I spent most of today editing a new showreel as I prepare to apply for a fulltime job as a Cinematographer. I really thought my crypto portfolio would have provided me and my son with the life we dream of, but really for me I became impassionate about the main thing in life I love which is working with light. Instead I spent years staring at candles watching my life savings go up, down and around and to be honest it broke me. I still love Hive, but these are the reasons my posts have become few and far between. I hope to be more active and I think todays blog post is a great one.
Every still in this video is a screengrab from a moving image I've filmed at some point and I wanted to explore the connection if there is really much of a difference between framing a moving shot and a still photograph, as usual much of the debate will be left to the comments section and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the matter. I will also provide the full showreel so you can see the images moving.
*The above image is the last frame of a film I made called 'Smoke'.
This is a cross-dissolve from a dance film, it reminds me of the days I was learning how to Photoshop cool images for my teenage garage bands website. It is also reminiscent of much of my double-exposure film photography, however a much easier process adding an effect in Premier Pro and exporting a PNG. Still the results are pretty much the same.
Which brings me to my next line of enquiry. How much does the process of how an image is created matter to you. I think it's probably personal. Do you care if an image was shot on 35mm and exposed perfectly if it looks exactly the same as a digital one? Is it even possible to emulate a true 35mm images and will there always be at least someone in the crowd you can tell the difference? I try to be less pretentious about formats and process now, a good image is a good image, it's completely irrelevant what format its on, all that matters is appeal. I did the same with music as a teen, I flat out refused to like any band that pulled a crowd bigger than 100 people... I thought I was being cool but I was just being a wee wanker. Now I'm more than happy to admit I discovered Fontaines DC after everyone else and I'll happily enjoy some Harry Styles now.
Lets talk about 8k and 12k resolutions. For example you are a photographer and you are shooting a wedding. Why not just film everything in 8k and pull the best screengrabs, assuming the photographer is using some sort of DSLR or digital camera. Who is going to know, it would give you perk of being able to pick the perfect frame every time, we already do it on our phones anyway. Yes, you are right though, it cheapens the art form.
I like to think there is a difference. A photographer grabs a moment in time a single frame. They pre-empt it, they stalk and capture the prey and if the Elk blinks at the last minute and looks a bit odd then that is where the magic of photography lies. There is no second chance, you get what you get and its even more rich with celluloid. I am still waiting for someone to release a analogue feel hybrid digital camera that lacks the soul destroying LCD screen that every photographer takes a cautionary glance at after every click. If you disagree then perhaps 8k is for you.
Here is the video showreel, I hope you enjoy and be sure to state your opinion below, it is genuinely why I come here and post, for the open discussion and lack of censorship.
Love,
Cotton.