Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Shallow DOF, crushed blacks, unrealistic colors, slomo, anyone bored yet?  (Read 5625 times)
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1959


WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2012, 04:37:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Can't argue with that.
Well you can when the production costs are significantly higher to shoot 'fashionably' rather than well.

I heard an interesting story yesterday about the perils of fashion shooting. A UK sit-com decided it would be a great idea to shoot with Red instead of using a conventional set up, costs doubled and the programme look terrible. Probably the final nail in the coffin of an end of life series.

The next nonsense will be "we need it in 4k"
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2012, 05:58:10 AM »
ReplyReply


The next nonsense will be "we need it in 4k"

Totally agree. This is the new mantra. 4K.

If I can see the benefits of it mixed with raw datas, I also noticed that among the top world commercial directors that are shooting serious high-end campaigns, very little have been shooted in 4K and still a certain amont are shooted in 35mm film.

On the Alexa side, very rarely they use the Arriraw and the reso boost it'd means.

I have the sensation that all this is going to derivate into the same non-sense as we've been seeing with stills, if it's not contaminated yet.

For the moment we are safe of curves, pseudo-scientific proofs of all kinds, non-sense comparatives and the we-need-zillion-megapixels mantras, but it will come very soon.

Sadly.
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2012, 12:27:13 PM »
ReplyReply

"I have the sensation that all this is going to derivate into the same non-sense as we've been seeing with stills, if it's not contaminated yet."

Totally agree, Fred. I will try to take advantage of that. I'll avoid buying any gear that I don't genuinely need, including "better" ie, more expensive cameras, and undercut the guys who are busy getting "the best". After that, its up to me to produce better content.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2012, 01:50:31 PM »
ReplyReply

What really amazes me, is that it has now, through those networking mediums, included vimeo etc..., created a new culture in wich people with endorsements testing dollies, cameras, monitors and rigs are getting more famous than a Kitano. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1FV7CcS79M

That's really preocupating. We are inundated by a bombing of timelapses, 5D2 lens testings, resolutions versus and the overall tone is very closed to the youth dp review nervous wanabee crowd.

I even saw in the still high-end a "sad" situation. One of the most famous ww commercial photographer doing video for several "couture" brands and the results are really low. In part because there is no good storyboard, but also the lack of level and experience is evident.

We did some movies with my boss but he never accepted to publish anything at this point because we're not at the level of the stills, no way. It will take us more time and learning. For the moment we are still in big part very amateurs. And the biggest chalenges we face are very rarely the cameras, or the resolutions. We even realised that casting have to be re-thought etc...

So yeah, now that all this is democratizing and everybody's a DP or Director, we're going to tend more and more to the absurd.

Well, I'm thinking that I could build Director chairs with yournameonit and sell them in e-bay. Very soon I'll be as rich as the Red's owner.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2012, 02:18:21 PM by fredjeang » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2012, 06:36:21 PM »
ReplyReply



I even saw in the still high-end a "sad" situation. One of the most famous ww commercial photographer doing video for several "couture" brands and the results are really low. In part because there is no good storyboard, but also the lack of level and experience is evident.


I think it's important to remember that as still photographers we first shot with film, letting the client handle the post production.   Then we  learned photoshop and how to shoot for it.  

Well now is the same with motion and I'm not talking about hokey hdr, or as someoe said crushed blacks for no reason.

Just like in still imagery,  motion requires a reason, whether it be look, story, movement, copy/dialog or all of the above.

A lot of clients just "want" some video, thinking they can stick something together later.   Stick something together, is the right phrase, but as artists, it's up to us to offer an alternative to just moving stills.

As commercial artists we have to shoulder some if not a lot of the responsibility.  When a client says "you know just shoot some video", we need to find a reason and a concept to make it work and offer the client more than they anticipated.

At first there will be blowback because usually they have motion production, i.e. commercials planned as different production, but if you can produce a parallel production better than a stand alone commercial or video, the work will come your way.

It does take planning, investment, sourcing out new and different teams to collaborate with, but they are all out there, from writers to actors, to crew  . . . wanting to work.  

There is nothing new about this as this has always been an industry where the ladder to success is one you build yourself and usually once you climb it, you tear it down and start over again.

In other words, just like in stills where we learned post production and had a few retouchers on speed dial, we have to do the same with writers, storyboard artists, casting directors, colorists and editors.

I think this depends on the type of person you are.  You can look at motion in three ways.  1.  a chore to complete    2.  Something you don't want to be involved it.   3.  An opportunity to expand your repertoire and client base.

IMO

BC
« Last Edit: April 14, 2012, 06:38:26 PM by bcooter » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2012, 05:05:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Totally agree.

Logged
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2012, 01:23:05 AM »
ReplyReply

This guy has some more basic complaints:

http://vimeo.com/m/18104656

"An Open Letter to Canon"

You have to click through if you haven't seen it. On Vimeo.

Crushed blacks are the least of his worries!

Michael
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2012, 02:27:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Excelent !
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1959


WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2012, 03:18:46 AM »
ReplyReply

"Open letter to Canon"

Wonderful, actually made me laugh out loud.
Logged
stewarthemley
Guest
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2012, 11:06:28 AM »
ReplyReply

"Open Letter..."

Great style, great content. Does anyone do that stuff better than the Aussies?
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3499



WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2012, 03:26:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I've always found that talented people with good character and an open mind produce good work.
Absolutely. Finding them amongst the tiltshifted, HDRed, timelapses is quite tricky though. Wink
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3499



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2012, 03:30:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe we should ask ourselves, when planning any sort of production: what best moves the narrative forward?
Narrative. That's the word that trips up the people who suddenly thing they are film makers, just because they have a camera that shoots motion footage.
Just like 'composition' is the word that confuses people who own a camera and suddenly think they are a photographer
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
ChristopherBarrett
Guest
« Reply #32 on: April 20, 2012, 08:00:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I've always found that talented people with good character and an open mind produce good work.


Same here.  I've always maintained that a great graphic designer could easily become a great photographer.  So much of photography is just graphic design with a camera, the rest is all technical and can be learned.  I don't believe that we are born into niches, predestined but rather channeled by a multitude of random circumstances.  God knows I wasn't born an architectural photographer... nor was I born a DP.  You can be whatever you want to be.  All that is required are time, dedication and the appropriate education.  Those combined with innate talent will determine the level of your success (well that and possibly a good eye for trends).  Trends are such a trap, though.  They can make you quickly successful, ala Phillp Bloom who is no more talented than millions of other videographers.  But once that wave you rode in on breaks upon the beach, you'll be left washed up on the sand.  Longevity comes with or rather through talent, intelligence, sensitivity and experience.

Having spent 20 years shooting transparencies, all the crushed blacks are driving me nuts.  The first season of Downton Abbey was gorgeous, ethereal.  The second season shows no tonality at all in the 3/4 shadows.  This makes no sense at all when the scenes are lit very softly, it's utterly insensitive to the esthetic that the DP worked so hard to establish.  I love how much shadow information I can coax out of the REDs.  I typically drop my shadows just until the very darkest fringes zero out in the scopes.  I have also seen, however lots of footage graded where the zero detail shadows are left dark grey, and I just don't get that.  I mean it is all subjective and you're welcome to do whatever you want with your movie, but I was trained to develop a full histogram back when, well... before anyone had heard of histograms.

During this long stint of my commercial career I have always struggled to maintain sharp images, not just in focus but sharp throughout, utilizing tiny apertures, swings and tilts to bring detail into every corner of the image.  For the longest time I never shot below F / 22.  With digital I can thankfully drop down to F / 8 and have the same DoF  Smiley
In motion footage, however, extreme Depth of Field bugs the shit out of me.  I find my eye traveling all over the scene, never knowing where to settle.  I feel like our eyes respond differently to motion footage than stills.  In a still, I can have everything sharp and direct your eye with lighting.  With motion, I think some softness of focus is almost required to direct the eye.  I really like my Cookes wide open at T 2.8 on the wides and 4 or 5.6 on the long lenses.  The softness is not extreme but helps contain the "focus" of the shot to the intended elements that are more significant to the story.

Following trends blindly is just a stupid way to work, but avoiding the techniques that those trends originated from can be just as dangerous.  Examine your imagery with severity.  Take responsibility for every pixel within the composition.  Once your eyes and your mind have addressed every single graphical interaction, then you ought to have a good picture, be it still or moving.

CB
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad