Lauri Kettunen
October 29th, 2008, 06:54 AM
First of all, I would like to thank Meryem for asking me to judge the short films. It's an interesting experience to look at videos knowing I should select the ones I find the best. Judging of this kind of contest is necessarily very subjective, so wish everybody understands that there is no such thing an objective view. In addition, would like to add that I have not yet read the comments you have posted, but will do that later on. So, it's going to be interesting to find out which way my observations match with the ones everybody else has made. So, there's always a risk I'll find myself like the camel booth man following his own trail and missing the points everybody recognizes. But now, let's get to business.
The winner is Mihali Moore, A Walk in the Park
The first runner-up is Kevin Railsback, The River
The second runner-up is Jeffrey Hendricks, One again
Explanation: The film A Walk in the Park is very much on topic and Mihali Moore exploits light in a very subtle and artistic way which reminds me of Art Wolfe's photographs (see the footnote in the end). When I first opened Mihali Moore's film in the Quicktime player the default setting of contrast was too low. But, the first images taken in the morning looked fabulous and the clips popped up from all other material submitted to UWOL #11. That is, exploitation of light is one of the main ingredients of wildlife films and Mihali shows a great talent there. A Walk in the Park is also a spontaneous film in the sense that it had not been possible to fully plan it on before hand but instead the film takes the advantage of the conditions that were there when the raw material was shot. Also, the story develops nicely and consistently from the dawn towards the noon. Finally, the graphics is excellent.
With no doubt the The River is the most professional production. The film is just great and if Kevin Railsback is not a professional he will be a one in the near future. The opening shot is wonderful. Notice how the small movement of the camera leaves the sun first behind the branch and then it becomes visible -a big opening shot with small effort. The tempo of the cut is very good, some of the clips are very very artistic, the visual story telling from the morning towards the evening cleverly emphasizes the main message of the story. In simple words, a master piece of work.
Saying this, I know, I owe an explanation why Kevin Railsback's film is not the winner. Well, it could well have been the winner, and I'm not surprised if many if not most people expected this would have been the case. I spent couple days trying to make up my mind between Mihali's and Kevin's films. Eventually I got biased towards Mihali's film as it is more spontaneous and Mihali had such a great use of light. The clips of Kevin's film remind me more about the clips which are seen in movies. That is, they look just fabulous but can somewhat be planed on before hand. You know, it's bit like the difference between sun set or sun rise in postcards and genuine wildlife photographs. In addition, I felt Mihali was more on-topic implying the challenge taken was perhaps also bit more difficult. This is a very subjective matter and if anybody feels the other around, one has all the reasons and justification for it. Kevin's film is wonderful.
Jeffrey Hendrick's One Again has a very good opening and end. The filming is very artistic and the motion of the camera is motivated. I mean, the camera does not move just for the sake of moving but instead there is a good reason to move the camera. That's the same thing as in Kevin Railsback's opening shots. Move the camera when it supports the over all goal or if there is a reason to move the camera, but otherwise, keep it steady. If the camera moves for no reason, the audience pay attention to the camera motion, which is to say, the attention jumps out from the story.
Comments on other films I did spent time thinking whether to say the second runner up is Jeffrey Hendricks and Cat Russell's Relatively Infinite, but was not sure whether Meryem would have approved that. Cat's story is a great example of good story telling. The story grows nicely from small towards large and it attracted my attention immediately. I started to wonder where is this going to end --that is, I got hooked-- and realized only towards the end where is it probably going to end. Cat could have been bit more creative in the last clips. At least I felt the photographs of the milky way somehow jumped out from the rest. Notice also the nice idea of ending to the same theme from which the story started from. Well planned and visually built expression.
Then, more comments in arbitrary order. I'm a documentarist, so I liked a lot Dale Guthormsen's, Trond Saetre's and Rob Evan's documents. Chris Barcellos has a great clip in the end (the timing is about 2:12 -2:22) as well as Keith Heyward's clip of the ants about 2:13 - 2:22. In Kevin's case I first look at the video and thought, what is that, and then the next clip gave nicely the answer. Oliwer Pahlow's A Hidden Nook by the Brook has a nice opening as well as Ron Chant's The Red Brest. Markus Nord's Thousand Brothers is in my eyes very sympathic. Although the beginning has an idea copied from BBC Planet Earth, the opening is great. I liked the idea of Markus driving a Saab and diving in the lake, and found a very creative use of the camera and clever cutting. Furthermore, how come his shots under water are so stable? Also the end is great -nice work from Markus. Finn-Erik Faale's Rules of the Water has great angles of view and good cutting. Nice work as well.
Tips: Finally, some tips to those who have not been shooting wildlife films that long. In general, in modern documents the average length of a clip seems to be around 4-5 seconds if not shorter. This means in a 3 minute film one needs about 40-50 selected clips. If there is no detailed manuscript this means that one needs several hundred "raw clips" taken from different heights and angles from which the final ones are selected.
Another thought that came into mind: Over the years I've tried to get rid of the dictatorship of the standard tripod height. That is, when I'm out there on the field, I tend to ask myself, what attracted my eye and attention. Then I try to figure out which angle of view, focus length and so on is the best to show others what I'm seeing. Only then I put the camera on the tripod if it serves the purpose the best. You know, one can lie on the ground or climb into a tree as well, whatever it takes to get a good shot.
There is no need to move the camera for the sake of moving it. The whole point is to tell a story with the camera. If moving the camera helps there, or makes a clip more interesting, then, yes one should move the camera. Otherwise, better to leave the camera steady. The same applies to the zoom. Often, or should I say, in most cases, a cut from a large view to close-up is better than zooming in. Also, when filming animals or birds, it's not compulsory to follow the animal with the camera. One may also let the animal to go out and come in to the image. In fact, this often makes post-processing easier. An unsteady shot often grabs attention at the expense of the story.
And now my last comment which is already off-topic; To manage economically in such a difficult area as wildlife films, focus on what you are able to do and do always your best –and I mean always. Thanks again for everybody.
Footnote: See Art Wolfe-Martha Hill: The Art of Nature Photographing, a great book.
The winner is Mihali Moore, A Walk in the Park
The first runner-up is Kevin Railsback, The River
The second runner-up is Jeffrey Hendricks, One again
Explanation: The film A Walk in the Park is very much on topic and Mihali Moore exploits light in a very subtle and artistic way which reminds me of Art Wolfe's photographs (see the footnote in the end). When I first opened Mihali Moore's film in the Quicktime player the default setting of contrast was too low. But, the first images taken in the morning looked fabulous and the clips popped up from all other material submitted to UWOL #11. That is, exploitation of light is one of the main ingredients of wildlife films and Mihali shows a great talent there. A Walk in the Park is also a spontaneous film in the sense that it had not been possible to fully plan it on before hand but instead the film takes the advantage of the conditions that were there when the raw material was shot. Also, the story develops nicely and consistently from the dawn towards the noon. Finally, the graphics is excellent.
With no doubt the The River is the most professional production. The film is just great and if Kevin Railsback is not a professional he will be a one in the near future. The opening shot is wonderful. Notice how the small movement of the camera leaves the sun first behind the branch and then it becomes visible -a big opening shot with small effort. The tempo of the cut is very good, some of the clips are very very artistic, the visual story telling from the morning towards the evening cleverly emphasizes the main message of the story. In simple words, a master piece of work.
Saying this, I know, I owe an explanation why Kevin Railsback's film is not the winner. Well, it could well have been the winner, and I'm not surprised if many if not most people expected this would have been the case. I spent couple days trying to make up my mind between Mihali's and Kevin's films. Eventually I got biased towards Mihali's film as it is more spontaneous and Mihali had such a great use of light. The clips of Kevin's film remind me more about the clips which are seen in movies. That is, they look just fabulous but can somewhat be planed on before hand. You know, it's bit like the difference between sun set or sun rise in postcards and genuine wildlife photographs. In addition, I felt Mihali was more on-topic implying the challenge taken was perhaps also bit more difficult. This is a very subjective matter and if anybody feels the other around, one has all the reasons and justification for it. Kevin's film is wonderful.
Jeffrey Hendrick's One Again has a very good opening and end. The filming is very artistic and the motion of the camera is motivated. I mean, the camera does not move just for the sake of moving but instead there is a good reason to move the camera. That's the same thing as in Kevin Railsback's opening shots. Move the camera when it supports the over all goal or if there is a reason to move the camera, but otherwise, keep it steady. If the camera moves for no reason, the audience pay attention to the camera motion, which is to say, the attention jumps out from the story.
Comments on other films I did spent time thinking whether to say the second runner up is Jeffrey Hendricks and Cat Russell's Relatively Infinite, but was not sure whether Meryem would have approved that. Cat's story is a great example of good story telling. The story grows nicely from small towards large and it attracted my attention immediately. I started to wonder where is this going to end --that is, I got hooked-- and realized only towards the end where is it probably going to end. Cat could have been bit more creative in the last clips. At least I felt the photographs of the milky way somehow jumped out from the rest. Notice also the nice idea of ending to the same theme from which the story started from. Well planned and visually built expression.
Then, more comments in arbitrary order. I'm a documentarist, so I liked a lot Dale Guthormsen's, Trond Saetre's and Rob Evan's documents. Chris Barcellos has a great clip in the end (the timing is about 2:12 -2:22) as well as Keith Heyward's clip of the ants about 2:13 - 2:22. In Kevin's case I first look at the video and thought, what is that, and then the next clip gave nicely the answer. Oliwer Pahlow's A Hidden Nook by the Brook has a nice opening as well as Ron Chant's The Red Brest. Markus Nord's Thousand Brothers is in my eyes very sympathic. Although the beginning has an idea copied from BBC Planet Earth, the opening is great. I liked the idea of Markus driving a Saab and diving in the lake, and found a very creative use of the camera and clever cutting. Furthermore, how come his shots under water are so stable? Also the end is great -nice work from Markus. Finn-Erik Faale's Rules of the Water has great angles of view and good cutting. Nice work as well.
Tips: Finally, some tips to those who have not been shooting wildlife films that long. In general, in modern documents the average length of a clip seems to be around 4-5 seconds if not shorter. This means in a 3 minute film one needs about 40-50 selected clips. If there is no detailed manuscript this means that one needs several hundred "raw clips" taken from different heights and angles from which the final ones are selected.
Another thought that came into mind: Over the years I've tried to get rid of the dictatorship of the standard tripod height. That is, when I'm out there on the field, I tend to ask myself, what attracted my eye and attention. Then I try to figure out which angle of view, focus length and so on is the best to show others what I'm seeing. Only then I put the camera on the tripod if it serves the purpose the best. You know, one can lie on the ground or climb into a tree as well, whatever it takes to get a good shot.
There is no need to move the camera for the sake of moving it. The whole point is to tell a story with the camera. If moving the camera helps there, or makes a clip more interesting, then, yes one should move the camera. Otherwise, better to leave the camera steady. The same applies to the zoom. Often, or should I say, in most cases, a cut from a large view to close-up is better than zooming in. Also, when filming animals or birds, it's not compulsory to follow the animal with the camera. One may also let the animal to go out and come in to the image. In fact, this often makes post-processing easier. An unsteady shot often grabs attention at the expense of the story.
And now my last comment which is already off-topic; To manage economically in such a difficult area as wildlife films, focus on what you are able to do and do always your best –and I mean always. Thanks again for everybody.
Footnote: See Art Wolfe-Martha Hill: The Art of Nature Photographing, a great book.