Kahleem Poole

Being able to light well technically and creatively is of importance. Not whether something is shot on film or digital. The value is understandable, however after awhile it becomes grossly exaggerated. Especially when film is becoming more and more technically outdated and is primarily an aesthetic at this point. The impatience factors are more of a current generational thing though. The need for instant gratification is all over the place.

Of course, why wouldn't I? Just the same as I would with a Director who wants to shoot digitally. What's important to me is the story and how I can realize it visually; how to paint the picture as beautiful as I can. If their story doesn't appeal to me, shooting on film is irrelevant. In fact I've turned down a Panavision 35mm shoot months ago because I didn't believe in the work. Depending on the vision he/she has, that's how I choose my tools. Nowadays more things are done digitally, but it's my job as a cinematographer to educate myself and test the different sensors for their pros and cons and choose accordingly. The exact same way tests are done on different film stocks available.

If you need to be right, then you're right. Hope that helps you.

"My" digital technology? I'm a photographer, simple as that. Whether it's film or digital is irrelevant to me and I'm not a part of a specific clique or camp when it comes to it. Maybe that's just the problem. An "us vs them" mentality, or superior vs inferior when it's not even the subject point. No one said digital was superior in this conversation. It's just different; a different tool to learn and understand the art and science of, much like what's been done w/ film. People crave to emulate the look of film with digital technology because of several reasons. For one, digital tech is more flexible to even consider such a direction in the first place. Secondly, film stock (the most popular being Kodak of course) has a specific aesthetic look. There's nothing wrong with wanting that look the same as there isn't anything wrong w/ a bleach bypass look that we now associate with being "blown out" akin to video. Digital workflows of today are superior to that of film, I would say. There are so many to choose from. However film vs digital is just goofy and silly for the most part. It gets us nowhere, nothing advances and the inevitable will occur regardless of how much people resist. +1 Sorry, I misread that. My brain read "The Sound Of Music", which was what I was referring to. My mistake :)

Because the commonality in beauty is facial "symmetry". It's what humans can universally agree on even without being able to describe it accurately. This point has nothing to do with the conversation and is totally different subject matter. I didn't "speak" for him. Apparently by your standards, his work is now sub par in comparison to others before him (or possibly his own older work) just because he shot digitally for Skyfall. Your notions, not mine. You're going to pick at anything anyone gives you regarding digital cinema purely because you have a distaste for it, regardless of how illogical it may seem. Carry on. Your bottom line: all celluloid shot cinema is automatically better than digital cinema purely because it's been captured on the "magic" medium that is film. Which is all you'll accept or hear. However, art isn't completely objective, which is what we agree on. If this is so, then why the complaining or comparing?

For one thing your question is both vague and subjective. Subjective mostly because the examples you gave are of the highest caliber of their time periods (with the advantage of hindsight to help). Which where also at the time, surrounded by tons of lower quality films (mostly exploitative films, to start). What you're suffering from is "yesteryear was better" syndrome; pure nostalgia, not fact. Especially when considering that the films were more than likely produced before you were even born, disconnecting you from their context in time altogether. Secondly, Skyfall is an action film, not a musical or a pillar in cinematic innovation. They're totally different comparisons that have little to do with one another. One is an epic 65mm musical and another is a "filmed play" style classic. Why don't you compare Skyfall to another older film of its genre, not a musical or a drama (both of which thrive on strong visuals even more so than action films do). Furthermore, cinematography, when skillfully shot, is of subjective taste like any art form. It's not a matter of "which is better", but of which do you prefer? With all due respect, your comparisons don't make much sense. And, I doubt Deakins ASC would think so as well.

Like any serious venture, these people end up quitting after some time of stagnation or sheer frustration to stick it out and learn and earn. There will be other "sky is falling in film" sentiments soon after this passes. Trust me.

I think you're mistaken. I never said that I haven't shot on film. I've shot on Fuji Velvia super 16 and still shoot on Kodak 200 and 400 film in my SLR today. There are always more people who don't know what they're doing than those who do. It has nothing to do with film vs digital. It's the difference between those who are great (being minimal) and those who are not (being the majority). Had these kids learned proper photographic technique, then you wouldn't be making the statements you are making, but apparently it wasn't the case. Lastly, the flaws you've pointed out (with the exception of rolling shutter) are also evident in low budget films, shot on film as well and have been for years. It isn't a "digital" thing. It's a "low quality" thing. The equipment has the smallest role in it all.

Discipline, patience and vision have little to do with digital or celluloid capture. It's a mindset and either you have it or you don't, point blank. This notion of digital movie making perpetuating impatience is silly and a bit tired. Especially since there are strong examples of the opposite everywhere, including those on this forum. What Cinematographers from this generation need to do is to learn from the previous generation by example, practice and research. If the older generation wants to mentor the new breed, then so be it and it is much MUCH appreciated (and needed). However, claiming that film as an art form is dead or dying just because a classical capture medium has run its course is just silly and an overblown exaggeration. I myself began as a comic book illustrator with pencils, India ink, t-squares, exacto knives, water color, screen tones from Japan and 11x14 bristol board paper. However with illustrators now digital painting almost exclusively in Photoshop and Corel Draw, the medium hasn't died even if the bar of entry has lowered. In fact, the expectations have risen; just the opposite of the fear mongering going on years ago, similar to this. It's the same with filmmaking and I am from this new breed generation of digital filmmakers. Though my work doesn't suffer from any form of ADD setbacks or lack of patience. I light and shoot the way I draw and paint. I research dozens of books from ASC masters, watch tons of lectures and documentaries and pick the brains of those that I admire as much as I can, when I can. My choice of canvas shouldn't determine whether an entire art form lives or dies and it won't either. Had it not been for DSLRs and other video cameras to give me entry, I wouldn't have realized my calling as an artist professionally. This incessant fear mongering and whining has gone on for awhile now and will disappear in 5yrs. Either you're an artist or you aren't. The expensive, technical medium can't mask this for long and if that's what you fear, then maybe you were on borrowed time to begin with.

Very nice, man! Any chance you have this in an HD or 2k film scan? I'd have loved to see the full personality of the film show through :)

*1080p please make FULL SCREEN (unfortunately if viewed in windowed mode, there will be a TON of moire) http://vimeo.com/37128693 We just finished this thirty second spec ad for the Metropolitan Museum in New York City. Most of it was shot completely guerrilla, so I stuck to wide angle lenses (Nikkor AI/AI-S 28mm and 35mm). It definitely wasn't easy trying not to attract attention from the security detail moving about. But, we got some great shots out of it all. MUSIC: Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.

This is a tale of two days, nearing the tail-end timeframe of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Liberty Square, NYC. http://vimeo.com/36330037 From my experience, I wanted to show this in a raw form. A form that displays the people in their most honest manners, without dramatic poses, sound bites or anything fancy to show off in a marketable manner. Essentially, it’s broken. Much like the people, the movement, the situation and the state of the economy as it is today. In that of itself, it has its own particular organized chaotic beauty. The OWS movement to me appears to be a collective that sings in unison without being in in harmony. It's why they appear to have different agendas and different goals looking from the outside in. However, moving past my ignorance, and looking on the inside myself, it’s very different than expected. So many textures of faces, experiences and stories. And, amazement in how everyone seemingly works together to create a small pocket society in the corner of New York City.

I definitely loved its look. The muted tones, sharp grain and every angle was beautifully shot. But, as mentioned above, I fell asleep several times. Just couldn't get myself to remain interested beyond the visuals, as much as I try. I am a big fan of the Bourne series though!

I agree with you completely that the story and vision beforehand should judge the filming medium. 100%. It just seems difficult for people to understand the difference between photography being what it is regardless of the changing times. I've heard a lot of horror stories of entire photography businesses dying off due to things going digital. It always made me wonder, were they really based around the artform itself, or just the tech behind it all? I would think that had it been the former, adaptation would've come along and the businesses may have thrived instead of fallen by the wayside. But, what do I know :-/ As far as the Cinestyle, I stuck to that keep all of the detail in check, which I feel I was successful in [mostly]. I exposed everything according to the room and light's actual color (I think I rarely stopped down beyond f/2.8 and remained at 640iso all the way through), keeping the white balanced matched to the room's own temperature with practicals and setup lighting. So from what we have, it was indeed close to the reality of those moments. And, I agree with the makeup notion as well. But, they're the judges, so I'm hoping they have better judgment in that area than I normally would.

Oh man, I think I gave an odd impression here. So the first issue that helped inspire this piece wasn't in debating on Kodak's death. It's just a part of the larger picture. The issue that helped inspire this was in a debate that someone brought up claiming that cinematography was "dead" or "dying" due to Kodak's/film's impeding doom. The second issue that caused the inspiration was from the "do it in post" attitude, and it allegedly being directly connected to digital photography every time. Which isn't necessarily the case in my experience since I know plenty of people shooting film who boast the exact same attitude. So that brings on this film, which just so happened to coincide with the photoshoot's theme: creating unedited images. The side of my argument at the time was that cinematography isn't limited to what medium you shoot on, but in your creative vision and skill behind it. The rest is history :) Hope that cleared things up a bit.

I would really like to hear people's reactions to this; your opinions and feedback if possible.

Kodak is near its death and someone needs to blame someone. The main culprit: digital imaging. Even more so, digital cinema of today. This being images taken from the Alexa, Red, Sony cameras, DSLRs, the list goes on. The further the advancement of these cameras that push to exceed film, the worse off it gets for film stock lovers. Cinematography and photography doesn’t have everything to do with whether film is alive or dead as a medium. It can be achieved just as skillfully, artistically and thoughtfully through a digital sensor as it can through 500T stock. The idea of “…do it in post…” is an ideal from today’s quick fix type of thinking I would have to guess. Not necessarily the result of film going bye-bye. It’s the same with music, movies, games, everything today. But, that’s for another story. Visually, my main influences for this docu film were from David Fincher and Jeff Cronenweth ASC’s “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” and "The Social Network". Apparently I’ve been attracted to Fincher’s films for quite awhile now and didn’t even realize it was greatly due to the image work. I have more on this story here for those interested :) http://kahlworks.wordpress.com/blog/photoshoot-bts-un-graded-un-cced/

Adding my own $.02, you COULD just use the grading tools in Premiere as they are. Especially w/ CS5/5.5 Most of the time you'd be using the Three Color Wheel or RGB Curves anyhow. Beyond that, it's all micro managing tidbits of curves for highs and lows. You don't really NEED a 3rd party software unless it's for specific monitoring capabilities. For that, you could use the dynamic link in the timeline for After Effects' own Color Finesse.

Taking notes. Thank you so much for replying, Rodrigo.