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

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.

Turning Day Into Night

Shooting at night is like having a clean slate. A very challenging clean slate. Why do I say it that way? Because as far as the camera is concerned, there is nothing there. We may know there are houses, cars, or trees in that moonlit space around us - but without adjusting the ISO to extremely high (and usually noisy) levels, the camera sees a blank, black canvas. In order to make it come alive, we need to paint with light. In the world of big budget films, this means using huge amounts of lumens and wattage to create either a large wash of psuedo-moonlight, or pools of selective light shining on specific parts of the scene. Either way, it means having lots of lighting - and lots of power - at your disposal. Maybe. And maybe not... There is an age old trick that has been used by Hollywood for decades, and is even seen in large-budgeted modern films such as Jaws (1976), Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005) and Mad Max Fur...

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...

C. M. Franke | Photography

Search This Blog