[pcrichmond]

A short history for my questions below (especially any cinematographers)

Years ago in college, I took an "Appreciate the Arts through Film" class where we made several shorts and one full length using 8mm and though it was a lot of fun I never embraced the techniques like I did photography. About 10 years ago I took a lighting workshop at a photo symposium where the instructor had us watch B&W shorts for the whole workshop and dissect scenes to analyze how the lighting affected the mood/emotion of the image.
Ever since then I'm not able to watch a movie without focusing on how the lighting was used.

Watched a great documentary on Kubrick last night and never knew he started out as a photographer.
Was very interesting to see how he brought his photographic skills from lighting to lenses along in obtaining his special perspective/perception throughout his career.

So I'm wondering:
Do any of you other photographers suffer from not being able to watch a movie without focusing on the technics?

And since I'm curious about starting to play with video again, for you cinematographers:
What (if any) mental and/or perceptual exercises do you do to help create flow instead of capturing a still?
Any tips on how you mentally create flow before you move the camera would be greatly appreciated.
Then any tips on how you use camera motion or lens shift to bring about your mental image.

Thanks and hope someone here might be able to give me some direction to start.

---

Last edited by pcrichmond; 07-26-2018 at 04:07 PM. Reason: misspelling

[clackers]

If you look at behind-the-scenes lighting setups in films, they can be very complicated, but similar to a photographer doing product or portraits, and the concepts are still the same - the modifiers, the size/distance ratio of the sources, etc.

Without dynamism, either a still or a video clip can be tedious.

In a still, we capture a moment to suggest the motion. There are certain parts of a person's movement that are worth capturing - someone walking or running can have their front foot down instead of being mid-stride, a baseball pitcher can look best at the start and the end of the delivery sequence … the transitions don't suggest anticipation or relief.


With video, I'm sure you know from your film studies that you can get dynamism from either the subject moving or the camera moving.


You can do a lowered crane shot to drop the viewer into the scene, you can do a pullback from an actor to show the hostile or amazing environment they find themselves in, you can do a dolly to accompany a change in mood with a reveal of something at the edge of the screen, you can do a slow zoom into the subject to get more intensity (Ken Burns even does this to still photographs in his documentaries).

[pcrichmond]

(Ken Burns even does this to still photographs in his documentaries).

@clackers, thanks.
For so long I've been using photography in a relaxing, slow down, meditation type style.
If I'm creating a shot with lighting, nd's, etc. I often have an image in my mind long before I pull out the camera.
When doing more natural shots, I still work the scene in my thoughts long before I release the shutter - does it need more fill light, shallower DOF, etc.
(Have missed many a once on natural light image because of this )

Glad you mentioned Burns, I hadn't thought of him but that is an example/exercise I could start practicing with - how to make the mind see/anticipate where the image will follow.
Very basic technique but very moving when done right.
With my style and mental process I feel any exercise on how to bring the forethought of motion into effect would be very beneficial.
Thanks again.

[clackers]

@clackers, thanks.
For so long I've been using photography in a relaxing, slow down, meditation type style.
If I'm creating a shot with lighting, nd's, etc. I often have an image in my mind long before I pull out the camera.
When doing more natural shots, I still work the scene in my thoughts long before I release the shutter - does it need more fill light, shallower DOF, etc.
(Have missed many a once on natural light image because of this )

Glad you mentioned Burns, I hadn't thought of him but that is an example/exercise I could start practicing with - how to make the mind see/anticipate where the image will follow.
Very basic technique but very moving when done right.
With my style and mental process I feel any exercise on how to bring the forethought of motion into effect would be very beneficial.
Thanks again.

For a slow, meditative style, you can shoot with an UWA, high frame rate, and smooth movement on rails/gimbal, etc. Colour grade with earthy tones, slow transitions between scenes (including focus dissolves and whatever their reverse is called), have appropriate music over the footage, etc.

[Madaboutpix]

Do any of you other photographers suffer from not being able to watch a movie without focusing on the technics?

I don't produce video, more interested in honing my stills technique, but I do appreciate well-made film. And as an EFL teacher in Germany, I've sure done my share of film analysis. Now, does it affect my enjoyment of film? Do I constantly feel the urge to analyse whatever flickers in front of me?

Well, I'd say that I do bring to watching a film a reasonably informed understanding of the matter, and I'm aware of cinematic devices and narrative techniques, but that remains mostly subliminal. I use it to enhance my appreciation and reception of the film but have learnt not to let it distract me from reacting to the film on a more emotional or visceral level. After all, that's an essential part of the fun, isn't it?

In that respect, my reaction to film is not much different from taking in a photograph or a painting, or reading a novel, I guess. What helped me in adopting this approach was likely a habit of my father's, who used to ruin many a murder mystery that my mother watched on TV by "dissecting" it in a more or less informed fashion, pointing out goofs, etc., which I found equally distracting as my mother's "loud thinking" about clues and possible suspects ...

[PizzaDon]

If it wasn't for motion pictures when I was very young I may have never have got into photography. I couldn't count how many times I had to hit the rewind and pause button just to study scenes in a film for lighting, composition etc.

[pcrichmond]

If it wasn't for motion pictures when I was very young I may have never have got into photography. I couldn't count how many times I had to hit the rewind and pause button just to study scenes in a film for lighting, composition etc.

@sapper, just the opposite for me. I started in the darkroom and moved out to photography and using a camera from there.
Film appreciation came much later in life.
I do know that with certain films like "The Third Man" I still can't sit through a showing by myself without pausing to see how the scene was created.
There are so many scenes in that film which would make perfect stills photographs.
Continually fascinated by the mentality that can bring this style of creation of an image and have it flow from one scene to another.

---------- Post added 07-28-18 at 07:10 PM ----------

In that respect, my reaction to film is not much different from taking in a photograph or a painting, or reading a novel, I guess.

@Madaboutpix, hadn't thought of it this way but you are right. With other forms of art, if it appeals to me I do analyze and I'm constantly impressed with how grammar and word usage is used in literature. That is often what determines between a good book and a great read for me.

---

Last edited by pcrichmond; 07-28-2018 at 07:11 PM. Reason: missed word

[PizzaDon]

I found it's best to watch a film alone when pausing so not to tick off the guests.

[TaoMaas]

Do any of you other photographers suffer from not being able to watch a movie without focusing on the technics?

I would say I don't have this problem. My wife would say I do. I have to admit that I do over-analyze movies and tv shows sometimes.

[Kaladran]

I would say I don't have this problem. My wife would say I do. I have to admit that I do over-analyze movies and tv shows sometimes.

What I learned back in film school was to try and watch the film twice, once for pure enjoyment and the second time to pick it apart. Doesn't always work, but I find I can usually switch off the over analysis on most films. That being said many films aren't worth watching a second time, so those are fair game!

[pcrichmond]

What I learned back in film school was to try and watch the film twice, once for pure enjoyment and the second time to pick it apart. Doesn't always work, but I find I can usually switch off the over analysis on most films. That being said many films aren't worth watching a second time, so those are fair game!

@Kaladran, I try this technic as much as possible - especially if I'm watching the movie with someone else.
Nothing ruins the experience for them more than an unwanted film critic - nor is my un-professional perception worthy of insulting their enjoyment.
I much prefer to watch a film alone if I think I'm going to analyze styles. Problem is, some artist are so good it catches me off guard and I want to immediately delve into "how did they do that?"

Usually if a film employs great lighting or unique lens angles then I find it worth watching second time just for these reasons, even if the storyline is horrid.
If I can't make it through a second sitting when analyzing then I write it up as being really bad!!!

---------- Post added 08-01-18 at 10:30 AM ----------

Thanks all for responding. It has given me a few things to consider.
I've been curious of trying to pick up video again since I got the K-1.
Techniques can be learned and styles come with practice, just having a hard time seeing the flow of motion rather than freezing in time.
Know that will come with practice also.
Thanks again everyone.