cinematography is way overrated
Story first please.
cinematography is way overrated
Story first please.
Vile post. Contradictory.cinematography is way overrated
Story first please.
Try and post pics, this is all about imagery after all.
cinematography is way overrated
Story first please.
Try and post pics, this is all about imagery after all.
Nice work ZombieFred.
Edit: Mutes, I don't know about anyone else, but I consider CGI fair game. Most movies are so post processed these days anyway, it'd be tough to draw a fair distinction.
All David Fincher movies but Zodiac most prominently:
All Bond movies starring Craig are good looking but Skyfall takes the cake:
I managed.It can be hard to find still images that capture the cinematography.
I managed.
I hope! It's hard to find decent images that don't break people's browser. I consider 100kb the cut off. Of course, I use m.gaf, which seems to resize everything well. It might look awful on vanilla GAF!
here's an off the older one
Picnic at Hanging Rock, Peter Weir (Director) Russell Boyd (Cinematography)
Three Colors Blue, but I don't think a still picture can capture that film's beauty.
The cinematographer's job is basically to realise the directors vision for the shot in question. Framing, colour balancing, lighting, etc. The director is more about setting the mood, and giving the actors context, and again, helping them realise his vision for the character.as someone with very little knowledge of how movies are actually made, how much does the work of a cinematographer and a director overlap? for example, that famous single take scene in goodfellas is often mentioned when scorsese is talked about, but does the cinematographer deserve any or all the credit for that?
A lot.as someone with very little knowledge of how movies are actually made, how much does the work of a cinematographer and a director overlap? for example, that famous single take scene in goodfellas is often mentioned when scorsese is talked about, but does the cinematographer deserve any or all the credit for that?
The cinematographer's job is basically to realise the directors vision for the shot in question. Framing, colour balancing, lighting, etc. The director is more about setting the mood, and giving the actors context, and again, helping them realise his vision for the character.
Basically, imagine the director is telling a story through paintings. The cinematographer would act as the painter, and paint what the director described for the scene.
Or something like that...