Flashing

[jcuknz]

I would disagree with Manfred about composition not being part of motion picture work If we accept that the positioning of the subject in frame is composition it is a vital aspect as to how the scenes will cut together and I write from 26years as an editor without wishing to contradict Manfred's other points. As an editor I rate directional continuity as a most desirable aspect for the flow of the narrative ... frequently ignored unfortunately by TV as opposed to the crafted single-camera production.
I might be tempted to suggest that composition appears to be ignored or unknown in many stills ... but perhaps I should not

As for flashing giving the 'old fashioned detail in the shadows' I simply do not know and anyway am suspicious of people introducing films on TV but I give credit to the Lighting Cameraman who carefully lights the scene with enough light to let us see into the shadows without it being dreadfully obvious.

[Mike Buckley]

I have now received The Negative -- Basic Photo Two by Ansel Adams. The pre-exposure process discussed in this thread is explained on pages 109 and 110 of that book. The explanation by James Bullard of that process accessed by the link provided by Richard is reasonably consistent with the explanation in the book.

An important clarification not mentioned in the Bullard piece is provided in the Ansel Adams book: "Pre-exposure is thoroughly satisfactory for supporting small areas of shadow in which an impression of substance and texture is not imperative; but for large shadow areas it may show a false tonality, in which the appearance of a considerable area of uniform tone without texture or substance gives an illusion of allover fog."

None of the photos included in Examples -- The Making of 40 Photographs also by Ansel Adams were made using this pre-exposure process.

[Manfred M]

I would disagree with Manfred about composition not being part of motion picture work If we accept that the positioning of the subject in frame is composition it is a vital aspect as to how the scenes will cut together and I write from 26years as an editor without wishing to contradict Manfred's other points. As an editor I rate directional continuity as a most desirable aspect for the flow of the narrative ... frequently ignored unfortunately by TV as opposed to the crafted single-camera production.
I might be tempted to suggest that composition appears to be ignored or unknown in many stills ... but perhaps I should not

As for flashing giving the 'old fashioned detail in the shadows' I simply do not know and anyway am suspicious of people introducing films on TV but I give credit to the Lighting Cameraman who carefully lights the scene with enough light to let us see into the shadows without it being dreadfully obvious.

John - I think we are actually saying the same thing. Composition is definitely part of any motion picture shoot, but what makes or breaks the film / video is how it is edited (both the audio and video components. Give me exquisitely shot footage that is poorly assembled in editing and you have a terrible movie. Screw up the sound synch or continuity, people will notice.

Take a compelling story line and edit it well so that the movie flows, and you can get around "crappy" shooting. I think the Blair Witch Project is an example where this holds true; the image quality / shooting was definitely so-so; but the story was compelling and the editing was excellent.

[Mike Buckley]

I just now reviewed his book, Examples -- The Making of 40 Photographs. He provides information about the film he used for all but two of the images. He doesn't mention this technique in the book. I suspect that's because he probably used this technique only during his Pictorialism period, which was relatively short-lived, and there is only one image in the book from that period.

I wrote all of that in Post #16 of this thread and now realize that most of it is wrong. Adams actually does mention pre-exposure on page 121 in the context of a photo of Yosemite's Nevada Fall that he made using pre-exposed color film even though all photos in the book are in black-and-white. He made the photo in about 1947, which was decades after he had abandoned Pictorialism. He used pre-exposure for the reason discussed earlier in the thread, not to make a photo in the style of Pictorialism.

[rpcrowe]

Donald wrote: "I'm glad there are others doing this as well. As a B & W enthusiast, I now watch 'The Third Man' (Orsen Welles) in a totally different way. The cinematography in that is awesome."

I agree with Donald. I attended a one-year course (under the U.S. Navy) at the Department of Cinematography of the University of Southern California during the September 1964 through August 1965 school year. This was a formative time in Hollywood motion picture production with most films being shot in color but the occasional drama still being shot in B&W.

The "old school cinematographers, shooting for the Hollywood Studios, generally looked down their noses at color photography. It was their consensus that "anyone can shoot something pretty in color" but. "it takes an expert cinematographer or director of cinematography to make a good black and white film". BTW: They also looked down their noses at using zoom lenses, considering the zoom lens as a "lazy man's tool" But that is a subject for another posting...

I watch some of these old B&W classics and marvel at the quality of the lighting and general cinematography. The "Third Man" is just one of those great films. However, even some of the lesser films had some wonderful cinematography. Additionally, some really bad films had good cinematography and lighting. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlr...ein_shortfilms

Look at the walls in most shots. They were never just plain but, had shadows cast on them by using "cookies" or "gobos" in front of the light sources. Sometimes the character's shadow was the main subject being filmed.

Here is a great article regarding the "film noir" look!
http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/the-b...for-film-noir/

I am thinking that when flashing is used, the photographer or cinematographer can use to really high ratio lighting with color film, yet not totally lose the shadows...

[Donald]

Fascinating post, Ricahrd (thank you) and an excellent link re ligthing for film noir. Great to have it easily explained.

[rpcrowe]

Another facet of film that was very important to earlier generation film makers was balancing the indoor lighting with outdoor light as seen through windows and doors. Many of the cinematographers that I met while undergoing my course of study at USC took pride in not having the outdoor light overwhelm the indoor lighting when a window was included in the shot or when a door was opened.

Windows were handled in two ways. First and foremost, quite often outdoors was faked and shot in the studio. This is very apparent to us now but movie viewers were not as sophisticated then. While it took a lot of work to FAKE the outdoors on a film set, the actual shooting was easier because of not having to accommodate the vast difference between outdoor and indoor lighting. Also in shots where there was no window or door and the outdoors was faked, the filmmaker did not have to worry about things like: weather and balancing the light for the footage shot today with the footage shot yesterday.

It was also cheaper to shoot in the studio because the producer did not need to transport the entire group of talent and technicians to a location. Equipment and film limitations made location shooting more difficult. Cameras, lighting and sound equipment was heavy and bulky and the emulsions used were slower.

With the advent of more portable gear and faster emulsions, along with the increased sophistication of the motion picture audience, films were shot on location more frequently. This increased the window and door problem. Windows were easy to work around with ND and/or colored gels covering the glass. The difficulty with doors was, when a door to the outdoor was opened, the outdoors would be way overexposed. You couldn't gel a door because people had to walk through it. The way around this was to light the interior close to the brightness of outdoors which was expensive since it needed more lights and power. Another way to remedy the problem of a overexposed open door was simply to avoid shooting it.

Lately, I have noticed that film makers do not seem to care about the over bright doorways. It is just something that they accept (and so, by the way, does the movie going audience).

[marlunn]

I'm glad there are others doing this as well. As a B & W enthusiast, I now watch 'The Third Man' (Orsen Welles) in a totally different way. The cinematography in that is awesome.

I admit to not having heard about that technique of 'flashing' the film. And I thought I knew about Adams' work and his approaches to photography.

take a peek at the original Ladykillers apart from some serious names there is great cinamatography there.