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 :)

Soderberg on RED

Interesting. I'm a big fan of natural lighting. And I think if this works for Steven on some of his films, and allows him to tell the story effectively, then it's hard to argue it. My only counterpoint to his approach would be that the "best" naturalistic lighting is a combination of actual sourced lighting and the DP/gaffer's ability to supplement that lighting with instruments (lights, bounce cards, etc) that add just the right amount of touch to the scene to give it proper exposure or perhaps highlight something the natural light on its own wasn't able to catch. The trick is to maintain the integrity of the natural light without turning it artificial. The other problem with going only natural light is that it can mess you up if the light is changing quickly. Could lead to some inconsistency amongst multiple angles in a scene.

I'm going to check out this film because I respect Steven's work, and he probably pulled it off brilliantly. I'll post back once I see it.
 
i like this idea - have had that approach on many of my photo shoots - it adds a constraint that forces your eye to come up with new solutions - its brave on a a whole feature - kudos

the zen question is - are you allowed to wear a white t shirt as it may bounce some light
 
agwah said:
the zen question is - are you allowed to wear a white t shirt as it may bounce some light
Click to expand...

A better question is would you purposely ask the actor to wear a white t shirt or place white objects in the scene to achieve that bounced effect without adding artificial lights.\

Jared, I was just about to post this when I saw yours. You're too fast.

BTW, Sasha Grey is hot!!! We'll see if she has the acting chops to be the first crossover adult film star.
 
This is interesting.

However when you are Director/DP you have a lot more "latitude" - pun intended - to do whatever you want with the lighting and take chances.

As a DP "serving" another director's vision - it is much more difficult to take these kinds of chances.

These are the dream relationships - Directors who let you "try things" - and back you up when the execs come asking questions!
 
agwah said:
its brave on a a whole feature - kudos
Click to expand...

You mean, forgetting the countless films which have been shot this way, for lack of any choice in the matter (no money), or the long history of Jean-Luc Godard, to which S.S. has clearly paid attention?

There's a guy, Jon Jost, who has been shooting feature films since the early 1980s, with a one man crew (himself), and with no lights. But he barely scratches by, he's nobody's hero. He might get invited to Sundance to give a seminar (and in fact he was), but they wouldn't think of programming his films any other year, they're not entertaining enough. The audience, the press and the buyers wouldn't like them. Besides, his films are [really] unlit, and look it.

If S.S. wants to shoot without lights, despite having more than sufficient financial resources to light, that's obviously for him to say. Most people, with his budget on TGE, would jump at the chance of professional lighting, but no matter.

But "brave" is when you invest your own money, and a year or two of your life, or maybe 5 years, knowing full well the material has little or no commercial or even festival potential.

I know, bad temper, as usual.....
 
Always good to read about other people's approach to lighting.

I think it really depends on the story you want to tell. E.g. The Matrix or James Bond would not work with natural lighting, just as Once would lose its charme if it had been lit.
 
very interesting.
just watched Che part 2 yesterday and liked this approach a lot (looked better achieved than part1) ... maybe in the Che movies the guy went a bit too far on the hyper real side of storytelling (if a movie feels too much like real life, what's the point of watching a movie?) but i'm very curious to see this one. it's an interesting path.
 
jpp said:
You mean, forgetting the countless films which have been shot this way, for lack of any choice in the matter (no money), or the long history of Jean-Luc Godard, to which S.S. has clearly paid attention?

There's a guy, Jon Jost, who has been shooting feature films since the early 1980s
Click to expand...

True enough jpp. Jost's work is great, I found him while in school and I really admire his films. Check out his website!

Soderberg is clearly influenced by Godard and other members of the French New Wave and Italian Neo-Realists. This approach is not "new", possibly for Soderberg, but not in the scheme of things.
 
jpp said:
You mean, forgetting the countless films which have been shot this way, for lack of any choice in the matter (no money), or the long history of Jean-Luc Godard, to which S.S. has clearly paid attention?

There's a guy, Jon Jost, who has been shooting feature films since the early 1980s, with a one man crew (himself), and with no lights. But he barely scratches by, he's nobody's hero. He might get invited to Sundance to give a seminar (and in fact he was), but they wouldn't think of programming his films any other year, they're not entertaining enough. The audience, the press and the buyers wouldn't like them. Besides, his films are [really] unlit, and look it.

If S.S. wants to shoot without lights, despite having more than sufficient financial resources to light, that's obviously for him to say. Most people, with his budget on TGE, would jump at the chance of professional lighting, but no matter.

But "brave" is when you invest your own money, and a year or two of your life, or maybe 5 years, knowing full well the material has little or no commercial or even festival potential.

I know, bad temper, as usual.....
Click to expand...

those guys are brave too - no worries about that - probably all filmmakers are brave as it is a very difficult thing to pull off

the thing i am into about this - is self imposed restraint - to discover new ways of solving problems that arise -

i once did only one exposure per day for two months - that pushed me to take a giant circular road trip all around america - seeing all kinds of things i wouldn't have otherwise - i would have liked to spend a year - but the real financial restraints prevented me from that - both kinds of restraint can be active in the same project
 
http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=409501&postcount=5

here are some grabs from an 'Available Light' feature, "The Exploding Girl" we did, that won Best Actress at Tribeca Film Festival this year. this camera loves daylight (as we all know) and performs wonderfully and so cinematically with available light!
 
Wasn't the point of this to show that new technology (RED One) is allowing S.S. to do more things?

I mean we can argue the merits of professional lighting versus natural, who did it first, etc, but I don't really think that is the point. I mean, I can take out my Panny GS300 and shoot without lights, and it will look like crap. Whatevs.

I think S.S. is saying that this technology is allowing him to try different things without losing in the compromises (i.e. He is able to obtain the quality he wants.) If all he wanted to do was shoot without lights, he could have used any camera for that. The difference is in the compromises.

On a slightly related note, after seeing the candle footage Peter posted, it really reminded me of Barry Lyndon. Kubrick was able to get the lighting right with those lenses, but they surely weren't that sharp (and had a lot of vignetting). Maybe the RPPs are the answer for those who want to use more natural lighting? :}
 
jpp said:
But "brave" is when you invest your own money, and a year or two of your life, or maybe 5 years, knowing full well the material has little or no commercial or even festival potential.
Click to expand...

brave? i used all my own money for my feature but i never felt brave. i felt foolish and sometimes selfish.

now taking investors' money and making your own little art film with no box office plan...i think that is kind of brave so long as you're not concerned with audience.
 
lol, epic years-long online feuds are hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top