Beyond what little I learn each week from Google Analytics, I have no idea who reads this blog. I suppose there must be a good number of students, or at least I hope so. Much of what I post is oriented toward people in the early stages of their career; they’re my prime reason for doing this.
With that in mind, I’m throwing the doors open and kicking out the jams. I’ve issued this plea before, but now I’m doubling down: Anyone and everyone is invited – no, urged – to hit me up with their questions about any aspect of cinematography or filmmaking.
Labor Day is almost here and if school isn’t already in session, it will be soon. Please, take advantage of this opportunity. I’m making a lifetime’s worth of knowledge and experience available, simply for the asking. Don’t be shy. No topic is off limits. Believe me, if someone had floated such an offer when I was coming up, I would’ve made a terrific pest of myself.
Submit through the comments section of this or any other post.
In the meantime, I’ll be standing by…
I’ve often heard that the two best days in a DP’s life are the day you get the job and the it wraps. Is this true?
If the anti-halation backing on Kodak film ends up contaminating and becoming embedded in the emulsion, causing egregious white dirt to appear in the positive image, what is the best way to repair that situation?
I’d love to know more about what it’s like filming in a Volume or VP stage. What changes for the DP vs out in the world. Easier or more difficult?
Good question, Rob! I would first suggest re-washing the negative. If the debris still shows up, perhaps a wet gate print? Of course, the proper course of action would be selected in consultation with the geniuses at the lab, one of whom you used to be!
Good question, Russ! Speaking only for myself, I usually enjoy all of it…first, middle and last. But being a sensitive guy, I can easily see how someone would be happy to see the finish line. Might actually have felt that way once or twice myself… 😉
Richard, Darn! You passed the test! Yes, rewashing the negative would do the trick, and if the embedded dirty was stubborn, then Technicolor would do a “carbonate” rewash. I always knew a “carbonate” rewash would succeed, but it was a lot of trouble involving adding an extra bath to the rewash… But I still don’t know exactly what was involved.
No exactly a career question, but one that probably doesn’t get asked too often these days.
Good question, Colleen! I wouldn’t call filming in a volume or VP stage easier or more difficult than shooting in a conventional environment. Certainly, there’s a great deal of highly sophisticated technology to deal with, but that’s why we surround ourselves with experts. There are a few rules to follow in terms of framing and focal length choices and you need to be conscious of matching the lighting…but the essence of it is exactly the same as for most everything else we do. As always, communication and good taste dictate!
I’m a producer with 30+ years of experience. I am often asked to opine about camera equipment, lighting crews, which dolly to use … you name it. I defer to the director of photography. I have a big say in who the DP will be so, typically, I’m confident we have the right person in the role. If I question their judgement, I probably hired the wrong person.
My question is: what advice do you have for producers when we’re asked if we think the Red Camera is the way to go, or if we should use a Fischer or a Chapman dolly, or what lights to use for the night exterior? What’s been your experience with this?
How much did Gordon Willis leave up to the shooting day in terms of figuring things out? Did you ever see him struggle with something on set in terms of lighting?
Great question, Kathryn! I first have a question for you: Just who is asking you about which camera, dolly or lights to use? I know you’re very well-versed in these areas, but people should know better than to ask a producer for such specificity. Nonetheless, allowing that not everyone in the movie business today is qualified for the position they hold, this might indeed occur from time to time. I’d probably answer in the following fashion: “All the top-name cameras are excellent choices, as are both Fischer and Chapman dollies. But I would defer those choices to my Director of Photography, who is obviously consulting closely with my director. As for the right lights to use for night exteriors, I once again defer to the DP. That’s why he\she was hired. They have more experience and expertise with these issues than any of us and I have complete confidence in their judgement.” Dealing with the many disparate personalities and experience levels on a production can be a tough job sometimes. I hope this helps in some way…
Great question, David! During my time as an assistant cameraman on Gordon’s crew, I was privileged to have a ringside seat from which to observe his process. Believe me – he worked HARD at getting things right! Most of the heavy lifting took place during the blocking rehearsals with the actors. In close collaboration with the director, he used the Alan Gordon viewfinder to break the scene into its component shots, marking the floor with tape for each one (indicating focal length, camera height and distance from the actor’s marks). In most cases, this took an hour or more, which, might I add, was done in almost complete silence from the crew. Once satisfied, he sent the director and actors away and proceeded to light the set – often for the next three hours! Occasionally, he’d get stuck on a certain issue, though he’d inevitably solve it in some brilliant way. But – and here’s where his genius came in – the actual shooting went very quickly because he anticipated the lighting changes needed for each shot, and had already built them into the plan. You just rolled around the set to each tape mark in an easy, efficient way. We usually moved so quickly, the actors wouldn’t go back to their trailers between set-ups. So, despite four or five hours of not getting a shot, we’d still knock off a complex scene before lunch. It really was something to admire…