Justin Hayward

I guess I don?t meter the backlight very often either. I was just curious, because it was directly related to your key.

C.L. Washington Jr. said he is shooting mini dv, but I agree with you Wendell. Sometimes you need sheen, especially with darker skin tones. It's just using good judgment. Or whatever you prefer.

For me, it?s always completely flat or I?d convince the director to re-block. I?m surprised how much exposure a small white bounce provided. I guess the backlight was pretty hot though. For "Lipstick Camera", did you expose for the fill (adjusting the backlight accordingly)? Is the fill about a stop under (maybe more)? How hot was the backlight accordingly (2 stops over)? Did you ask her to keep her face the same relative distance from the door throughout the scene or did you just let the exposure change the closer or further she had the door from her face? In other words, did you giver her marks as to how far she can open the door before it?s too dark? If so, did she hit them or were some takes too dark? Interesting. Really good post. Thanks.

If it?s not tape? Sorry, stupid joke.

I did something a while back that took place in very vibrant green woods (middle of summer). We dressed the actors in red and had a polarizer on the whole time. It turned out kind of nice. If anything, it was very saturated. I use it pretty often (especially on video) unless we plan to desaturate.

If it?s snot tape, than what is it? You could also just flag off the windows and light it however you want.

I was just talking about AC horror stories with a couple of friends. The best I heard was a 2nd working on some commercial somehow fogged a roll of film. Fine. It?s a terrible thing, but it happens. It may not have even been his fault. Although, when he was approached about it, he blamed it on? a firefly in the darkroom. A firefly!! :lol:

You can start with a polarizer.

?And lemme guess. . . 5218 throughout?? The January ?05 AC says he shot 5218, 5279, 5277, 5274, 5248, and 5293. I enjoyed every minute of the film. If anything distracted me, it was how young Leonardo Dicaprio looks in some scenes. But he still did a great job.

?I found your post both insulting and incredibly naive. Just because you can shoot a wedding video doesn't mean you can shoot a feature, the same aplies to editing.? Sorry, Keith. I should be more careful about posting something that might be insulting. On the list of things that annoy me, the television program I watched is on par with standing in line behind an old lady with lots of coupons at the grocery store. Honestly, I meant no offense (and I also don?t mean to offend any old ladies with lots of coupons at the grocery store). I forgot all about this thread. Last time I checked, there was only one reply. :)

"I don't shoot commercials or music videos, either, just features. I'd probably be making more money if I did something other than indie features though..." Why don?t you shoot commercials?

If it?s just a test to see if you can do it, then do whatever you can with what you have and see how it turns out. If it?s a test for an upcoming shoot, consider talking to the director about a different way of motivating the light. I?ve had a few experiences with directors that wanted ?moonlight? in large spaces, but were only budgeted for a very small amount of lights. I usually end up lighting however I can and the results were not motivated by moonlight. On a low budget the director will probably understand. It?s just common sense. Rigging the blonde to a tree is a good idea, but keep in mind, beyond that tree will probably be black. It just depends on what you will accept. Most people won?t notice these details, so do whatever you like.

Is it going to be shot at night or at day? If day, you?re probably going to be limited to whatever your daylight stop is. Usually the fire is a little underexposed. If night, (personally, I don?t mind if it goes white in the middle) but the proper exposure is probably around an 8 on a 500T stock (although proper exposure is pretty subjective). The last time I shot something like this, I shot a few tests of the fire and decided the exposure for everything else accordingly.

Clay, I hear what you?re scream?n. I used to feel the same way, but the more I shot, the more I appreciated his work. I watched a documentary on him a few years back and was floored by the visuals of the clips in this documentary. It compelled me to rent all of his films. These were all films of his I?ve seen! They just looked different to me after shooting for a while. Composition mostly. Although I?m always shocked at how beautiful his use of practical lighting is (something I could never accomplish), it?s just something that (for some), comes with time, or maybe not. Everybody has their own taste. I don?t mean to sound flippant, but I understand when somebody isn?t interested in a particular style. However, I?m a strong believer in style morphing. All people?s style/taste morphs with time, even Mr. Kubrick. Lately, when I see a Stanley Kubrick film, all I can think is ?SICK?. He?s so good he makes me sick.

I think we?re all missing the point. When and where did the terrorists get flying saucers?

Not that I think this is real, but wouldn?t it make sense that people see the same thing over and over? If everybody?s pictures and testimonies conflicted, it would be easy to conclude it?s just different people?s imagination. Again, I think this is obviously a hoax and I don?t believe in life on other planets, but I?ve always thought the case could be argued because everybody keeps seeing the same thing. I guess it could also be argued that people are just using what other people have claim to seen, instead of coming up with something original.

?I really believe one or two frames either way can make a big difference.? Agreed. I remember cutting my thesis in film school on a Steinbeck. Sometimes I?d trim and add back frames so often on one cut, it got to the point I couldn?t see the edit played back there was so much tape on the film. However, anybody who?s ever cut anything knows that one or two frames make a difference. I guess that?s why I got a little annoyed last night. I was exited to watch this show, but all I got was two hours of editor problems and solutions that anybody who has ever cut anything already knows.

I just watched an editing show on ENCORE. For some reason, I?m not impressed. I watched an interview with Martin Scorsese the other day and was blown away. He said things that were so insightful and informative. With editing, my reaction is mostly, ?yeah, no s%@t!?. I don?t mean to say I don?t appreciate editors, but is there anything more they can contribute than objectivity? (Which I do believe is very important, but really, my grandmother can provide objectivity.) One guy said he?s bought actors in to watch the cut and they said ?great you used take five?. The editor said ?no, actually I used a bit of take three, five, and some of take eight! The actor didn?t even know!? Wow! Brilliant! You used different takes! What a shock! I?ve done plenty of editing and I?m particularly aware of the editors contributions, but ultimately, isn?t it the filmmaker that provides the editor with their material? I promise, I?m not trying to bag on editors. I just think editing is mostly common sense. If something doesn?t work? change it. That?s pretty much it. Things are always going to change, no matter how brilliant the storyboards are. But when an editor pontificates about how beautifully they cut a scene, I wonder why the director or DoP aren?t credited for providing the editor?s profound work. When this or that angle was shot and used in the film, wasn?t it intended to be in the film? I mean, they shot it, right? Honestly, I think editing can be easy. You learn the basics and everything else is common sense. No offense to all the editors on this site. It?s just curious.

The only reason it looks like student films is because it's full of student actors. Not the DoP's falt. Nice work.

Sure! Just check out www.humiliatedenough-myotherfilmsaremasterpieces.com. :D

The precious film dailies are a positive work print. It might not be the end of the world if something unfortunate happens to them. The negative should be safely stored away underneath a pile of donuts at the lab. If I had the privilege to view film dailies, I would appreciate any theater that allowed it, no matter what the cost. Sorry to say, for me, this has never been an issue.

I think we all would agree that it would be extremely unfortunate if David Mullen and Matt Pacini stopped posting on this website. If it means refraining from politics to keep them around, I have absolutely no problem with that. Man, do we not already get enough of this with our friends and colleagues outside of this website? I haven?t been a member very long, but I?ve been reading through the archives and noticed a change of tone from just a few years ago to the present. It seems some of the threads lately read more like the forum on IMDB, or some chat room, than an informative cinematography website. I?m not complaining. I enjoy this website very much and am guilty of engaging in some of the not so cinematography related issues, but as soon as it gets political, I get a little nervous, because it almost always gets personal. And I understand cinematography is art and art can be very political, but I think we?re all aware when the line is crossed. Like if we?re in HD only and a five page thread about color correction is now about a gay marriage between North Korea and Iraq. And whether or not they should abort their first child! So, lets just not cross the very obvious line and maybe David and Matt will stick around.

?now we've engaged in so much revisionist history about Kennedy (thanks to guys like Oliver Stone),? It?s true, Mr. Stone has revisionized a lot of history. I still find him to be a remarkable filmmaker. ?Wall Street? was excellent. I didn?t agree with some of the politics, but if you looked up ?perfect screenplay structure? in the dictionary, it would be at the top of the list. The guy that wrote a film as brilliant as ?Scarface? at such a young age (at any age), deserves the respect of anybody interested in making films. Nonetheless, sometimes I prefer to hear the truth, whether it be a movie or an encyclopedia. I guess that?s why I watch so much Discovery Channel.

Whether you agree with his politics or not, everyone must admit he?s a brilliant filmmaker. What?s strange to me is how goofy ?Alexander? was. However, like all of us, he must have been sitting in a room by himself after reading the reviews and wondering ?have I lost it??. Too bad critics don't reveiw the amount of sweat put into a film. Unfortunately, you?re only as good as your latest flick, but I think Oliver?s got more in him. He?ll rebound.

?If I'm wrong, then why do DV/video shooters get so riled when I call them a videomaker?? Why rile them up in the first place? Of late, I've been lucky enough to shoot more film than video and I?ve never read a script I thought would be better shot on video, but it?s not that often I?m given a choice. I like to shoot film as much as the next guy, but it?s a little silly to ball up the word ?videomaker? like it?s an insult and hurl it as some guy that shoots video out of necessity or (gasp!) actually prefers it. Whatever the definition of ?filmmaker? is, the general public thinks it?s someone that makes movies. So why deny somebody (who works just as hard as the rest of us) this title when their making movies? When did the term ?filmmaker? become the ?Stone Cutter?s Club?. I?ve heard some say they didn?t consider themselves filmmakers until they landed their first paid job. That?s fine. They can call or not call themselves whatever they want. However, wouldn?t it be a little silly to demand everybody else be called ?unpaid filmmakers?? :D