Layl Tammuz

thanks scott

Thank you all for your advise and input. I'll work my way backwards :) : Frank; no I don't have a family or a mortgage or ... I'm pretty free to do my own thing. But neither do I have a big wad, or even smaller pile, of cash lying around somewhere for me to , for instance, take me through university again or by myself anything expensive. But if I don't start somewhere I won't start at all. If I might ask, what do you mean by it being a rough game? In what way? Financially? In trying to pursue your own vision rather than visions dictacted on you by others? Tim/David; I believe that one of the most "architectural" aspects would be the composition of an image. For instance, I sometimes lay out a frame and sketch (very badly) within it ..characters or elements as I would want them in accordance to each other and to the frame. For instance an exaggerated narrow landscape frame complements flattish gently undulating landscape and the allowance for a lot of void in the contact between sky and ground. there is also something very powerful about it in terms of the characters laid out and their relation to their environment,. One thing that it doesnt compliment as much is intimacy....it just invites so much space. a portrait frame can encourage more intimacy for instance when shooting full shot bodies of two or more persons next to each other. A square frame yet something else altogether...for instance two faces filling up that frame. As well, the matter of symmetry and asymmetry. many greenaways image compositions are iconically symmetrical in capturing a hyper-artificial cinematic staging. All this achieved through the compositional abilities of the cinematographer, unless i am incorrect. so yes, there is a commonality. Scott; Thank you for the suggestions. I agree with you, still photography would be a good beginning. But I was planning to start with a digital say nikon N60 or N80 rather than a manual one for the following reasons (not because i favour digital over film, i know how much difference in quality there is and read up a bit on why that is) : 1- i wont have really large prints therefore the matter of resolution will not be an issue until i become more serious/knowledgeable 2- i will not be developing the actual colour film but letting a lab do it (i dont have the equipment plus ive been told b&W is much easier to self develop whereas the colour is too expensive )..therefore in reality all actual colour calibrations will fall pray to the lab setting in any case. I can still learn all about exposure, f-stops, speed...whilst using a digital still cam. whislt recognising that the quality is just not the same. 3- it takes too much time to wait for the film to develop, therefore i would not be able to instantly connect the picture to the manner of how i shot it. whereas i would get immediate self-intruction with a digital camera (please on any of those points, do correct me if i go awry or offer altertnative suggestions, Im here to learn from others) 4- its much cheaper to take tons of pictures to learn about all the points mentioned above with a digictal still cam than to learn with a manual film one. or would you disagree? as shown by the above, i would be using the digital camera as a tool to learn not an end in itself. in reality i really prefer the film quality, it manages to capture details and colour that a digital still cant. but when i start with actual motion camera filming, i would definetely be more interested in film for its qualities. Tim/Christian/ D.goulder...Thank you for the encouragement.

Hi; Here's my situation...I'm a 32yo architect. I have never touched a camera except for the still variety for easy clicks and I am interested in crossing over to cinematography. This might sound silly and whimsical to some but the truth is I love the ability of a cinematographer, in tandem with the director's general vision, to compose a whole other world...and this is more so when the cinematography is embedded within the idea of the film and not simply a tool to capture a replication of the world (such as Tarkovsy +Georgy Rerberg Mirror and others, Van Sandt's Elephant more recently, Peter Greenaway + Sasha vierny then in a different manner Tim Burton's and Stefan Czapky eccentric worlds...) The truth is I also discovered good films at a late stage. Regardless, I am intrigued by the technicalities of achieving these moving images that can be soft or harsh, colourful or monochrome...where time is completey yours to speed up or slow down...where every light has its character and technological implications. etc etc. ok, ill stop the rant and just ask :) ...is it too late? what would be a good first step? I was thinking of maybe starting with a super 8mm. At the moment school is out of the question...but perhaps in a couple of days..till then... I'd appreciate any helpful tips, thank you.