 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how about plural?
Conrad Hall
James Wong Howe
Leon Shamroy
Robert Burks
Stanley Cortez
Gregg Toland
jeez, there are a lot of good ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 26, 2006 - 7:30 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ahem
(Member)
|
David Watkin is probably my overall favourite, tied with Geoffrey Unsworth. Watkin had a huge influence as far as soft light was concerned-
there was a whole slew of young new cinematographers from all around the world in the 60s who got rid of the hard flat look- names include Haskell Wexler, William Fraker, Vilmos Zigmond, John Alonzo, Lazlo Kovacs, Gordon Wllis, Richard Kline, Connie Hall, Vitorrio Storaro, Owen Roizman, Bruce Surtees- before these guys in Hollywood everything was lit with hard light by the book, DPs like Lucien Ballard, Philip Lathrop, Frank Phillips, Fred Koencamp, Ted Moore, etc did it dreadfully, which is why a great deal of American movies from the 50s through the 70s had that unimaginative, multiple shadow, flat look with widish lenses. Once the newcomers like Watkin and Hall arrived, different focal lengths were being practised, lighting more varied, lighting to a lower level, processing innovations (pushing, pulling and flashing the negative via the chemtone process or incamera). This was a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE leap in cinematography since black and white- infact, lighting for digital/HD today depends on those principals of naturalism/aesthetic conventions. Watkin lead the way with softlight. other DPs from the time were also using softlight like Raoul Coutard (Godard/Truffaut's DP) and Sven Nykvist as well as Eastern cinematographers in India, but Watkin was doing it with the anamorphic format when it was nigh on impossible to do so. CHARGE OF LIGHT BRIGADE, beautiful.
The thing I love most about Unsworth and say Freddie Young is that during this period of change they kept up with the times.
I love classical hard light too, it's wonderful, but not everyone did it well (much like today with soft light and shallow depth of field). Stuff like Karl Freud, George Barnes, Eduard Tisse, Georges perinal, Greg Tolland, Freddie Young, Jack Cardiff etc were doing through black and white and technicolor/color was amazingly skillful- stuff like Leon Shamroy's work on AGONY AND THE ECSTACY, 8% of today's working DPs could light space like that and to such high T-stops.
Kaminski does nothing for me, he seems to be nothing more than Spielberg's yesman. Spielberg (like Fincher and Kubrick) could light a movie himself but doesn't have the time on set (like any great director he prefers to sit with the actors), and getting a young DP to get his vision works- what works for you to get the results you wants works. Personally I think every other Spielberg collaborator (with the exception of Jack A Marta on DUEL) has made imagery that Kaminski hasn't even come near to originating- everything you remember from Spielberg/Kaminskis more than often was orignated by the director himself, such as the black and white of SHINDLERS or the ENR process, uncoated lens/washed out/thrown off shutter look of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN- they are often documented as being Spielberg's ideas. Spielly's other DPs, Allen Davidau, Douggie Slocombe, Dean Cundey, Bill Butler, Zigmond, Bill Fraker, Mikael Salamon- they all have their own signature styles that have seeped into the films of all the directors they have worked with including Spielberg. Kaminski's AMERICAN QUILT and JERRY MAGUIRE could have been shot by anyone, and for TV. You don't hear about him shooting non-Spielly projects these days either.
Eduardo Serra is probably my fave of today's DPs. That guy is one talented master poet, and if you know anything about cinematography you can appreciate how much of a true artist he is. Same for Harris Savides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 26, 2006 - 8:52 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
.....David Watkin is probably my overall favourite, tied with Geoffrey Unsworth. Watkin had a huge influence as far as soft light was concerned.....
Keeping in mind that the movies basically started with available light and reflected/softlight at the turn-of-the-century, it should be pointed out that George Folsey shot the first studio all-softlite/reflected light film of "modern" times in 1947, at MGM---IF WINTER COMES---via the design skills of Electrical Department head, Fenton Hamilton.
It was carefully documented in the literature of the time and, in fact, from this early experimentation, MGM developed the overhead softlighting concepts achieved with various lighting units---in particular "the coop"--- which remains, in various forms, to this day.
By the early 1950's they were applying this style to many of their Technicolor films AND shooting it at nearly 800 footcandles!
Charles Rosher's work on SCARAMOUCHE is a gorgeous example of some of this technique.
One of the advantages of today's softlighting/reflected lighting usage is the ability to get the image on film quickly, without wasting (?) time on lighting setups. (This speed on-the-set allows the director to take 9 months editing his film later.  ) You can get half-a-day's work on film often with one lighting set-up, the director and actors can move quickly. Yesterday's lighting set-ups were, essentially, done individually, with each shot lit to the optimum and to the angle.
There are two other major changes relating to this kind of modern photography.
One is the recording of sound. Where, in the old days, the mike was hung on a rotating boom arm that could be moved in-and-out with the camera, but would also have to be taken into consideration with the lighting, today's sound is generally recorded with the operator on foot, wielding a fishpole mike. This makes for easier, more spontaneous sound-recording which doesn't interfere with camera set-ups, but it also means that much of the dialog in today's films is often re-looped after the fact.
The other change is the use of either 1) real interiors, or 2) studio sets built as real interiors. There aren't many options for lighting these kinds of sets. The light either comes through the windows or doorways, or otherwise bounces around. Due to its realistic nature, it also demands that a realistic source of the light be established, either on or off-camera. The best "old" cameramen took extensive liberties with the establishment of a source.
In the final analysis, there are superb examples of yesterday's hard-lighting which couldn't be duplicated by any of today's cameramen, and there are superb examples of today's soft-lighting which couldn't be duplicated by any of yesterday's
cameramen.
It really depends on which style you like and which style fits the film-making of the day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My single favourite: Conrad Hall--as a former black and white photographer, he gave me the divine sparks.
From the Golden Age:
John Alton and James Wong Howe.
Read:
"Painting with Light" by John Alton (Introduction by Todd McCarthy).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 26, 2006 - 9:35 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
ahem
(Member)
|
Manderley,
that is an obviously WELL-informed post (although I'm not sure about IF WINTER COMES- I have read that Gilbert Taylor used it on THE GUINEA PIG shot at the same time as IF WINTER COMES)- like you say, it's always been there (particularly in the East for obvious reasons) but I do feel Watkin contributed to it's ease in contemporary filmmaking (even if bouncing into bedsheets is seen comparitively old hat and dated compared to say using a cheap Kino unit).
Funny you mention set ups, because this is the prime (no pun intended) area Watkin toook advantage of- we've all heard the stories from OUT OF AFRICA in which Sidney Lumet apparently had to request relights for close ups (David Watkin asleep in his trailer)!
You have to admit that before the "new-wave" of Western DPs in the mid-late 60s, softlight was never prolific like it is now (i.e dominant). I miss hard light quite a bit, you have to learn the disciplines and most of todays just don't have that "edge"-
Someone posted this on another forum, it's from AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER, January 1976 and best conveys "old school" attitudes vs. new (and with a disappointing amount of arrogance from some old timer DPs whose work I love):
QUESTION: I can only think of a couple of films I’ve seen shot by you that have low-key photography. Do you generally use high-key?
LAZSLO: No, I’m considered a low-key man. In every way.
AUDIENCE: (Laughter)
QUESTION: In BOWERY and BABY THE RAIN MUST FALL, there was strinking contrast….
SCHWARTZ: Are you talking about key or contrast?
RESPONSE: Contrast.
SCHWARTZ: There is a difference.
LAZSLO: You can have a 50 foot-candle key or a 25 foot-candle key, but the import thing is to have balance. That’s something that a lot of people don’t understand, balance. Also, I might bring up one other point. I was hoping that somebody would ask me if I like reflected lighting or bounce lights and stuff like that.
QUESTION: Do you like bounce lights?
AUDIENCE: (Laughter)
LASZLO: Thank you for asking. I’ll answer your question with another question. Did Michaelangelo use one big brush?
SCHWARTZ: But he didn’t have a production manager.
AUDICIENCE: (Laughter)
LASZLO: I believe that motion picture photography supposedly is, and should be, selective. So whenever I use light, I like to use lights of different sizes and sorts, but each light has to have a meaning. You don’t just toss in a lot of light and let it go. Because, you know, famous painters didn’t do that. They used little brushes and big brushes and everything in between. So I believe that every single light you see on a set should have a purpose. Thus, as far as I’m concerned, is my answer to bounce light.
(…)
QUESTION: How do you feel about the look of soft lighting? Not if it’s just done with a large brush, but if the light is a soft light source? And also if there are lights used like “kickers” or rim lights that give it some depth and clarity, so ot isn’t just a gray. How do you feel about that?
LASZLO: Well, I think it’s possible to use fill light that covers everything and give it some “kickers” and bounce light. But I still don’t believe that that’s the way to light. I just don’t believe it. Like I said, you have to have a purpose. Each lamp you light has to do something for you.
QUESTION: When you see something that’s lit soft like that with bounce light, how do you feel? Does it seem unreal to you?
LASZLO: Well, it doesn’t seem real to me, truly. It doesn’t. Maybe I’m of the old school, but I just don’t believe in it.
QUESTION: I’d like to ask you a a general question about the “old school”. It’s built up a tradition over about 50 years, and the A.S.C. seems to be supporting this in some ways. I wonder what the A.S.C. has done to preerve this style that is going now out of fashion.
LASZLO: you mean about being old-fashioned?
RESPONSE: Well, films like AIRPORT and FUNNY LADY seem like a return to that classic period.
LASZLO: I think we are returning to it somewhat. I honestly believe that we’re reaching a turning point where people will go more for entertaiment than sensationalism, like dope and violence and sex and all that nonsense. I really believe that. I think it’ll help to bring the lost audience that we had back to the motion picture again.
QUESTION: Do you think we’ll be entertainted more by good photography?
LASZLO: Well, I would think so. I would hope so.
SCHWARTZ: Ernie, I’d like to say something if I might about that.
LASZLO: Yes.
SCHWARTZ: I think it’s interesting to note what’s happening to felows like Zsigmond and Kovacs and John Alonzo, people like this who started out doing commercials and things of this sort, where they used a lot of flat light. Their first features were pretty much that way. They are coming around, and I think it’s because they, at first, didn’t know this other style of lighting and weren’t that familiar with it. They hadn’t worked in studios where they had all this equipment available to them and were able to light from paralels and scaffolds and things of that sort. Even some of the directors are coming around, so that now they’re not so afraid to use the studios as they used to be; because they were embarrased by the the riches of having a set, and they didn’t know what to do with it. As a result, they always wanted to go on location so that nobody could see that they weren’t sure what they were doing. I think things have turned around, and a lot of these fellows have come around. A good example is PAPER MOON. There was a beautiful job of photography which was probably the first one that wasn’t a soft light job that I’ve seen Laszlo Kovacs do. I think they’re coming around to a more traditional way.
LASZLO: Well, also, too. I think they’ve gained experience, which is a very important factor.
-------------------------
Manderley,
if you don't mind me asking, could you tell us a bit more about yourself and your career as a cameraman? Is that lighting cameraman, operator, or AC? It's great to meet others from that "area" away from the techy boards! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dione Beebe (Memoirs of a Geisha)
Caleb Deschanel (The Passion of the Christ)
Conrad L. Hall (Road to Perdition)
Robert Richardson (Snow Falling on Cedars)
Freddie Young (Lawrence of Arabia)
I often watch movies photographed by these individuals on DVD with the sound muted, in order that I can just admire the composition of the images. My favourite work of their's is in brackets above next to their names.
|
|
|
|
|
|
double post
|
|
|
|
|
|
passed-
Conrad L. Hall
Greg Toland
Nakai Asakazu
Adrian Biddle
James Wong Howe
John A. Alonzo
John Alcott
living-
Vilmos Zsigmond
Vittorio Storaro
Chris Doyle
Januzs Kaminski
Yanagishima Katsumi
Caleb Deschanel
Stephen Goldblatt
Ellen Kuras
Rodrigo Prieto
I used to enjoy Robert Richardson's work up until Sbow Falling on Cedars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I used to enjoy Robert Richardson's work up until Sbow Falling on Cedars.
You don't like the bleach bypass?  I liked how he used it on this film and also Scorsese's BRINGING OUT THE DEAD.
Christopher Doyle's work on Wong Kar Wai's films comes to mind as my favourite DP work today. Lubezki, Serra are two others I'd name too. Tak Fujimoto and Roger Deakins also come to mind.
Less for beauty, but I'm still impressed: I loved Dante Spinotti's work on HEAT , THE INSIDER and LA CONFIDENTIAL, and I also like Dion Beebe's work on COLLATERAL, HOLY SMOKE and MIAMI VICE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't like the bleach bypass? I liked how he used it on this film and also Scorsese's BRINGING OUT THE DEAD.
I've not seen Bringing Out the Dead, but in terms of bleach bypass, the best films I've seen that employ the technique are Saving Private Ryan and Minority Report (both of which were the responsibility of Janusz Kaminski).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny you mention set ups, because this is the prime (no pun intended) area Watkin toook advantage of- we've all heard the stories from OUT OF AFRICA in which Sidney Lumet apparently had to request relights for close ups (David Watkin asleep in his trailer)!
OUT OF AFRICA was directed by Sydney Pollack, not Sidney Lumet.
And it should be noted that the above-reproduced dialogue was between Howard Schwartz, A.S.C (whom I knew), and Ernest Laszlo, A.S.C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
