Really, beside the specifics of certain equipment and formats, shooting with 35mm isn't any different than any other format.

Post some pics if you can. A lot of time it's just a matter of moving lights around the set to get them to give the hair a sheen just where you want it.

I think it would mark you in a negative way more than anything. If you want to just make money do it shooting weddings, real estate, news or whatever. There have been only a very few DP's jump from that industry into legit filmmaking. I think Maryse Alberti mentioned in AC that she used to shoot that stuff but I don't know if it was the hardcore stuff they do today.

He probably said re-bleach because that is what you might do in a similar situation with a negative stock. Not with a reversal stock. He probably just mis-spoke.

If you are shooting from behind someone it's usually best to have them face a little to the side. Have the girl face away from camera but to the right a bit. Then set your back/side-light on the left or vice-versa the whole setup.

Yeah I guess that was Rodriquez, maybe that's what his problem is.

All that is sad but true. Who was the filmmaker that used to do all the medical experiments?

Depends on how much you get for plasma.

You know $1,000 is not an unobtainable goal or anything. It might be worth putting off the production for awhile so you can work and save the money. Do odd jobs, paint a house, mow some lawns.

Please, lets not start this digital better than film thing again. It makes me want to shoot myself in the face! :blink: Yours truly, President of the Format Agnostic Society. :D