Photographers v Directors

I love movies. I’m the guy who watches the extra stuff on the BluRay special editions and buys the ‘extended cut’ just because it’s got 20 more mins of the film on it. But it’s also where I obtain ideas, motivation and find inspiration.

Looking at stuff by other photographers leaves me a little cold. That’s not to say there aren’t hundreds of them out there who are worth looking at, of course there are, but personally I love the way movie directors approach things. The ‘storyboarding’ of ideas before shooting, the re-working of a story thread based on a different edit and fashion in which they really embrace the use digital imaging (CGI) to enhance a narrative.

A good example of a guy’s work which is a rich source of ideas for a photographer is Joe Wright. With Pride & Prejudice, Atonement and The Soloist he has created visually stunning films which flow gently but are full of great ideas. Knowing when to cut away from a scene so as not to linger combined with the mixture of focal lengths to illustrate a story are notable techniques right there on the screen to be absorbed by a photographer. I also think great films can be paused in many areas and display what are basically very impressive stills, just watch the opening ten minutes from Goodnight and Good Luck. Another telling thing for me when watching a film is the format. The widescreen nature of the finished product looks amazing and sweeping feel enhances the frame. I would dearly love to shoot through the lens with that letterbox vision at something like a wedding, there would be so many new shots.

Another parallel for directors and photographers is just how far do you go with the digital side of any project. I see so many photographers in the wedding industry who totally over use digital post-production effects to try and boost their results. There’s a real temptation to go too far with filters, actions and the dizzying array of quick fixes in something like Photoshop. For me, and it’s simply my take on this, the best use of digital imaging is to enhance a shot without going to the extent that it’s obvious something major has been done. Of course there are commissions where the whole point is to create something outlandish and different, but in most areas of photography the digital tools should help achieve a result, not actually be the result. In a movie sense some films which illustrate this point are the original Star Wars episodes. I grew up loving the first 3 films when special effects were in their infancy. They were character-led with a few whizzes and bangs thrown in but in the most part shot in real locations and on real sets. Contrast that with the more recent 3 films which completed the series, and the CGI was so advanced that the actors and storylines were totally swamped under the weight of really quite iffy vistas and environments.

I recently watched Zodiac again, one of my favourite films by David Fincher, and was amazed to learn of the sheer quantity of CGI effects in the movie. In nearly every case you simple don’t see them, a seamless integration which is such a skill. Completely in the other direction is the forthcoming Tron Legacy, which looks aesthetically amazing and could only be told using very, very advanced CGI. It remains to be seen if the characters are noticed at all amid all the neon and visual effects, but it looks like it will be fun finding out.

So I’m looking forward to sitting in the theatre again soon, wondering if this or that might work on an upcoming job. The approach won’t work for everybody and I’m sure many don’t agree at all, but that’s the point with photography anyway, there’s no right or wrong – just interpretation.