albertwang Posted June 30, 2006 Share #1 Posted June 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 30, 2006 Posted June 30, 2006 Hi albertwang, Take a look here Can we learn photography from watching movies?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
nyrich Posted June 30, 2006 Share #2 Posted June 30, 2006 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted June 30, 2006 Share #3 Posted June 30, 2006 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"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raizans Posted June 30, 2006 Share #4 Posted June 30, 2006 you can learn quite a bit. go for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc21 Posted June 30, 2006 Share #5 Posted June 30, 2006 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted June 30, 2006 Share #6 Posted June 30, 2006 Just a two of many: Days of Heaven (and anything directed by Terrance Malock), and Salton Sea. Stuart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted June 30, 2006 Share #7 Posted June 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) "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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 30, 2006 Share #8 Posted June 30, 2006 Read this article: "Ten Movies Every Photographer Should See". http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/ten-movies.shtml Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted June 30, 2006 Share #9 Posted June 30, 2006 ...and we had a great discussion about books of photographies and movies... http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/3/208458.html?1150943716 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted June 30, 2006 Share #10 Posted June 30, 2006 Read this article: "Ten Movies Every Photographer Should See". http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/ten-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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubice Posted July 1, 2006 Share #11 Posted July 1, 2006 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted July 1, 2006 Share #12 Posted July 1, 2006 And let's not forget that we got to see Jane Birkin without any clothes ;-). God, Serge was a lucky man! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicamann Posted July 1, 2006 Share #13 Posted July 1, 2006 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbertnl Posted July 1, 2006 Share #14 Posted July 1, 2006 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm1912 Posted July 1, 2006 Share #15 Posted July 1, 2006 I would think that some films could help a photographer to learn more about composition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richam Posted July 1, 2006 Share #16 Posted July 1, 2006 Read this article: "Ten Movies Every Photographer Should See". http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/ten-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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 1, 2006 Share #17 Posted July 1, 2006 Yaih a whole movie on "The focus on Bokeh" directed by Ipress Shutter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted July 1, 2006 Share #18 Posted July 1, 2006 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted July 1, 2006 Share #19 Posted July 1, 2006 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). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
telewatt Posted July 1, 2006 Share #20 Posted July 1, 2006 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now