Adam Frisch FSF

It's a color temp meter. Here's a pic of David Mullen and Vilmos.

Yeah, that storm looked good. Sorry to drag focus away from film at hand, but I can't help but once again marvel at Master and Commander. This ending scene, for some reason, is one of my all time favorites. Nothing in it would suggest it should be, but the music and the action shots just work so well and really sets you up for a continued adventure. But Peter Weir has always been exceptional. And great work by Russ Boyd, ACS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNT1xQs-KcA

Saw it the other night. Didn't really work with the actors for me, mainly Hemsworth, but I'm sad it didn't do better. Because I think films like these should be made, or else all we're left with is Ant-Man 9. Master and Commander was for me one of the best movies of the last 10 years and unfortunately, it didn't do that well either. I'd love a M&C series from the 10 books. On to the look. Film is very uneven in it's looks, in my opinion. I had a lot of problem with the harsh lights during the Melville interview with Gleeson. I though all of that looked pretty bad and cheap. And there were quite a few other shots in that vain on the ship, especially below deck etc. Weird hard nose shadows, weird backlights etc. But. There were also quite a few shots and lighting that really impressed me. They had a 50's adventure feel to them. And one in particular is a night shot of the Essex burning and sinking - a shot of the captain looking away from the mayhem. It was like a stunning painting and I'll be buying the BluRay just to be able to get that image for my moodboard. There's also a great wide shot, inspired by one of the naval painters (I forget who), that's very Caspar Friedrich/JWM Turner and dark and evocative. Another stunning shot, but probably mostly CGI. The story is fantastic in itself, I just wished it had been told in a different way without the hunky moviestarness of it all. At least for me, this was a lot better than Rush, which I didn't connect with at all.

Miguel - that's true. They're almost always worth it from a negotiation standpoint. And yes, sometimes they squeeze the producers too hard and leave a bad taste. I had that problem with an old agent in Sweden some years ago. Clients were always complaining she was too hard on them and aggressive, so I had to switch. But the good agents are very good at getting what what they need, but still making everyone happy. It's a skill. I couldn't do it. I'm rubbish at negotiation. I'd starve to death if I negotiated my own fee. No longer with Wizzo, although they're lovely people and I do recommend them. Signed with a French agency called Cosmic for all of Europe. I got sick of the UK rates.. :)

It's sad that the forum doesn't allow me to display answers that are more than a year old. Why is that? In any case, I had a good breakdown of what you need to expect and what an agent can't and can do for you. I don't want to retype the whole thing again, so I'll just skim briefly the main point. An agent doesn't get you work. At least not until you're already so established and have a name, that you don't need an agent in the first place. This is very important to remember, because when you're new and you sign up with someone, doesn't mean you can sit back and relax and wait for the jobs to drop in. Not going to happen. What an agent can do, is validate you and elevate you to the level of "well, he must be good enough to have an agent at least", which can get you're work seen by more people and put you in a context. Which might result in work down the line. It's like a degree. Doesn't get you the job, but at least they'll take you somewhat seriously. That has to be balanced by them taking 10% not only of the jobs they bring you, but all your jobs. And in the beginning, they'll all be your jobs and your contacts. That said, if you're a nice guy and bad at negotiation, it is my experience that agents earn their own commission back by being better negotiators. They can be bad cop and money talking with the producer, whereas you're just the creative spirit that's removed from all that. In that sense, they almost always make financial sense. Good luck.

Zac, that is allegedly the most expensive second unit shot ever. They waited almost a year, to where the sun would align perfectly next to the twin towers and they had two passes with Concorde before it had to peel away. Film flopped, but that shot will always be there.

A true legend and with a tremendous legacy. RIP.

They are great, and probably my favorite vintage lenses. But hard to consistently find at rental houses unless you're in the production hubs.

Just used it on a commercial. Damn thing is huge. And as usual for Sony, menu system is not user friendly. But seems to take good images.

Last 2 years I've been using Leica T1.4's a lot. They're small enough to handheld and they have a great organic feel. They are my modern go to lenses. Older lenses, I'm a big fan of the Zeiss T2.1's and the Cookes. For zooms, the Fujinon 18-85mm T2 is my favorite. That thing can truly replace primes in that range.

I always do it in camera, for many reasons. 1. Everything looks better underexposed. 2. Clients get used to the dark look and will then later grade it that way when you don't have control. 3. By underexposing, the clients can only lift it so much in post before it falls apart. This protects my vision.

I saw it yesterday in DolbyVision system, which is some sort of 4K laser projection. Lubezki was there for a Q&A after. They even showed a test after the film to show what a huge difference it does to the blacks and the contrast. The blacks were inky, pitch black. Great presentation and this is certainly the future for exhibition.

I've become a little weary of Kaminski's heightened look over the years, but here in Bridge of Spies he was a little more subdued and it looked great. He's great cinematographer, I just feel his style sometimes overpowers films.

Poor effort from a storytelling/script standpoint. Nothing made sense, no suspense, sequences that went nowhere, badly edited action etc. Sam Mendes is good at inter human scenes, he's not as good at action. I kept wishing the directors who did John Wick could have done the action in this. That was textbook choreography.

A young audience is not going to revisit old films. It's just how it is. We can moan about it, but that's the reality. People want new. They don't want the perfectly fine car from 1995, they want the 2016 model. So how do you propose we get that audience without remaking movies?

I don't have a problem with remakes if they're old. Gives a new generation a chance to become familiar with great stories that they would never have sought out otherwise. It's like theatre - you can set up and re-imagine Othello as many times as you want. I, for instance, have for decades hoped they'd rediscover the old Alistair MacLean films and remade them. I'd love to see remakes of Where Eagles Dare, Guns of Navarone, Ice Station Zebra etc. When I do have a problem is when they remake Point Break etc. Films that aren't that old. Not only that, it's one of the best films of its era and a true classic - why remake it now? Wait another 20 years at least.

As you move more frontal with light, it can be allowed to be harder and still feel cosmetic. A side light or a front light, using the exact same source, is a world of difference in feel. The Fiona Apple video had Harris Savides, ASC, mounting a MR16 spotlight right above the lens. The vignette is the natural falloff. As you come off axis with such a small source, the more it will start to look harsh. Although with a good looking model in a cool setting, it can still work very well. One of the pioneers of this flashlight look was Helmut Newton (ahead of his time in many ways) although he was often a little more off axis than some of the later photographers. Terry Richardson, Steven Klein took this look further and more front on etc. I do it in beauty advertising all the time, but normally a little bigger sources. The smaller the source, the sharper the shadow, the more it looks like vaudeville spotlight and/or heroin chic. It doesn't always suit everything. If you're doing modern fashion, or slightly irreverent, then it's a good look. But it doesn't work for a soft skin Garnier moisturizing creme advert necessarily. One little tip I'd share is - no matter if it's a soft or hard front light, try to place it where it creates a shadow under the chin as well as an eyelight at the top of the eye. That creates a nice shape, and it works especially well with smaller, harder sources. If you get too high, you lose the eye and have too much shadow under the chin. If you're too close to the lens, it becomes just a wash or a ring light look and you lose interest, I find. It can work sometimes, but it ends up looking like a RnB video from the 90's. Here's a good example of a hard top front/side of Kate Moss at Portland Place in London. As I said, if you have a beautiful woman in great makeup, you can get away with anything:

New kid in town-syndrome. It happens on all levels of humanity, not just creative arts. This is why some of my fellow DP friends change agents every 5 years, no matter what. Agents get complacent and without them even realizing it, they'll push the new DP they just signed or are excited about over the old hat. I suspect many men and women end long lasting marriages because someone met someone new and exciting, too. Or why we buy a new car every 3 years, although the old one is perfectly fine and paid for. New is exciting. Old is boring. Keeping relevant as you age or within your profession will remain one of life's toughest things to navigate. But if you do love it, you will at least always enjoy yourself. Even if no one else does. :D

Ha! Then again, there's kids who sail right through and at 23 years of age they're already sought after and extremely well paid! So, there's always that! We talentless hacks have to work a little harder at it!! :)

I liked the movie and the way it was shot. Zemeckis is always on his A game when it comes to framing and editing. He came up tutored by Spielberg and you can just tell they're pretty flawless at mis en scene. Never over-using close-ups, great blocking, never too cutty, never not knowing where you are or the geography, etc. Just tasteful and accomplished. But I could also see it would probably not connect that well with an audience. It's a tough tale to turn into a film, especially when Man On A Wire was so compelling - and resent. But Zemeckis is alway on point and I look forward to any future films of his.

It never stops. You never "arrive" and can coast from there on. Just part of the business, and it's one of the many reasons people get out of it eventually. It's a tough racket and not everyone is cut out for the uncertainty of the life of freelancing. I worked for free for about 10 years before I could actually make a living off of it. What other profession would accept such long unpaid apprenticeships? And even though it's a good living these days, it can end overnight. As you get older, some of the opportunities also disappear. One day the phone will eventually stop ringing. You don't see many 60-70 year old cinematographers working constantly unless they're Oscar winners or very established feature film guys. 60-70 year old commercial or music video DP's? Not so much.

Shafts of light can most certainly be motivated lighting. But perhaps not from above. I am myself sick of indie naturalism, handheld, sun flares, 5d hipster aesthetics. Anything that breaks us away from that, I'm all for. And I say this as a pretty naturalistic lighter. I'm someone who doesn't enjoy Quentin Tarantino movies, but I will make an exception for this just for the Panavision 70 stuff. Saw a trailer at the cinema the other day and I have to say, it looked great on the big screen.

White cars are a challenge. That's why you almost never see them on commercials. I'm afraid the best visual advice I can give is to fight even harder to get a silver or darker car. You can't win with a white car unless you can dirty it up in mud.

Kimball is a very underrated cinematographer. He did excellent work with Tony Scott as well. Check out Revenge.

Phedon Papamichael ASC is a great example of a cinematographer that rarely repeats himself. He can shoot little natural lighting indies or huge blockbusters. Flashy or simple. His stamp is never heavy-handed or imposing. Not afraid to be ugly if it serves the story.