Can we learn photography from watching movies?

[albertwang]

I've been watching a lot of Kubrick stuff and man, I am jealous. To be honest, I feel like watching a ton of indy movies have helped out my photographic skills. In fact, I get a lot of praise from my clients about how up close and personal I get (yes, I do stick cameras in people's faces) and a lot of it has been learned from cinema. In fact, one of my favorite movies has been Godard's Le Mapris which is awesome. Great colors and odd angles.

Any other experiences learning f-stops, angles, lighting from watching movies? Honestly sometimes they are one up over some photographic books (yawn, Anne Geddes stuff) I have seen.

[nyrich]

I don't know how good an example Anne Geddes is. :-) Way to "sweet" for my taste.

A lot can be learned from watching how things are done in movies. Camera angles, lighting, depth of field.

Many of the Hitchcock films make very good use of visuals, especially given the fact that they were filmed before the advent of digital editing. The camera angles and lens choices used in Vertigo, for example, translate very well to still photography.

[jmr]

Kubrick was good on black and white interiors in Dr. Strangelove; but I guess the War Room was pretty conducive to good cinematography.

Remember the quote, something like "Gentlemen please, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room"?

[raizans]

you can learn quite a bit. go for it.

[dc21]

Absolutely, photographers can learn a lot from watching movies. What's amazing to me is that the some filmmakers -- Kubrick, Fincher, Ridley Scott are some of my faves -- manage to capture such gorgeous images while also fulfilling all the other demands of shooting movies (story, acting, sound, etc.). But, of course, they're spending millions to get those images, too, which no still photographer can afford.

Interestingly, all three filmmakers mentioned above have a background in static visual arts -- Kubrick and Fincher with photography and Ridley Scott with painting.

The thing that watching movies has done most to inform my photography lately is to make me appreciate how important the subject/environment is. Maybe this is a no-brainer for most photographers that I'm just now coming around to, but I've always been overly-focused on all the stuff that I do with my camera: angles, lighting, focal length, etc. With several recent projects, however, I've grown frustrated as shooting because the images aren't as good as I want. The changes I finally made that satisfied me have come much more from changing WHAT I'm shooting, though, than to HOW I'm shooting it.

In movie terms, this would fall largely within the realm of art direction -- the choosing/building/decorating of sets. A great set can make a cinematographer's job quite easy. A bad set can sometimes be salvaged -- by either a cinematographer or by a photographer shooting stills -- but it's much tougher.

A good example of this can be seen by comparing the latest two Harry Potter movies. For movie 3, they got Alfonso Cuaron, a real director (sorry, Chris Columbus--stick to producing), who if gifted visually. Not only is the cinematography superb throughout the movie, but Cuaron also oversaw a major art direction re-design of most of the sets and that's "the other half" of why that movie looks so good.

Flash forward to movie 4 and they got Mike Newell to direct. Newell is a bit of a hack, in my opinion, especially in terms of visuals. When shooting re-designed sets left over from Cuaron's film, Newell occasionally stumbles into making them look as good as Cuaron did. At other times, however, and with most (not all, but most) of the new sets, he shows his limitations. Part of it, yes, is that neither he nor his Director of Photography are as terrific as Cuaron, but part of it, too, is that he doesn't have the eye for creating sets that are easy to make look great.

~DC21

[stuny]

Just a two of many: Days of Heaven (and anything directed by Terrance Malock), and Salton Sea.

Stuart

[cbretteville]

"The asphalt jungle", "Call northside 77" and the first version of "the Killers" are three B&W film noir classics with lots of good scenes as far as cinematography is concerned.

- C

[rosuna]

Read this article: "Ten Movies Every Photographer Should See".

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...n-movies.shtml

[rosuna]

...and we had a great discussion about books of photographies and movies...

http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e...tml?1150943716

[telewatt]

Originally Posted by rosuna

Read this article: "Ten Movies Every Photographer Should See".

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...n-movies.shtml

I won't be dictated witch ten films are important to "learn" photography...
if you are intested in doing pictures you will find the right films to get your "language"...

regards,
Jan

[doubice]

Antonioni's 1967 classic 'Blow up' with David Hemming actually started a new wave in fashion photography. I remember what effect the movie left on me, a teenager wondering the streets of Prague with an old Leica around my neck.

Yes, you can definitely learn from movies!

Jan

[stunsworth]

And let's not forget that we got to see Jane Birkin without any clothes ;-). God, Serge was a lucky man!

[leicaflex]

My take on movies is the opposite..its how "movie makers" have learned from fine art and "still photographers" about framing, color, dymnamic and composition. The likes of Coppola, Lucas,Fellini, Speilberg,Bergman, Kurasowa,Kubrick..all display an acute awareness towards the "primacy of the still image".

Cheers, JRM

[norbertnl]

I find this one a marvel: http://www.hollandslicht.nl/. It's a documentary about the light in Holland and a somewhat peculiar idea of Joseph Beuys. Though I'm not into landscape primarily, the film appeals to me pretty much.

Best,
Norbert

[hm1912]

I would think that some films could help a photographer to learn more about composition.

[richam]

Originally Posted by rosuna

Read this article: "Ten Movies Every Photographer Should See".

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...n-movies.shtml

Orson Welles was the B&W master I admire the most. I note his "The Third Man" was on the top ten list. "Citizen Kane" was another masterpiece. I bought the DVD of the latter, and to my delight, it contained a supporting segment explaining, in technical terms, how Welles got the shots he did. Quite interesting.
Mike

[stnami]

Yaih a whole movie on "The focus on Bokeh" directed by Ipress Shutter

[rosuna]

Originally Posted by telewatt

I won't be dictated witch ten films are important to "learn" photography...
regards,
Jan

Sorry very much. It was a suggestion, and was not my intention to dictate anything. The linked article is a personal list of the author, Greg Stott. It is an interesting reading, although I would replace several films in Stott's list. I suppose you have your own preferences too. This subject was discussed in the old forum. I would recommend films by Antonioni or Ozu, or recent films with impressive cinematography, like "The Village" (Roger Deakins) or "Snow Falling on Cedars" (Robert Richardson). Ridley Scott's films also have something special. My list cannot be reduced to ten films, but I have seen (or seen again) several films thanks to Stott's suggestions, and all of them are interesting.

[rosuna]

Originally Posted by richam

Orson Welles was the B&W master I admire the most. I note his "The Third Man" was on the top ten list. "Citizen Kane" was another masterpiece. I bought the DVD of the latter, and to my delight, it contained a supporting segment explaining, in technical terms, how Welles got the shots he did. Quite interesting.
Mike

I agree. "The Third Man" is a film by Carol Reed, but the cinematography is gorgeous.

Another film with great black and white cinematography is Woody Allen's "Manhattan" (Gordon Willis).

[telewatt]

Originally Posted by rosuna

Sorry very much. It was a suggestion, and was not my intention to dictate anything. The linked article is a personal list of the author, Greg Stott. It is an interesting reading, although I would replace several films in Stott's list. I suppose you have your own preferences too. This subject was discussed in the old forum. I would recommend films by Antonioni or Ozu, or recent films with impressive cinematography, like "The Village" (Roger Deakins) or "Snow Falling on Cedars" (Robert Richardson). Ridley Scott's films also have something special. My list cannot be reduced to ten films, but I have seen (or seen again) several films thanks to Stott's suggestions, and all of them are interesting.

Hello Rubén,

I did not mean you. I mean "..luminous-landscape...."

....."...My list cannot be reduced to ten films, but I have seen (or seen again) several films thanks to Stott's suggestions, and all of them are interesting......"

This is a opinion, I like much better...

saludos,
Jan