Clay Tayler

fire pit is right here inside the porch looking into the cabin inside the cabin looking towards the door reverse of above photo attempt at a day for night look facing the stove

Not all candles would be in the shot I'd use some candles as fill, like bouncing or reflecting them off whatever materials... like i mentioned above.... and yes, as redundant as this sounds, i'd use some sort of fill, hence my question what would be good to maginify the candle light or reflect it etc. I'd use that magnified light to fill a shot and then use an even harder source as the key... I was thinking of mirrors but show cards would work... would u suggest a gold show card or a silver...? Gold might make it TOO warm... so i think i'd go with silver... and if David Mullen explains what he meant by lamps to me, I may even use some kind of battery powered lamps... my goal is to make this look as clean and as nice as possible but if i use actual lights I'll end up drawning out the candles... and Film is not an option... i'm stuck with a DV camera and just got ot figure out how I can light it so it looks good... I guess I can also play with my shutter speed and slowly it down, since the scene involves intoxicated people it would add to the effect with a slower shutter speed... I guess I'll just have to experiment, but I think I can do this witha little planning and testing...

LOL, well of course that crossed my mind, but if I take a generator I also have to rent lights... that means lights and a generator, plus grip equipment... that all adds up to MONEY... which I have little... besides I like the idea of lighting totally with candle light and just controlling it that way, with mirrors or magnifine glass... it just adds a cool more real effect... and if i light it correcly the first try it also means i don't need to move lighting around when i do reverse shots because the candles can be visible... it's just a matter of moving some mirrors etc... thanks Dave, those were some good suggestions... Anyone else have suggestions for magnifying candle light? What exactly do you mean by Lantern style lights.. wouldn't that produce an artificial look rather then a real candle flicker? do you have links to examples of what you mean Dave?

I need to light 2 cabins (during two seperate shoots) and both these cabins are out in the middle of nowhere so I have no power, hence no lighting other then candle light. I've already found extra bright candles on an online website but I'd also like to know what materials you guys suggest that I can use to reflect the candle light. Do you know of special lanterns that can magnifiy or harden the light? Even just some links to other sites or names of material would be helpful. Also what's the best way to color balance a scene lit with candle light? I'll be shooting with a Sony DV camera (about a 5000$ camera) but the exact name escapes me. Should I do anything inparticular to color/white balance or what technics can I experiment with to alter the appeance of the color. And keep in mind I'm virtual on a zero dollar budget so any thing you can suggest that I can make at home, any kind of light magnifiers etc would be great. I've already begun building a dolly with tracks, a core that spins and a lift. and am working on a cooling system for a fog machine I'll be renting, so I'm not afriad of building things. I'll also be renting some lighting equipment but would rather not rent bounces and flags, so if you guys could suggest what materials I could buy to build my own, that'd be great.

I just finished watching Eyes Wide Shut... Whoa, is all I can say, that film moved me, and is for now, my favorite >Kubrick< film... finally a film about people, you know, something with a (at least to me) heart... to say that it really made me feel, and caused emotion in me... I also found the interviews with Tom, Nic and Steven very very informative and Nic's and Tom's almost brought me to tears when they spoke about Kubrick. I've now seen Eye's Wide Shut The Shining Clockwork Orange 2001: A Space Odyssey I'm watching The Killing tomorrow and will slowly work my way through them all... Thanks for all the posts, some very valueable info in here!

Already done that :) Before I continue I am still curious as to why Stanley's style is considered Technically Perfect? or is only that he had such control over his films that he created exactly what he wanted? and that is why his films are considered technically perfect... ? I still haven't found anyone that can answer this question... but hear a lot of people, especially critics, ranting and raving about his technical perfect films. Thanks again to those that have given useful controbutions to this thread... one of my major questions (which i found some answer for in other threads) was why he chose to use such an odd (or what i deemed odd) way of framing shots. What I mean is he was always shooting in wide angle lenses... I presented one theory as to why above but I read another that i think is probably even better. That Stanley chose wide angle lenses because it seemed more natural. he shot films the way we view the world. from a wider perspective rather then tight, unnatural closeups etc. Anyway with a lot of new information like this I find it easier to understand his films. I'm a veary curious fellow and like to be able to find logical answer to all my questions. so when i see films that i can't interpete right away i either conclude the filmmaker didn't know what he was doing, or he had some very deep meanings that i could pickup on the first viewing and must rewatch it... obviously stanley is of the second variety... Also NOTE: like i stated in an earlier thread my first post may have come off harsh only because i wanted to get a reaction from the posters, and have them share there opinions...

thanks so much mike, this is exactly the stuff i've been readin over the last few days, trying to figure out what makes him so great. I'll have to go and rewatch the shining so it's fresh in my mind before i read this essay. thanks again

Thanks for your response, it is much appriciated... You seemed to answer most all my questions well, though your answer is the expected one (basicly it's all opinion)... I guess part of the problem is that he is so over hyped that I have a great expectation of what his films should be, and when they don't live up to this grand idea in my mind I belittle the film to some degree... Could you possibly go into detail about film stock, composition etc etc, these things intrege me greatly... Also i know most of my favorite directors are huge kubrick fans... hence my interest in kubrick and the reason i watched his films, because I am trying to figure out what the facination is with his films, what exactly makes them "technically" "perfect" in so many peoples eyes... what makes them perfect in your eyes? i think u misunderstood the intention of my first post... what exactly i want is opinions... I want to understand what i am potentially missing out on... my first post may have been to harsh, but that is only because i wanted strong opinions opposed to me, i wanted people to write "Clay your so wrong, this is why kubrick is great... blah blah blah" and then to explain to me why they feel he is so great... Kubricks films definately do draw out emotional response from me while i view them, it's just that his films and his style is SO unusual that i find it jarring at times... destracting... (but then again kubrick was known to do this to cause his audience to think about what they are watching rather then just be absorbed by it, which seems to be exaclty what i have experienced while viewin his films) anyway I am interested in discussing the topic, hence the creation of this thread... your post David Mullen was excellent, hopefully more will contribute...

umm, what? what exactly do u not understand or disagree with... did i say something wrong...?

I've watch 2001: A Space Odyssey, Clockwork Orange, The Shining and most of Eyes Wide Shut (i'll finish it shortly) and can't for the life of me understand why people say his works are so "technically" prefect or what makes him such a great film maker... I find his films very very objective, and unpersonal, as I suppose they are intended to be, they all seem to give you a very odd distant feeling and seldomly do you ever care about his characters (whether they live or die, suffer or success). I understand he puts a lot of symbolism into his movies, like 2001 for example seems to use the number three (3) a great deal... 2+0+0+1=3, he uses the same theme 3 times, he uses the planet alignment three times, etc etc, it's everywhere... the film also deals with reincarnation and a lot of gnostic (Gnosticism) ideas as well as kabbalah ideas... (i'm sure brit, madonna, and ashton love this film...) but anyway, could someone explain what makes him so great, most of his films i find are to uninvolving for me, and i find i get bored... i also think that his looseness with nudity is uneffective... and amatuerish... I think David Lynch does a far better job of making u feel uncomfortable about sexuality in Mulhollond Dr. (the scene where that girl auditions for a role) I found very creepy... while Eyes Wide Shut has so far had the greatest impact on me, as well as The Shining, works like Clockwork Orange (supposedly such a great film) feels as though it was made by me and my friends... also, what makes his cinematography so great, n what is with his wierd style? is it just to make the point that he has a very objective impersonal perspective? the wide shots seem to suggest that, and he uses them exclusively in everyfilm for seemingly every shot expect the odd one... which i think is ineffective, if he really wanted to create distance between us and the character and help us view situations objectively there would be better technics i'm sure... basicly i think the over use of nudity deadins the effect... i see so much of it in his films it has no adverse effect on me which i assume is his goal (make us uncomfortable) but instead I find myself simply bored at the sight of tits, which u'd think should interest me... anyway i'm currently trying to figure out what makes him so great... I've had no trouble understanding what makes david lynch, chris nolan, steven, David Finch, and Terry Gilliams so great... but obviously i don't connect with kubrick... OH and PS, what is so beautiful about his work, i find often that his lighting is far far to suttle, especially in clockwork orange where i would have used lots of really great deep shadows and such, he seems to have left his lighting kit at home and just shot things as they were lit naturally... basicly clockwork all around seems like a very amatuerishly shot film, camera work, lighting, etc...