So, Roger Deakins has never won an Oscar for cinematography... Hmmm

So, Roger Deakins has never won an Oscar for cinematography... Hmmm....

Other urls found in this thread:

icgmagazine.com/web/humanity-2-0/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

is he gentile?

Guess that explains it

He should’ve won when he was up for “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” Y’know ?

he's also married to james purefoy.

this

What's the bottom left? And the right top?

He's not quite as good as people say.

The only time he got robbed was when Skyfall lost to Life Of Pi.

What is good about it? The only thing he does is add deep blacks and that's nothing new

He fucked up by doing Jesse James and No Country on the same year. Had they been released a year apart now he would have at least one Oscar, maybe two.

bottom left is Jarhead, not sure about top right

A DoP/Cinematographer is in charge of lighting and heading the camera department. The blocking and composition of a shot is not something the DoP/Cinematographer preoccupies himself with.

Why do normies still not get this?

He hasn't pushed cinematography in any technical way

>He fucked up by doing Jesse James and No Country on the same year.
Damn, the man is a machine. Crazy how long he's been rejected by the Academy Awards idiots.

Because that's a blatant lie. Any film Charles Lang did became his

Considering the academy hands out Oscars for best cinemtography based on the quality of the digital FX, you can't blame anons for not distinguishing between lighting and framing/blocking.

What's good about either

which cinnamontopographist is this?

Too bad Deakins is mediocre at all

I think There Will Be Blood would have won anyway. Even though Jesse James was better.

Bottom left is Jardhead, Top Right is Hail Caeser (only thing he's shot on film since like 2011)

'Sup, reddit

it's black am white it mus be good xD

And in Hail Caesar, he's just copying the photography of classic Hollywood epics. He didn't add anything new formally or technically to the formula

He's not mediocre. He's one of the best modern cinematographers and one of the best working at the moment.

Is this good cinematography, reddit?

That was literally the job.

>Adding anything new technically

Why would he. He's a cinemtographer. He doesn't build the fucking cameras, stocks or chips. The fundamentals of the job are the same they've been since the medium began.

>Formally

Again - what has been added to cinematography in the last few decades by cinematographers? Learning to light greenscreens?

one dog goes one way and the other goes the other this must be good

He's a meme name for those that don't know anything about cinematography.

A goy has to be at least twice as good to win an Oscar.

It's not even just a matter of originality, he's plain mediocre compared to the old greats

...

I know a lot about cinematography and he's not a meme name. H'es been one of the top DP's since the late 90's.

Sure, it's weird that people have such a boner for him but guys like Michael Seresin wouldn't even get a meme grid made up of his work, but that still doesn't diminish Deakin's capabilties.

He's not in my top ten, but he's still really good. Stop being so bitter.

Woah deep blacks, totally bold and award-worthy!

Oscars are not the Nobel prize m8

good post fag

Deakins fanboys make it seem like it is


What did Deakins do new that deserves to be catalogued in the annals of history?

t. roger

I don't get what your post is in reference to?

Seresin has deep blacks?

So does Storraro. Are...they not good because...Gordon Willis has them as well?

You don't even seem to know what you're upset about.

I too agree that we should get awards for copying others. Let me just copy Ulysses, change the title, setting, and characters, and then see how many accolades I rake in.

>Storraro
into the trash
Name somebody good like Vilmos Zsigmond

dude silhouettes against landscapes

>What did Deakins do new that deserves to be catalogued in the annals of history?

lol - weren't you the guy claiming it was people ignorant of cinematography that were Deakins fanbois?

Here's two off the top of my head;

1. Feature film telecine.

Literally the first ever, and one of the biggest, most influential changes in production in cinema history.

2. Introducing bleach bypass (whose variants like ENR dominated the 90's landscape) to Western Cinema - one of the single most period defining looks in all cinema history

Go back to fucking r/movies you ignorant moron.

Look at me I'm Deakins!

>Storraro bad

>Vilmos "Look At My Washed Out, Blown Out, Fast Lenses & Stocks" Zsigmond is good

Your eyes are rubbish.

Heaven's "Hallmark" Gate and Blow Out are his best works, and they aren't even that good.

>Look at me I literally have no fucking clue about the subject!

You just got utterly btfo. There is no point in embarrassing yourself further.

>single handedly defined the aesthetics of new hollywood
>not that good
okay

>feature film telecines
So you should get award for file conversion?

>faggot gets utterly BTFO, starts spout inane bullshit
Why does this happen every time?

Absolutely BTFO, embarrassed for you.

>Singlehandedly copied Haskell Wexler

What was that you were saying about originality?

Meanwhile, Storraro's work with technicolor is some of the best and most innovative work ever done with color cinematography.

Man, your taste is appalling.

He's shit. Go back to redred or youtube comments section.

What about awards for moving goalposts?

You asked what he had done that contributed to the annals of film history. I gave you two major contributions he made.

I have no idea what you believe people should be given awards for, because you keep contradicting yourself.

You keep implying that if you weren't the first two do a thing, then you shouldn't get an award - so by your own reckoning Deakins deserves two.

>telecine
>file transer

You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

You think celluloid is a "file"? lol.

>innovative
*guffaws

Ouch.

I am 100% convinced that people who write pathetic posts like these can't even name 3 other currently working cinematographers without googling

top right is Kundun
i haven't seen Hail Ceasar but i'm pretty sure it doesn't take place near Lhasa

Literally yes. He worked with Technicolor to develop original stocks and development processes to produce looks not previously created.

Jesus you're a dumb fucker. This is what happens when redditors who don't even remotely understand what cinematography is (and usually equate it when fucking framing and blocking) wash up here.

Why don't you post a """"cinegrid"""" of a cartoon next.

Huh. So it is.

The majority of the BR2049 visuals have been done entirely in camera

>“That orange environment was done in three different ways,” Deakins remarks. “The opening part was on stage and, for this, I had Tiffen make some specific red filters for in front of the lens. While most of my lighting was tungsten-based Spacelights, there were some 20 Maxi-Brutes gelled green to give a feeling of yellow light against the predominantly red filtration."

>“The second section was an interior shot on location in Budapest,” he continues. “For this we had HMI sources from outside the windows, which were in turn diffused and gelled with the same color gels that we had used for lens filtration previously. Then, for the third part of the sequence, we had a very large set that used a couple hundred open-faced 2Ks and sixty 10Ks, with all those lamps bounced and gelled to maintain our color. All of the color scheme was controlled in camera and this gives it a reality I doubt it would have had if left to post.”
icgmagazine.com/web/humanity-2-0/

You're talking about converting to hd. A standard procedure, you fucking clown. God, you're pathetic. Deakins fanboys everyone. Look at the lot of them. Despicable.

antiaesthetics are true aesthetics. Any true cinematographer strives to be unnoticed.

A cinematographer that's unnoticed is shit
Deakins is stale

Charles Lang > Roger Deakins

Kys m8

Libatique
Delbonnel
Khondji
Kaminski
Lubeizki
Seale

>You're talking about converting to HD

Jesus FUCK you're a dumb cunt.

No, I'm talking about TELECINE (you know, the word I literally used?) more commonly known now as a digital intermediate. This is where you convert celluloid to digital (or in older incarnations to tape) to color correct, time and now alter on a digital/offline workstation.

>converting to HD

lol, how do you "convert to HD"? You mean downscaling 35mm to 1080p? You don't even know the terms that you are incorrectly referencing.

>A standard procedure

A procedure that is now standard after being first implemented by Deakins in 2000.

Exposure and lighting are standard procedures. I guess inventing them didn't contribute to film though right? lol

So, we now know for a fact that you;

A. Don't have a fucking clue about the history of cinematography

B. The technical aspects of cinematography

>Any true cinematographer strives to be unnoticed

So Vilmos isn't a true cinematographer?

Because all the flashing he pulled in the 80's was an extremely distinct, artificial, attention grabbing look.

You ruined your entire credibility with the use of meaningless buzzwords like "kys m8", embarassing.

Storaro already acknowledged Gregg Toland and Jack Cardiff already accomplished most of what he strived for, so ultimately he's a hack. You've only exposed your brow.

>Khondji

Has been a failure since the 90's.

>Seale

Fury Road was amateurish as fuck. Looked like a fucking instagram feed.

>Delbonnel

The single worst working major cinematographer of the modern era.

>Libatique
>Lubeizki

One works with Aronofsky and the other with Innashittu.

>He acknowledges past cinemaographers that influenced him

>Therefore he's a hack

By your own metrics Toland and Cardiff are hacks.

Apparently you can't read. Achieving the same effects in a digital pipeline is nothing new let alone extraordinary. It's conversion. Go back to school, kiddo.

Whenever someones uses the word "instagram" to describe the visuals of a certain film you can immediately dismiss his opinion entirely.

Lubezki is the GOAT.

Why?

No, Toland isn't a hack. He was one of the first to shoot by candlelight, something actually bold and new as opposed to converting somebody else's techniques to digital like Deakins. Get an education.

>he actually posted a frame from this shitty flick next to all that beauty
what a fucking pleb

I don't get this complain, CG movies still need a cinematographer regardless of the effects. The lightning of Gravity or Rango (which Deakins worked in) didn't create itself

You seem autistic.

It literally did, you fucking idiot.

Because it's such a meaningless overly general statement that says nothing whatsoever, it only indicates how the person who said it can't really critique anything specific about the visuals so he uses this term to cheaply try to discredit the entirety of the film.
It's the equivalent of saying that a certain film is "reddit"

t. roger

can you name these in just a quick list? I recognize some but other ones look interesting

>Apparently you can't read. Achieving the same effects in a digital pipeline is nothing new let alone extraordinary. It's conversion. Go back to school, kiddo.

>Achieving the same effects

Good thing they aren't.

Whenever someone displays complete ignorance of the technical aspects of cinematography and the history of the craft, you can dismiss their opinion.

Hint.

>as opposed to converting somebody else's techniques to digital like Deakins. Get an education.

Deakins converted converting digital to digital? lol What the fuck are you trying to say?

>Toland exposed film stock to light

Woah. So this is the power of innovation?!

>The lighting of Gravity or Rango didn't create itself

Rango literally contains no lighting. It's animation. Gravity consists of a DP lighting peformers and Green/Blue Screens, but people conflate the finished imagery (largely the result of the digital effects crew) with the cinematography.

The most egregious of these was Avatar, whose most startling imagery didn't contain any cinematography.

Deakins fanboys everyone. They know nothing about cinematic history.

He's not autistic. He's butthurt/dumb.

He's mad because he sees redditors namecheck Deakins, but he believes he's superior because he can name check a few pre-80's cinematographers.

He then got humiliated after his complete ignorance was revealed ITT and is now sperging out with semi-ironic posting.

He's just butthurt.

>Guy doesn't know what telecine/digital intermediates are

>Doesn't know what bleach bypass is

>Calling others ignorant

oy vey.

Deakins fanboys everyone. They know nothing about cinematic history.

>bleach bypass
>baka gaijin stealing from glorious Nippon

Honestly, what makes him an autistic is not even his hate for Deakins but the way he name the pics.
Western Union 1941 painterly .jpg
The Bible 1966 painterly.jpg
The Bible 1966 painterly 2.jpg
The Picasso Summer 1969 2.jpg
Etc.
It's very autistic.

Remember that time you didn't know or understand what a digital intermediate was?

lol.

Remember that time you thought photographing a candle was groundbreaking?

Why not wow us with trivia about Kubrick employing Nasa lenses on Barry Lyndon next.

Fucking reddit - you need to go home.

>two black and white ancient film goobers duking it out over which dead guy divided the frame by squares better without posting any moving gif or webm of ACTUAL MOTION OF THE CAMERA

you dummies might as well be talking about photography

not a deakins fanboy, just came into thread to learn something and the films on your 3x3 looked like something I'd want to watch.

>Remember that time you thought photographing a candle was groundbreaking?
Why else did Storraro think it was?

>Motion of the camera

>Cinematography thread

Why would we focus on blocking and framing, subjects under the Director's purview, in a thread about cinematography. You can determine lighting and exposure from stills, user, you know.

>you dummies might as well be talking about photography

The irony.

>Kubrick
The peak of the middlebrow. Nothing he did was of worth or originality

Because he's being polite.

You literally cited fucking Gregg Toland. The quintessential middle brow origin point.

Jesus christ, GO HOME

>painterly
Apparently thought it was as well

His time

Citing doesn't mean he's my favorite. I understand reading comprehension isn't your strongsuit.

It was nominated the same year as There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, what a year

He also did No Country and vote splitted giving TWBB the win. Literally cucks himself.

How mad will you be if Get Out wins best cinematography