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 :)

Selfie vs lower camera position

Linda Barzini

Linda Barzini

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
269
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Chicago
Most people intuitively know they look best by holding their camera out and above them. So, if this is the most flattering angle, why are most narrative films shot at or more frequently with the lens below the eye level? Is this just convention or is there a reason?
 
I think that putting the camera above makes eyes larger (they're closer to the lens) and jaw lines smaller which generally speaking makes you look more feminine, and from below you get the opposite effect.

For selfies you often look into the camera and looking up puts white below your iris making your eyes seem bigger as well.

Also, lighting usually comes from above, so having the lighting come from the same side as the camera help lower the contrast with shadows, hair and blemishes.

Movies don't necessarily want to acheive the same goals and have other ways to achieve them.
 
1. Makes You look down on somebody.
2. Makes You look up to somebody.

Don't know how it's called in English, but it's known as rakurs where I come from. :wink5:
 
Those people taking selfies are looking UP at the camera. The only time you'd get an actor looking up like that in a narrative is if the actor is sitting (or is very short) and talking to somebody else who is standing up, just off to the side of the camera.
 
To start the eyeline on the top third of frame

Also used to imply the subject in question has more "power".

Also used to show a child's perspective, sometimes used inline with a lower target age audience.
 
Last edited:
Linda Barzini said:
Most people intuitively know they look best by holding their camera out and above them. So, if this is the most flattering angle, why are most narrative films shot at or more frequently with the lens below the eye level? Is this just convention or is there a reason?
Click to expand...

Because we are telling a story with narrative tools, not taking peoples personal pictures. It's not about what makes them look good, it's about what tells the story, what invokes a certain mood etc.
Actually, I don't think people look good in those selfie-shots from above. I think they look silly. It's a "cutifier"-culture that I don't find especially flattering.

However, it's good to know about this kind of imagery within our culture. How people take pictures and watch stuff is a part of evolving cinema.
 
Linda Barzini said:
Most people intuitively know they look best by holding their camera out and above them. So, if this is the most flattering angle, why are most narrative films shot at or more frequently with the lens below the eye level? Is this just convention or is there a reason?
Click to expand...

There are a bunch of reasons which depend on the context and intent of the shot. There isn't just one most flattering angle.
Most flattering angle alone is not the priority, optimal possible within the visual intent is.
 
What people are doing ≠ what people should be doing

Duck face anyone? Just saying.

That said, headshot photographer Peter Hurley has a number of videos talking about light, angles and poses that make a person look their best. It's often about strengthening natural good lines and getting rid of double chin and stuff like that. I guess everyday people—that might not have faced carved out of stone—have found out, empirically, how to integrate some of those techniques into their selfie sessions.

For what seems like obvious reasons, narrative and documentary setups can't "look down" on all their subjects.
 
Linda, for me it's about the interaction between audience and actor. If I want to convey to the audience the actor is in a position of power I may shoot slightly below... villanously powerful, even lower. A demure person, above to whatever degree the character is. In a long shot, maybe at normal levels or as a high shot, as I'm trying to get the audience to not be the character but seeing the character as an out-of-body experience.

May also depend on how forcefully an actor is delivering the lines.

Of course sometimes it's just about the actor's relationship with another actor... seating and standing, short vs tall, these are common and intuitive. But your question triggers thoughts of "how does an audience react if I go counter-intuitive?

Manna for thought, to be sure.
 
Framing, blocking, and eye lines tell a cinematic story just as much as anything else. There's a ton of examples as real films do this in every scene, but here's an example in something I shot.

https://vimeo.com/157130060

Skip to 3:20 and notice how 10 seconds later when the cop yells, he raises in the frame, creating that dominant position and putting the other guy on the defensive. In the following shot, notice how the cop towers over the other man, being higher in the frame because the camera level was lower.

Manna for thought indeed, this stuff fascinates me, and when done correctly, is never noticed by people outside of the cinematography world.
 
Josiah Duncan said:
Framing, blocking, and eye lines tell a cinematic story just as much as anything else. There's a ton of examples as real films do this in every scene, but here's an example in something I shot.

https://vimeo.com/157130060

Skip to 3:20 and notice how 10 seconds later when the cop yells, he raises in the frame, creating that dominant position and putting the other guy on the defensive. In the following shot, notice how the cop towers over the other man, being higher in the frame because the camera level was lower.

Manna for thought indeed, this stuff fascinates me, and when done correctly, is never noticed by people outside of the cinematography world.
Click to expand...

Nicely done... Twilight Zone - 2016. Serling would have been proud.

Especially liked the way Cop #2 gave us clues to being flesh eater with the understated looks between himself and the home-owner during initial encounter. Good Directing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top