Unanimously considered best DOP alive

>unanimously considered best DOP alive
>Hasnt won an Oscar

Why do people care about these award ceremonies?

Other urls found in this thread:

premiumbeat.com/blog/blade-runner-2049-lighting-cinematography/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

because the people that make them control the media and the media influences the people

That's not Christopher Doyle or Lubezki

ITMFL was 18 years ago user, try again.

...

I thought Jimmy Saville was dead

>unanimously considered best DOP alive
unbelievably pleb.
go back to rēddit

DOPs are mote meme tier than grips tbph

the term is 'DP', brainlet. Prepositions are not included.

He's not the best DOP alive though. He's like a dude who has been consistently good his whole career, and the few times he's been great, someone else was just a bit a better.

The only year he truly got robbed is when Skyfall lost to a film that barely contained any cinematography, because the Academy confused VFX for photography (he notably won the ASC award that year).

This year he should win, but I have a feeling they're gonna toss it to the guy behind Shape Of Water (even though it's all Production Design and post work) or maybe even hilariously go full feminst and give it to Mudbound.

>people who decide where and/or how to point the camera, which produces the literal thing you're looking at, is a mémé

They unironically are when pepole are referring to DOP's.

Don't ask me why.

probably Americans.

>no seriously user Dick Tracy is a better shot movie then No Country For Old Men.

Just fucking kill yourself

>people who decide where and/or how to point the camera, which produces the literal thing you're looking at, is a mémé

The thread is about cinematographers, not directors, brainlet.

Cinematographers decide how to light the scene to the directors satisfaction.

The director chooses where and/or how to point the camera.

And if he's working for Marvel, he doesn't even get to do that half the time, because the Previz guys do it for him.

>tfw Brit-Kino wasn't the dominant force so we don't get to call them Lighting Cameramen anymore

>pointing a camera is so hard guise, gibs me dat

also cats are faggots

Not him, but Dick Tracy is unironically better lit than No Country For Old Men.

it is you fucking idiot.
Storaro is literally the only one who has proved Digital can look as good as film.

>The director chooses where and/or how to point the camera.
No, the director just chooses where, the framing and composition part is all a part of DP's work, along with the lighting ofcourse. And yeah the director can say if he wants specific framing and composition like Fincher does, but mostly that's all on the cinematographer and his crew

>Storaro is literally the only one who has proved Digital can look as good as film.

Examples?

Try again bucko

>The director chooses where and/or how to point the camera.
Are you really telling me that the only job the DP does is lighting?
Are you daft?

Directors will give directions on how they envision the shot and at times, decide where the camera sits and points to, but the DOP handles the artistic side of it.

What about framing the shot? What about lighting the shot? What about choosing the right lens? What about choosing the right settings? What about camera operating? What about the focus? What about the composition?

cafe society is the only modern movie he's made and it look terrible not a film look just digital

He literally thinks the DOP/Gaffer is the same role. Directors also focus a lot of their time on blocking.

Wow. Backlighting. Truly amazing.

>the framing and composition part is all a part of DP's work

Only in rare cases. The more visually inclined a director is, the more framing and composition falls under his domain. Directrors like Spielberg, Fincher, Bay, Hitchcock and so on will not only dictate framing and composition (compositoin in terms of the blocking of a scene always falls under the director) but also lens lengths.

>but mostly that's all on the cinematographer and his crew

That's the complete wrong way around. Most directrors, especially modern directors, dictate the framing and composition completely. While cinematographers are almost entirely focused on lighting, hence their original name.

A guy like Fincher isn't noted for controlling framing, he's noted for the SPECICIFITY of his framing - a normal director will say of the framing "I want a close up from thsi angle". Fincher will dictate the exact compositoin and framing and distance and lens length and so forth.

The Coens, who Deakin's used to work with constantly for instance have the entire picture storyboarded and the editing pre-vized to a degree. Deakins framing and composition is taken from their boards which are actually mounted and displayed on set.

Cafe Society and hopeful for his next Woody Allen film.
I disagree. Ive been completely against digital and I watched it last year, looked brilliant desu especially the indoor stuff

>only

The lighting is the single most important element in the photography.

>are you daft

No. I'm right though.

Why do you think they were originally credited as the lighting cameraman?

Why do you think they refer to their job as lighting and are in charge of the lighting department?

>but the DOP handles the artistic side of it.

It's the complete opposite. The DOP handles the TECHNICAL side of it. That's literally their job. To translate the artistic wishes of the director through the technical departments. Just go and pick up any single copy of ASC Magazine and listen to them talk about their own jobs.

>lighting
>only job

Jesus user, that's as dumb as asking if the actors only job is acting.

I preferred the visuals in The Great Gatsby i think that was digital

>framing the shot

Director or previz/storyboard artist

>choosing the right lens

Sometimes the director or previz

>choosing the right settings

Not rocket science

>camera operating

Camera operators job

>focus

Focus pullers job

>Compostion

Director or Previz/Storyboard.

You can read Deakins' blog to understand what he does exactly he writes quite often

Good thread lads interesting discussion.

I tried to watch that over Christmas and the music was too much for me. typical Luhrmann I guess

And obviously there are different cases - Oliver Stone for example left A LOT of the visual language up to Robert Richardson - and you can see the difference in Oliver Stone films after he stopped working with Richardson.

Meanwhile, if you watch a Scorsese film shot by Richardson, a Stone film shot by Richardson and a Tarantino film shot by Richardson, there is no carry over in terms of framing and composition - just in lighting (which is distinct with Richardson). Meanwhile a Scorsese film will be framed and composed in a similar fashion (so similar he's constantly imitated) regardless of the DP. The same composition techniques present in Goodfellas will show up in Casino for instance. But the lighting is distinctly different yet if you throw on Inglorious Basterds you will see the same lighting techniques employed by Richardson across films.

He's nothing but an overrated desktop background merchant. Everything he does feels sterile and static.

>Director or previz/storyboard artist
Which often work directly with the cinematographer
>Sometimes the director or previz
Extremely rarely.
>Camera operators job
Who works according to the instructions of the director of photography
>Focus pullers job
Who works according to the instructions of the director of photography
>Director or Previz/Storyboard.
Same as my first point

He was responding to me, and I don't think that.

Memeposters like you spam the same 2 or 3 frames out of 77 films he worked on in his entire career, 13 that got Oscar nominated

>Which often work directly with the cinematographer
Sure. The DP also nearly always works with the Production Designer. He's still not in charge of building the sets (unless it's Star Wars where the DP literally did lose his shit and start building the sets)

The lighting is his job. It's the single most important part of his job and the part he has the most control over.

Pixar and ILM paid Deakins a bunch of money to come in and specifically lecture them on lighting.

The most respected book and documentary made on the subject, routinely shilled by the ASC is "Visions Of Light". Cinematographers pretentiously refer to their job as "painting with light".

That's what they're known for. Lighting.

but death grips are the biggest meme

Also James Cameron - such an anal retentive faggot that he wants to be in charge of the film stock too. To the point that he destroyed an entire day's shooting by deliberately putting the wrong film stock into the cannisters to teach the DP a lesson for not doing what he was told.

Has Deakins gone too far?

I wondered how he did that.

That’s an entire budget of some small indie film in the form of 256 ARRI 300-watt Fresnel lights

Is this too generate the reflections?

Why couldn't he just throw up a couple of big chinese lantern style lights or big lights behind a scrim?

Because it's a 360 degree circularly moving light, not a static one. If you saw the film you would notice how the light is never static, you can see that here

overcompansating for his small penor lmao

>muh every scene needs foreground, middle and background lighting
OVERPAID, UNDERWORKED

It does not matter when something was.
If their work is better,even if ages old, and they are still alive then they are better living dsop.

I saw the movie.

What's the purpose of having a moving light source like that? That's why I was asking if it was to generate the ripple reflections on the wall. Couldn't you just throw up a big scrim and some lights and dial them up or down and get the same effect as a fuck ton of lights?

I didn't notice any effects in the scene of spotlight following the actors aroudn or anything.

I don't think that's how they did it in the first one

Here's a good read
premiumbeat.com/blog/blade-runner-2049-lighting-cinematography/

And if you have more question, you can literally ask Deakins himself on his blog and he will more than likely answer it, if it wasn't already asked a hundred times before ofcourse.

>hfw Lubezki wins for Song to Song

I hate that fuck, his early work was magnificent but today he's just a glorified GoPro operator

>Storaro is literally the only one who has proved Digital can look as good as film.
dion beebe*

He refuses to drink the child blood and submit to Moloch.

Deakins is pure.

btw what happened to Dean Cundey?
From the biggest films to absolute trash
Not talking about his work itself, jack and jill photography for example looked quite good

>Vaal cared for us

>Glorified GoProOpeartor
>When the cinematography is all Malick has left

At least in his home country he is appreciated a bit more.

>The Assassination of Jesse James
>sterile

There was something about BR2049 that irritated my eyes, the changes in lighting were jarring from scene to scene. The yellow color of Las Vegas scenes was intense to the point where my eyes started hurting, while the colors in the orphanage scenes were so washed out that I had a hard time distinguishing the elements of the background.

Why do you?