Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Roger Deakins Document: Case Study

Thanks for posting this. It´s always good to look at things again, and specially with your accompanying notes.
 
Things shoudn't get dogmatic. But it's allways nice to have an analitic look at a picture. Copying is the worst thing to do.

"A picture isn't a word and a word isn't a picture"

Pat
 
When you say that the actor's key side of the face is 1 stop over exposure, is that an incident or spot reading?
 
Holy crap! Nice work Mate!

BTW: download the PDF . . . there's more that than the OP
 
Last edited:
I would also caution you when you say "no fill light." I think this is a guess, and it may just be the fill on one side is four stops down from the fill on the other side. And there's always the possibility this was done in post just through dodging the exposure with a power window.

But it's an interesting analysis. Deakins is a very entertaining, really talented guy -- super-articulate, very confident, extremely well-informed, and sure on what he wants out of an image. Easily in the Top 5 world-class cinematographers working today.
 
MichaelJQuill said:
When you say that the actor's key side of the face is 1 stop over exposure, is that an incident or spot reading?
Click to expand...

Spot reading. The process I use is just using zoneSCOPE (or a waveform/rgb parade) but on set it would be with a spot meter.

MichaelJQuill said:
When you say that the actor's key side of the face is 1 stop over exposure, is that an incident or spot reading?
Click to expand...

Actually exposure is just about the only thing I can decipher with some certainty. Can't fake 0's & 1's. Put that still in Resolve or any other software and take a look into the Matrix.

Marc Wielage said:
I would also caution you when you say "no fill light." I think this is a guess, and it may just be the fill on one side is four stops down from the fill on the other side. And there's always the possibility this was done in post just through dodging the exposure with a power window.
Click to expand...

Marc, I would caution anyone looking at this thing to think I have any grasp of what I am talking about. I'm trying to think of a way I could be more clear on this.
Maybe make this question a must answer before downloading:

Do you realize that Patrick is just reverse engineering this stuff on his front porch in Perth, Australia and has never actually seen Mr. Deakins in action?
There is a high possibility he is completely wrong.

That might work at keeping individuals from taking this stuff as fact.

As I said before, I'm just a guy trying to get better at making pictures. I did this little write up for myself and thought others (rookie cinematographers like myself) might find it interesting. I know it took me 1 hour to make and 2 minutes to read so I guess in some ways I put this up in the hope that somebody else out there might actually do something similar so I could take advantage of the peer knowledge sharing on a forum like this.

With the caliber of people who grace these forums I think there is a shit ton of stuff people could be sharing to help elevate everyone's game. Did you shoot a project recently? How did you do it? Did it turn out shit? Why? What did you do exactly? Show me a diagram or a picture so I can understand so that maybe I can learn from your experience and then maybe one day you will learn from me doing the same. But maybe they don't know how interested people actually are. So here I am telling you that I am interested. If you produce good stuff tell me how you did it.

The way people are learning cinematography has changed. But the good stuff, I mean the high level stuff, is still pretty guarded. Probably not because those guys at the top don't like sharing (Mr. Deakins is obviously more than happy to share) but because they are busy doing it. I don't want to see how to set the aperture on my 5D or how to do 3 point lighting. I want to see next level stuff. The things that separate the men from the boys. That stuff is hard to come by because there are so few people who actually know what they are talking about.

So I can either wait for someone else to solve that or do it myself and hope it catches on.

I want to see guys who are doing awesome work telling me how they did it. From the horses mouth as they say. Sharing isn't for everybody but I know I like when people post their set ups and the ups and downs of whether or not it was successful. I get better at making pictures when I read stuff like that. So i post here to encourage others to do the same. I'd like to say I post to help others out but that is a lie. I am posting to make myself better.

I'm a gearhead as much as the next guy but I'm reaching a level where I have access to all the goodies and now it is time to produce the goods. Hearing about a new lens or new camera body isn't near as interesting to me as hearing how someone took the tools and crafted an image with them. So this is my attempt to encourage others to share technical details of complicated set ups. How they went from script to screen in their heads. The technical process they used. Cinematography is art but if you can't work the tools you can't get out of the starting blocks.

10 years ago to learn this stuff you had to be there, you had to assist, you had to test and learn on your own. Nowadays info can be shared in so many ways that things are working differently.
 
Again, love it Patrick and really appreciate the effort to document this enough to share on a professional forum. Those who snipe rather than try to learn from whatever non-perfect source and materials are Muppets. Sorry to be so rude but there I said it ;-)
 
I'm very sure we all appreciate Patrick's shared effort, and now that we have a better understanding of what he is doing all who are reading can take more from the experience.

Rather than viewing Mark's comment as hostile consider the other effect it had. I believe it made us all stop and consider the analysis more critically, rather than accepting it as gospel or fact. That makes the experience less passive and when intellectually engaged we not only learn more, but collectively we may arrive at a more accurate analysis. That is all good.

There are a few guys on the boards with long pedigrees and when they comment it can be intimidating. Some may intend to intimidate, others are just gruff but FWIW from what I have seen of Mr. Wielage over the years he is neither of those things. Unprovoked he means well and is generous with his perspective and knowledge.
 
Interesting read - but as said, must be taken with a pinch of salt.
 
I will follow Patrick's lead and add a few of my own observations for us to criticize.

He is back lit from both sides in both the medium and the CU.

The bank of windows running down one side do provide Key light, backlight and the much of the fill as bounced ambient. The rows of overhead practicals add to the fill particularly on the forehead of the medium. The specular on the arm of his glasses also appears to be reflected practicals in the medium but may be a brighter and harder appliance. It is not present in the CU.

My first guess would be that the lighting of the CU is much the same as the medium, just closer. However looking again at the arm of the glasses, the overhead practicals are either flagged or removed and a fill card or sheet has been added or moved in. You can see it reflected in the bottom of that arm of the glasses. There may also be a tablecloth providing fill in the CU. You can see a reflection in the bottom of his glasses that may just be a specular of the table, or the table top might be covered with a sheet.

In the medium I can only make out a single source in the eye. It may be the window key and an appliance augmenting the key just off camera axis, or just an eye light. In the CU I can see two sources. They may just be two windows along the wall, or the aforementioned combination of sources. It is difficult to tell.
 
Last edited:
Patrick, THANKS for doing this. As an example of the value of "case studies"... I just spent $150 yesterday buying an out of print book about food lighting so that I can see how the pros do it. Your case study is seriously one of the most informative things I've read on RU.
 
In the spirit of the OP I would love to see this break down continue, so I am re-posting two of the frames. Out of respect for Patrick, I have obscured his comments. I hope that doesn't offend anyone.

I encourage him to restore the original post. It was good of him to share it in the first place.


What do you see here?

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Patrick O'Sullivan said:
Marc, I would caution anyone looking at this thing to think I have any grasp of what I am talking about. I'm trying to think of a way I could be more clear on this.
Click to expand...
Silly me! I thought this was a statement of fact. If there had been a disclaimer that said, "my interpolation of Roger Deakins' lighting methods are as follows...", that would have been enough weasel-wording to act as a deflector. Before anybody posts stuff like that, you gotta stop and think for a second and make sure you actually do know what you're talking about, or at least have a sound reasoning behind your guesswork. Guesses are fine when they're identified as such.

No question, it is beautiful photography. Note that several of Deakins' films have been analyzed in interviews in past issues of American Cinematographer and they have included gaffer lighting diagrams and explanations of matte box filtration used, as well as behind-the-scenes shots.

Very good explanation above from Mr. Crawley, BTW.
 
Marc Wielage said:
Silly me! I thought this was a statement of fact. If there had been a disclaimer that said, "my interpolation of Roger Deakins' lighting methods are as follows...", that would have been enough weasel-wording to act as a deflector. Before anybody posts stuff like that, you gotta stop and think for a second and make sure you actually do know what you're talking about, or at least have a sound reasoning behind your guesswork. Guesses are fine when they're identified as such.

No question, it is beautiful photography. Note that several of Deakins' films have been analyzed in interviews in past issues of American Cinematographer and they have included gaffer lighting diagrams and explanations of matte box filtration used, as well as behind-the-scenes shots.

Very good explanation above from Mr. Crawley, BTW.
Click to expand...

Marc you are correct a small disclaimer could have helped, but I'm sad to see Patrick take down his analysis. I thought it was thought provoking and intelligent.
 
Did you guys actually read his first post? The whole thing read like a disclaimer. Patrick made it abundantly clear it was guess work and that it was in no way supposed to be taken as fact.

Any way it was an interesting view and breakdown, thanks while it lasted!
 
Crap I missed the hole thing. Pm me if it will be reposted at some point.

Cheers!

Edit. Got it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top