Ken Burns' "Lewis & Clark" and video landscapes

[marc_fraioli]

Did anyone catch Ken Burns' <U>Lewis and Clark</U> documentary on PBS this week? He was constrained in what he could show by the fact that their expedition was launched in 1804, before the invention of photography, so he couldn't use his usual "pan the camera across some old photos" technique. Instead, he used modern, color landscapes of the area in question, and they were quite stunning. I was struck by how they are quite similar to the landscapes still photographers take in many ways, but that there were some differences that really stood out too. Such as, there were some shots with flowers or grasses in the foreground that were really blowing in the wind. For us still photographers, that would have been a real pain in the rear, and might even have sent us home to try again another day. But with video, it was just fine.

 

<p>

 

Also, there were a number of shots where the camera slowly panned across a scene, and somehow, they maintained a pleasing composition at all times. That strikes me as really hard to do!

 

<p>

 

Anyway, if you're into natural landscapes (they were pretty much devoid of human influence, which is why I posted this in the nature forum), this documentary has close to four hours worth of truly magnificent ones. It's worth checking out. I'm sure they'll show it again if you missed it.

[chelsea]

Yes, Marc, I watched it, all the while happy that my companion had bought himself a 32 inch screen t.v. I loved the seascape shots, and those taken in the mountains during different seasons. There was one wetland shot that had me wishing I could get setup there with tripod and camera.

 

<p>

 

Quite often I'll watch these documentaries to get some ideas on how to compose, some of these pro cinematographers give some fine examples of how to look at scenery from a different angle. TV is often given a bad rap for filling the airwaves with so much crap, but in between there are often wonderful examples of some lovely images.

[don_baccus2]

I really enjoyed this series, having read the (abridged) journals a couple of times. The fact that I'm sitting about 20 miles from Fort Clatsop as I type this perhaps also helps account for my fascination with the journey.

 

<p>

 

I won't comment further on the videography (which I agree was very good), but on my point of view as I watched it. I was really curious as to how he was going to portray the wildness of the Missouri and the vastness of the prairie, as little of that is left today. Portraying the Oregon coast is pretty easy, as it still looks pretty wild in many places.

 

<p>

 

So, one technique I noticed when the keelboat was being showed on the lower Missouri (corresponding to the first weeks of the journey) was the set of bank-and-trees going by as the camera panned with the boat. Backlit in sunset lighting, bright day lighting, etc - different scenes, same scenery. He must've had a real time finding a spot he liked to portray this stretch of the river! It reminded me of the ever-repeating background you see in low-quality cartoons. I'm not implying this was low-quality work in this case, though! Borne of necessity!

 

<p>

 

The work on Great Falls was interesting, too. The dams along the river have changed the flow, and the falls aren't always Great. And, this is no longer remote country.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, that was my perspective while watching it: trying to pick up on how he managed to put cross this illusion that you're looking at land that looks like the land L&C saw. Much easier in the Bitteroots Wildneress, though, than along the lower Missouri!

 

<p>

 

I also enjoyed the editing, with new footage intertwined with old stills of indians on horse back, in a way that flowed very well with the narrative.

 

<p>

 

Not only does this topic fit here for the reason you've given (IMO), but remember also that the expedition greatly expanded our knowledge of the natural history of our land. New species were found, beginning with Lewis' woodpecker and Clarke's nutcracker, for instance - mammal s unknown to western science, I mean (obviously indians and trappers knew of the various species of plant and animal they found).

 

<p>

 

And Lewis did a lot of Nature Sketching, wasn't his fault the camera hadn't been invented yet!

[lolo_lasid]

Awesome, awesome work. Five years of work if I am correct, and I'm sure they did gruesome location scouting and tons of early morning shots. They probably saw more dawns than most photographers/cinematogprahers. The images are simply breathtaking. Superb.

<br>

I think most, if not all of it, were done with cinema camera/film and not video as commented above. So they did have to deal with as much troubles with regards to lighting, etc, that are inherent with still photography also. Some artificial lighting were used when control became difficult.

<br>

This production is a must-see for landscape photographers and hikers/backpackers as well, althought sadly parts of the wilderness is no longer the same 200 years later.. the grizzly bears, the american bisons, and the Indian nations are no longer as how the Corps of Discovery encountered them. See it, and if you missed it, order it from www.pbs.org (they will re-air, check your local PBS).

[martin_davidson]

I haven't seen this particular documentary, but if it is like his other stuff, then I can imagine its virtues.

 

<p>

 

It will almost certainly have been shot on film, not video. Because American television does not have a huge appetite for this kind of factual programming, this means that what does get through the network net, tends to be of the highest quality, and with a prestige to match. I can imagine the kind of budget he will have been working to, even for a cash-strapped PBS -- and it will have been huge!

 

<p>

 

The other thing that is worth saying is that this type of moving photography has a big advantage over stills work. I have worked with many really good camera men/women, British and American, who have fantastic powers of composition, both with moves, and with stills (and yes, pans and tilts are very hard to do!) but you shouldn't underestimate the power of a sequence of shots to seduce you!

 

<p>

 

Anyone who has worked in a cutting room will know the power that a sequence of even indifferent shots can achieve when artfully combined. Often, if you were to take a shot out of a film, and duplicate it as a still, the result can be anti-climactic. Stills have to work on their own, without music, movement, script, and the emotions of an evolving story!

 

<p>

 

In terms of brilliant video/film stills composition, can I recommend you keep an eye open for an A&E BIOGRAHY strand film, on Martin Luther King, directed by John Okumfrah -- I have never seen the South shot so dramatically (on digi-beta, with heavy use of filters, shutter speeds, and manipulated white-balancing -- and a brilliant eye.)

 

<p>

 

There is another series that A&E showed earlier this year (but will almost certainly repeat) called American Visions, a history of American art and culture (and landscape, naturally) presented by Robert Hughes. The films on Washington, and the western wilderness, both contain fabulous "photography" of continental America, both rural and urban.

 

<p>

 

There IS good stuff on American television, even in terms of photography, but you just have to look harder for it!!