Adapting/Learning from Cinematography: is this still a "thing"?

If I'm hogging the PN forums, please honestly tell me honestly and I'll cool off.

 

I go years at a time without doing anything much in photography and even if I do it's just the same old, same old. But once very couple of years, I again become motivated to re-learn something I once knew more about and perhaps even learn something new. Becoming more active on PN has rekindled my motivation. I recently posted in the B&W forum and I'm still keen to (re-)learn more about how to take and process better B/W photos.

 

On a completely different track, Netflix recently brought to my attention that the newest series of 'Outlander' was now available. I vaguely remembered vaguely that it had something to do with a woman who inadvertently time traveled from 1945 back to 1745 in Scotland and had various adventures there. Before starting the new episodes, I decided to flick back through the first and second series to refresh my memory of the story line.

 

Watching the first 30 mins of episode 1 of series 1, I was (for the first time) stunned by the high quality of the cinematography. It included just about every variation on photographic style and technique that I (theoretically) know about including composition, lighting, color saturation/grading, focus, etc. The first 30 mins appeared to me to be a true of 'technique'. Of course, it's a big budget series and it's shot with big budget lighting, camerawork and post processing. Even still, I found it a fine example of what could be done. Every scene (lighting, color, saturation, focus, detail) just seemed 'right'. I'd hoped the series would have won some kind of prize for 'photographic technique' but - though it won prizes for best and costumes - none for technique.

 

Which brings me to another of my post-processing interests: cinematography. I realize that that the teal/orange 'look' has become a cliche and has been done to death. But perhaps there are other films, series or cinematographic scenes that have inspired you in your digital darkroom. If so,

- Which films/series/scenes ?

- How have you applied them?

 

You may feel that photography and cinematography have - these days - very little to learn from each other. If so, your views are of course equally valuable!

My love for movies has inspired a lot of my photography. There are, of course, vast differences, but the ways in which movies tell visual stories has always interested me.

 

Two series I find extremely well filmed and whose story lines I like a lot are Mr. Robot and Westworld. In a very different way and with a different tone and palette, Rectify was also great tv and filmed really nicely.

 

In terms of directors, the visual style of Scorsese and a lot of the old film noir greats (Fritz Lange, Nicholas Ray) really appeal to me, as do many of the more classic, great black and white directors (Howard Hawks, Josef von Sternberg, Otto Preminger, Hitchcock). Nothing like the old Westerns for great cinematography (John Ford, Hawks again, Sergio Leone, Clint Eastwood). And for luscious color work, Douglas Sirk and Vincente Minnelli.

 

I haven’t done that much in the way of specific homages, but here’s one that was definitely influenced by my love for old black and white noirs. I’m posting this one in particular because it’s kind of fortuitous. I took it up in the mezzanine of the Castro Theater at a film noir festival, during one of the breaks. The light coming through the curtains was just right and this guy walked by who was well dressed for the occasion.

 

Interestingly, photography is often distilled down to "the moment." That's certainly understandable. But to me, photography is more than a moment stilled. It can also be a story told, the expression or study of many mixed emotions, and it can be about movement as opposed to stillness, whether that's physical movement captured in the photo or a sense of movement to the past or the future or from the past to the future. I often think of good photography in terms more of body of work or particular exhibition series than simply individual, non-related images. So, when I go to an exhibit of photos, look through a photo book, or think of my own work, I don't just think in terms of individual moments but rather in terms of relationships among photos and stories not only that the specific photo tells but that a bunch of photos shown together tell. So, there's a cinematic approach to taking individual photos but there's also a cinematic approach one can have toward groupings or even pairings of photos and to one’s body of work as a whole.

 

Presentation also comes to mind. Traditionally, we watched movies in a darkened theater with no distractions, so we really concentrated on them. Photo viewing can be a lot less concentrated, especially on the Internet where photos are breezed through. I'm planning to exhibit some photos in the spring, and one of the rooms will be very dark with just spots pointed directly at the prints. I'm doing this for a number of reasons, but one effect will be that it may allow for a different kind of concentration than is normally available when viewing photos.

If I'm hogging the PN forums, please honestly tell me honestly and I'll cool off.

I've enjoyed the threads you've been starting. Since there is so little discussion anymore on PN of actual photos, the aesthetics of photos, and the presentation of photos, I'd say any topic you can think of is most welcome. A couple of years ago, you would have received many responses to these types of threads. Many of those people are long gone, so you'll get fewer responses these days. But they are interesting and valid topics.

For really interesting color cinematography you might enjoy the films War Kar-Wai especially those with cinematographer Christopher Doyle. Try the quirky film "Days of Being Wild". Also Jim Jarmousch does some interesting work. I've seen his "Limits of Control". Though the palette may be more of the "Teal - Orange" look you think is a cliche. I believe these gentlemen were some of the developers of that look. Of course one of the great cinematic treats is noted filmmaker and photographer Stanley Kubrik's "Barry Lyndon" and really anything by Kubrick. Also a nice little film called "Somewhere" by Sofia Coppola. She does some fun things and breaks a few rules as sort of visual puns.

For me, the transition was in reverse, applying still photography composition and lighting to video. It's using the elements of time, motion, transitions and sound, that are best learned from cinema itself. The first time around watching, I try to concentrate on the drama. If I see something I like, I go around a second time or more. Why did the director do this or that - nothing is ever accidental in a film that might have been months in production and a year in editing. How do they cut between cameras (usually after 5-10 seconds). What angles do they use.

 

The most sacred rule of cinematography is the "Fourth Wall," the invisible wall that separates the viewer from the scene. You never cross it, unless of course you wish to jar the viewers in some way. They say rules are meant to be broken, but in reality, not unless you have a solid reason for doing so, and it works.

 

The beautiful colors and toning are no accident either. To a certain extent, the director controls the lighting and mood in camera, but most of that work is done in post, in a process called "grading," color balancing to the rest of us, but more. Scenes shot over several days with many takes and (often) two or more cameras, must look as though shot at the same time. Most cinema starts as digital these days, and for many years, all editing has been done on a digital sub-master. You shoot with a log(x) gamma, very flat with long shoulder, which effectively gives you an enormous dynamic range.

As a celebrated cinematographer, Caleb Deschanel is hard to beat (OK I'm prejudiced since he was a fraternity brother eons ago). And there are many more who are showing creativity unimagined 20 years ago. A good cinemartographer needs a very creative director, of course, for his films to really succeed, both artistically and financially. Some of the films and series mentioned above certainly qualify for brilliant cinematography. I would add that recently I've been highly impressed by several Swedish cinematographers doing mystery/murder series for TV. Can still photographer learn from cinematographers...I think so, perhaps as an expansion of the capture of vision.