John Schwartzman: Anamorphic & Resolving Latitude?

From American Cinematographer, When Worlds Collide by David E. Williams (July 1998)

Though Schwartzman and Bay expressed enthusiasm for the Super 35 process while shooting The Rock, the theatrical prints were a bit of a letdown for both men.

"The drag about Super 35 is the grain and its 'optical' feeling. We did about 30 ENR-treated prints on The Rock to keep some of the contrast. Those were shown in major cities, but the other prints lost a lot of snap. The film looked good for Super 35, but we were still working with this tiny negative."

- Micheal Bay

"What became very apparent to me was that Super 35 is not just an optical process that makes the grain more apparent; the grain is also bigger because it's enlarged so much during projection. You're getting boned on both ends. The beauty of anamorphic is that there is no intermediate optical process. If you like your dailies, you're going to love your release print. The larger negative also gives you greater shadow detail and greater latitude, so even though I was shooting deeper stops in 'Scope, I felt I was using [relatively] less light to get more image.

On Conspiracy Theory, I was doing very large night exteriors in New York City, and I needed to be working at least a T4 or 4.5 for them to look good. But that didn't mean I had to light everything to that exposure. If I could get the lenses to that range, I found that the level of shadow detail I could get in the darker areas was quite extraordinary. One of the things I explained to Michael on Armageddon was that for shuttle interior scenes, I was going to be shooting at a T4.5. I might only have a T2.8 on the actors' faces, but he'd be able to read them beautifully even though they would be underexposed by a stop-and-a-half. The faces wouldn't be muddy, just dark. I was able to do that simply because of the resolving power you get with anamorphic's big negative."

- John Schwartzman, ASC

"You just have so much more resolution in anamorphic, and the dupes look great. That's why I wanted to use it even though I had to give something up in the lenses. I like the depth and close-focus effects you can get with spherical lenses, but the sacrifice was well worth it."

- Micheal Bay

Schwartzman points out, however, that Bay's definition of "close-focus" is an extreme one:

"What he means is that he can't take a 75mm anamorphic lens and focus it down to 11 inches. He considers the 17.5mm close-focus Primo to be a 'normal' lens. On The Rock, when Ed Harris was giving his speeches, the camera was literally 11 inches from his face. Most cinematographers would consider the 180mm anamorphic lens at seven feet to be close we were routinely working where there were no more measurement markings, at about 4¹/2 to 5 feet. And that is where camera assistants do not want to live."

- John Schwartzman, ASC

Gabriel Beristain: Subtracting Light & Darkness

From American Cinematographer, Paging Machiavelli by Eric Rudolph (March 1998)

"In that office set there were places where I could not put any lights, [which led to] gigantic gaps of darkness. We tried, were possible, to use darkness in this film the way a playwright might use silence, where the lack of words says something very important. I've always believed that sometimes lighting, as opposed to illumination, is more about subtracting light."

- Gabriel Beristain, ASC, BSC

"There are moments where Campbell Scott is in almost complete darkness. Then he steps out of the shadows and delivers a powerful line. One of those moments is actually a turning point for his character, where he goes from being pushed around to standing up for himself. He steps out of the darkness and into the light and says 'How dare you, after what I've done for the company?' He challenges his boss for the first time."

- Gabriel Beristain, ASC, BSC

Peter Suschitzky: Lighting Approach

From American Cinematographer, Flesh for Fantasy by Eric Rudolph (May 1999)

"I don't have a game plan for lighting, and I don't believe in drawing lighting diagrams. If my work is any good at all, I think it is because I work instinctively. If I end up with a forest of flags and bars, it is something that evolves as we're setting up the shot, and it's part of an instinctive need to introduce some shadows and shape into the light. My lighting is simple in that I try to limit the use of multiple sources and fill, but I like shadows. Without shadows, one doesn't appreciate the light."

- Peter Suschitzky, BSC

Robert Surtees: On Back-light

From American Cinematographer, Photography for The Last Picture Show interview by Herb A. Lightman (Jan. 1972)

The photography in the picture is very clean-- that is, free of trimmings and frills. Is that due to the fact that you had such a small amount of lighting equipment available?

"Not really. I don't use back-light anymore-- unless it's established as coming from a practical lamp or something like that-- and I don't break up the walls with shadow patterns. I think that's old fashioned and 'motion picturish,' and it would have been all wrong for this picture. Now, if you are shooting a glamour picture, it would be different. You'd tend to go back to the old style, with all the trimmings.

- Robert Surtees, ASC

Conrad Hall: Over Cast Weather on "A Civil Action"

Randy Woodside was Conrad Hall's gaffer on A Civil Action.

When we did have the good fortune to get some overcast weather, we'd often underexpose the faces and expose more toward the sky, which created some modeling on the faces. I love that technique, because it really provides a more downcast feel. The brow-line shadows the actors' eyes and there's a shadow under their chins. You get more definition in the faces that way. We also used some negative fill to take light away from one side to provide some shape. We were trying to provide a bit of contrast to every shot in a situation that didn't really lend itself to it. On wide shots, we obviously did what we could with the lens aperture, but when we got into coverage, we began shaping the faces by taking light away. When we did add light, we added it in very subtle, naturalistic way to help get rid of some of the toplight. If you don't do it subtly, things start to get out of balance with everything else in the background."

-Randy Woodside