Week One Reflection – http://www.mediafactory.org.au/ryan-rosenberg/2018/03/07/film-light-week-1-class-1-reflection/

Week Two Reflection – http://www.mediafactory.org.au/ryan-rosenberg/2018/03/07/film-light-week-2-class-1-reflection/

Film Scene Description – http://www.mediafactory.org.au/ryan-rosenberg/2018/03/09/film-light-scene-from-buffallo-66/

Painting Description – http://www.mediafactory.org.au/ryan-rosenberg/2018/03/09/film-light-painting-description/

What strikes me first about Rembrant’s Syndics Of The Drapers’ Guild is the blocking (is that a term used in painting?). It’s masterful and reminds me of how Rosselini used blocking in his film Blaise Pascal.

The colours, or moreso the shades that are used in the painting blend into one another until closer inspection. The light source seems to come from the window (out of frame) on the left hand side. It hits the faces in different ways, some shades are darker than others, but it is most pronounced on the end of the table cloth that sits closest to the window. Another aspect that alters the lighting on each drapers face are their hats.

The main question that I have is at what time is set? Is it morning? Is it afternoon?

Vincent Gallo’s 1998 film Buffalo ’66 is a film truly free from any ideology. It is a pure aesthetic investigation of observation, mood and atmosphere.

Each scene has its own unique characteristic that stands it apart from one another, but Gallo still manages to make the film a wholly cohesive experience. This scene is of Billy (Gallo) and Layla (Ricci) in a photobooth.

What’s first noticeable is the frame, which acts as the camera from the photobooth. Billy and Layla react to the light source that comes as the photobooth performs its task; they can be seen adjusting their eyes as each shot is taken.

Another lighting choice is how they are both lit. The key/fill contrast is more defined on Billy’s face. As Layla is sitting on his lap, her physical movement also draw additional shadows to his face. The lighting on Layla is more overexposed; it is clear that the primary key light source is directed to arrive on her face.

The orange curtains that are used as the scene’s backdrop kind of mesh in with the characters faces. The main contrasts are drawn from their hair (darker shades) and the drab colours from Billy’s jacket.

For the second time around, I was once again in my comfort zone; behind the camera. But despite this, as well as having more lighting resources at my disposal, I felt less in control than the previous exercise.

We had 4 people (including myself) in the group and our roles weren’t clearly defined. Alec kept adjusting the frame I had originally set and I didn’t really know what he was going for. Ultimately, it felt like one too many people. This is not a fault of Robin; there is only so much equipment available for hire, but I felt I would have had more of a grasp on the experiment if it was in a group of 3 – one person the subject, one the cameraperson and one the gaffer. And maybe because we had a lot of time we could have had 10 minutes each (probably more than enough) and swapped roles another two times so each member had a go at DP’ing and gaffing.

Because of the aforementioned, it’s hard for me to really comment on the lighting choices, because they weren’t really mine. The best I can do is analyse them, albeit from a more detached perspective.

As somebody who hates the aesthetic of digital colour photography, I will (almost) always prefer the black and white option (if available).

I guess what I really respond to in this shot are the multiple contrasts that exist with or against one another. The jacket and the shirt, the hair and the face, the light and the blind, the table and the wall, etc. There’s a certain form that has (unintentionally) emerged from the mere placement of the camera and subject (primarily), and to me this is what makes film, or moreso the actual practice of filmmaking so magical.

Despite my reservations above about digital colour photography, this is still a fine image. Perhaps the fill lighting on Andrew’s face is a bit strong, but it’s hardly a distraction. I think you can get away with these types of errors(?) when shooting on black and white, or maybe I’m totally wrong.

Lydia was generous enough to offer herself as the subject for the exercise. Andrew and I placed her near a window, and to be totally honest, not a lot of other thought went into the lighting.

 

 

 

 

 

If I had my time again, I would probably elevate the tripod, just ever so slightly. It’s situated at probably too much of a low-angle for liking. As for the way in which the shot is composed, I don’t see any issues in the context of what we were doing for the exercise. If this were a ‘proper’ documentary interview, then yes, I would probably make the background less of a distraction.

If you watch the whole of the footage, you would realise how often Lydia is moving her head from side to side. In terms of keeping a tightly composed frame, this presents itself as a concern, moreso for lighting than anything else as it eliminates the consistency of the choice.

I think the black and white shot is more sympathetic than the one with colour. I don’t know why and I’m trying to figure it out. Perhaps the contrasts are sharper? But then again, I’m not sure why that makes a subject more sympathetic. Perhaps this is something to explore further.

      

As for the other groups, I selected my favourite coloured image and my favourite black and white one. And I must admit, I don’t respond to them in their opposite form. The coloured image of Michael is nicely framed and key lit. The black and white image (my favourite) of Kerry is really quite spectacular. I love the different temperatures and shades, though it could perhaps be framed a bit nicer!