Skip to main content

Entitled to Title?

For me, part of the fun of sitting in that darkened multiplex has always been in waiting to see the title of the feature presentation appear on screen. From the visually arresting intro of any given James Bond film, to the three hour wait before those plain white letters labeled the last shot of Inception, the titles have a certain magical quality to them. An aura that is part of the movie-going experience.
           So, that having been said, I have been toying with the question of whether "Single Shot Cinema" images should contain titles; and if so, where? After all, the whole idea is to mimic the feel and texture of a motion picture, using a single photograph. So why not have titles? The key is not to have them overpower the image. Locating them in the bottom corners, or in the letterbox margin seems to be the most logical solution, for the most part.
           I am also thinking that they should show some creativity - much like any photograph title. A shot of a man walking down W. 57th Street should not be titled: "Some Guy Walking Down The Street," but should have some aspect of cinematic creativity to it. "Another Agenda" or some other such enigmatic, 'movie-sounding' title.
           Will it work? Will it add to the images? Make them feel like one-shot cinema? Time will tell. Stay tuned....

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Playing With Dramatic Light

I have this image that keeps recurring in my mind. It involves the cold blue feeling of a dark winter and the glowing orange of a firelight. So far it seems to keep eluding me, although I think this is largely because every attempt I have made to capture this "mood" has been done in a hurry, or in the rain, or some other situation that forced me to run through it rather than walk it out. This shot is one such version. I may need to go back with a slightly different lighting setup and try some more. Perhaps in a different location.

Everything Old is New Again...

Due to events that would take far too long to explain here, I now find myself working with a camera that I have not used for more than half a decade. Granted, it will largely be used only as a back-up at this point, but the question of why  anyone would 'go back' to using such "antiquated" technology as a 10-year old (at the time of this writing) digital camera that is only 12.3 megapixels and has a max ISO of 3200 has an interesting series of answers. Let me cite the method to my madness. The camera in question is a Nikon D-90 with a vertical grip. At the time it was released it was considered a top-shelf pro-sumer model, and it was the definitive purchase that pushed me from film into digital. At 12.3MP, it was quite the heavy hitter for it's time, considering it was not all that many iterations down the line from the days of the "5MP cieling", where even high end DSLRs were still climbing out of the 3.2 range. To show you just how far things have co

Be 'Practical' With Lighting

In Hollywood cinematography, there has been a sea-change over the last thirty years or so, away from "Studio style" lighting setups, to scenes and shots motivated by practical lighting. Gone are the days when a cowboy enters a barn, turns on one single lantern, and is blasted with pure white light coming from 12 different sources. But what does that sentence mean? "Motivating light using practical sources?" It sounds confusing and jargon-esque to the uninitiated. And how does it apply to still photography..?       To boil it down, "Practial lights" are any light sources that appear in the shot. A lamp. A streetlight. Car headlights. The idea being that if you have a person sitting next to a fireplace, or at a table lit by a lamp, that light source wants to predominate in the shot. So most of the light should look like firelight, or lamplight. And that [lighting] element should be clearly in frame. This does NOT mean that you should always rely solely on t