Kahleem Poole

G'morning ladies and gents. Just wrapped up my cinematography reel from 2012, so feedback is most definitely welcome! https://vimeo.com/57107763

https://vimeo.com/56763193 This was one of several scenes we shot for a comedy feature film where I was brought on as the Cinematographer. Unfortunately we weren’t able to finish the project, but I got the chance to work with a great AD in the process and meet a few good friends whom I still work with today. BOUNCE- Chicken Spot Scene ASSISTANT DIRECTOR- Edmar Flores DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY- Kahleem Poole-Tejada 1st AC- Robert Billings

This is an old spot I did several months ago. Part of a 3-part ad series for a local fight-themed fitness gym. Very cool guys here. Always open to feedback, so FIRE AWAY! https://vimeo.com/56674499

Awesome reply, David.

Regarding the "good is subjective" notion, I just had this conversation with someone the other day. Up to a certain point, things are objective, such as technical know how (framing, basic lighting, continuity, etc.) and past that point, things can become subjective (being polarizing artistic). It seems the language gets confused and from there, then abused with people who claim that technically bad photography is a "style" and "subjective" when it actually isn't. It's just flat out, plain as day, bad. It's fairly easy to know the difference, but in this day and age where people are so passive aggressive in the "my truth isn't your truth" rhetoric, things get muddied up on a daily basis and lose true definition. No one wants to be confrontational for fear of hurting feelings and the self indulgent egotistical mindsets of today's generation. So now we have these obtuse "definitions" that consist of misconstrued ideas.

Yes. Or a rich daddy and mommy. Which is usually the case, especially in art schools.

This is somewhat understandable. It's still quite unfair to judge that way based on financial commitment. Especially considering that not everyone can afford to shoot on celluloid. Some people cannot even afford to shoot on higher end digital cinema cameras. However considering the ratio of film being the lowest on the entire budgetary scale for a film's production, it's pretty iffy either way. Though that's another conversation... That's much clearer. Helps if making a statement like that to be more specific rather than sweeping one, such as... Whether an individual was able to foot the bill for film instead of being on a Canon CMOS sensor makes no difference with a schmuck-ridden project that involves a bunch of friends sitting around a table, talking about high society and calling it a movie. Most likely it was an awful idea despite the amount of money put into it and being from opening credits to rolling credits. More cash running at the time doesn't make the idea, the people or the project any better.

If this is your logic, then most if not ALL artists are schmucks. Most painters, pencilers, inkers, song writers, novelists, musicians, etc. have a habit of creating hordes unfinished work. A rough estimate, only about 20% of an artist's work that you see on display is finished while tons are WIP or tossed aside for one reason or another (inspiration burned out, bad idea or hit a blockage). This isn't a fair assessment and I would say pretty inaccurate as well. Growing up in the art field with cartoonists, comic artists, fashion designers, photographers and filmmakers, you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of the work complete. But by your words, I guess we're all "schmucks" then. Correct? This isn't true. And, again, there are tons of films out there WAY BEFORE the DSLR boom hit, shot on s16 and 35 that were unfinished. It's just not as publicized as it is today. Before getting into cinematography, I had experience on several low budget martial arts film sets that never saw the light of day. This was back in 2001, mind you. No DSLR filmmakers back then.

No, they would not. A schmuck is a schmuck, whether he/she shoots on film or a DSLR, it won't make any difference. Bad films were around WAY BEFORE 1's and 0's as "emulsion" became a norm.

This was a spot I did for NY Fashion Week during the Sept 2012 season. It's essentially a highlight consisting of a number of runway shows and BTS points from various shows all over the city. I had a ton of fun with this spot, as it paved the way for me to jump into fashion filmmaking alongside other bodies of work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGiBAMtE8uk Additionally, this was another fashion spot for a small urban clothing line. Sort of chimes in on the previous work a bit... ESEF NY Fall Delivery 2012: https://vimeo.com/47217443

Not a problem dude. No harm, no foul. And most definitely, film isn't an outdated medium. If your tool gets the job done and helps you express your work effectively, "outdated" doesn't apply.

This was a spot done for our showing at the Bohemian Beer Garden in Astoria, Queens, NY: And finally, the 30sec TV spot: Of course, I'm open to critiques, questions, chocolate ice cream treats, etc. ^__^

So there seems to be some interest in this doc we've done awhile ago. FINALLY though we're getting to distribute it very soon, so now everyone can see it. Until then, here are the trailers and promos that I produced at the time to help promote the film :)

Thanks, man. I'll start off a new thread in the Critique section to show off the other trailers for those interested :)

Please don't take this the wrong way but, there isn't anything particularly different about photographing flowers and plants. That's not to say that they don't have beauty unto themselves. Just take note of that for your next piece though. The web is chock full of videos with peoples' cameras and their dogs, cats, flowers, plants and trees.

Was this a camera test? I'm unsure of what the point or theme of this is...

Thanks, man; I really appreciate that. That's my super 16 influence carrying with me ;-) And I agree with you as well on the debate. Why can't people just choose the tools that best suit the story and their specialties instead of bashing one another? It's ridiculous.

Under film's conditions, so do I, but that's not necessarily what I mean. Digital tends to be "accurate" based purely each sensor. And the parameters never change. Ever. So what it sees is what it will see exactly 100% of the time each time. With film, even the same emulsion may see something slightly differently per frame. And, I personally find that to be its own unique beauty. Anyhow, with the "hipster" comment, I'm most definitely NOT specifying them or people like them. It's more of the folks who can't see past digital's negative sides and remain in the "film or die" manner of thinking. It doesn't really help anyone and if someone makes gorgeous art with digital, it's still art. The tool of choice isn't the make or break factor. That's what I meant.

Agreed. I find flaws in digital filmmaking as well compared to film and vice versa. Digital is much more precise, accurate and somewhat clinical. So you have to go through certain post workflows to remedy this. I admittedly use effects to emulate my favorite emulsions and sometimes I'll leave it more "clean" depending on the subject matter (Vision 3 500T is my favorite of all time). I find some cameras look more videoy and some more filmic. Panasonics definitely look like video to my eye and depending on the picture style and in-camera options, some DSLRs do. Then there are those that look so much like film it's hard to tell the difference beyond grain or color, such as the Alexa, BMCC and Aaton Penelope. It's not an us vs them problem, despite how some people try to make it. This all totally depends on your choice of canvas, brushes, paints and subject matter. That's it. The rest, to me anyway, tends to fall purely on preference or hipster vintage obsessed mindsets.

Yeah, maybe you should quit while you're ahead. You're not looking for a discussion. Just for an outlet for your pseudo-elitist, pompous attitude. Good day.

Unfortunately that's a blanket statement that doesn't have a simple yes or no to it. This totally depends on the camera in question. Are we talking about the Digital Bolex, Black Magic CC, Canon DSLRs, Alexa, Red Epic? For the most part these cameras come with their own monitors that are more than capable of handling exposure and color according to the sensor's inherent capabilities. It's only when deciding to purchase a secondary monitor does the calibration issue come into mind. Additionally, is the monitor for the DP or for the Director to simple "see" what's going on and not judge what the DP has to? For my own workflow, I prefer a viewfinder or EVF because I like to personally connect with my shots and think on how I expose and compose. I personally find a monitor intrusive as everyone is now looking over your shoulder and their opinions tend to dilute or interfere with what I'm trying to do. Usually the viewfinder is default but an EVF is simple research on what is best for your color choices. You can quickly go out and shoot a movie of some sort just with the default body with many of these cameras, or you can build them up for bigger budget use. Untrue. A video tap is a reference for the Director or maybe even the AC, as I mentioned before with my own use for monitors. The camera's default LCD/Monitor is already calibrated [usually] to the sensor's capabilities for color and exposure for the DP. They aren't one in the same. It's really when other factors come into play that seem to add cost when they really don't. Film DPs complain about DITs when they're there in the film shoots as well. They just don't have as strong of a role. I personally don't use DITs, instead I educate myself on the process and so do other DPs who shoot digitally as well (see Shane Hurlbut). The complaints are also on monitors when they're there on films shoots too. The same monitors, the same video villages, there isn't much of a difference with that accessibility. And I would have to say that for the most part 2k/4k monitors aren't important right now because the higher resolutions are more relevant in post work, not for the video village on set. Digital does in fact have cost savings advantages at the ultra low levels that couldn't be done with film. My first documentary feature was started with little more than a Canon T2i, an LCDVF, my laptop and an army of ext. harddrives, all out of pocket on a $0 budget from any investors. I couldn't have done that on film because I just couldn't afford to.

..and this was the actual even highlight from November...

So I've been posting quite a bit here and just wanted to share some of my work. This was a series of promos set up for a Madison Square Garden combat sport based event called "Muay Thai At The Mecca II". I was brought on as the DP/Director of a second time and produced several spots for the promotion this previous November. I'd love to hear you guys feedback on everything :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLKrQGncq0g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtO_4CfTX9o

Is it fair to say that these people aren't DPs simply because their tools are different or the workflow isn't recognizable? Granted that the whole sloppy rush-rush attitude is widespread (more due to this generation rather than the tools), but just because the guesstimation aspect of photography is gone doesn't yield better or worse results. Being able to see your image WHILE shooting proves to me more of an advantage and not the other way around. Maybe I think of photography from an illustrator's perspective, where I see my canvas and refine and refine as I go along (with time allowed on set). So while I completely understand the ideas and functionality of light metering, for my own workflow it's too much of a guessing game; leading to sleepless nights wondering if the shot worked, will it look like crap, etc etc. I'd rather paint on set, refine, edit, etc. until I get a great image under the limitations given to me :) That doesn't mean it's cheap or a haphazard attitude either, because it simply isn't.