Why is the interview camera hight so low?

[Steven Digges]

Low angle interview type shots are common for the good reasons listed here already. They should not also tilt up. To pull off the shot correctly the proper lens perspective and tripod height should be used to achieve composition without a tilt up. Tilting up in this case is the glaring sign of an amateur. Especially if a wide angle lens is used. Tilt is often used as the lazy way of adjusting for height. In most cases it does not work well and shows up big time as sloppy camera work.

The rule of thirds is rule NO.1 in all photographic composition. It is the first thing learned by anyone that studies composition. It is so prevalent its use is what all of us are looking at the vast majority of the time we are viewing almost anything on TV or at the theater. I'm not sure what John meant when he said he saw it used to the point of distraction. I suspect it was a "style" of its use that bothered him.

Yes all rules can, and sometimes should be broken. But you must do it correctly or you look like a hack. The rule of thirds has stood the test of time because it is about how our eyes and brains pleasantly interpret how a three dimensional world should look when compressed onto a flat, one dimensional image. It is what you are looking at most of the time.

Books on the subject? There are thousands of them. They are under the topic of PHOTOGRAPHY. All to often these days, young videographers are very well studied in the technical aspects of our craft. It becomes a problem when all they know is pixels and codecs. When it comes time to shoot they can't get a shot. I know this because I hire a lot of freelancers. I only hire those guys once!

Kind Regards,

Steve

[John Nantz]

Hey Steven! ...
Okay, let me try to do a reply ...

Originally Posted by Steven Digges

The rule of thirds is rule NO.1 in all photographic composition. It is the first thing learned by anyone that studies composition. It is so prevalent its use is what all of us are looking at the vast majority of the time we are viewing almost anything on TV or at the theater. I'm not sure what John meant when he said he saw it used to the point of distraction. I suspect it was a "style" of its use that bothered him.

It was distracting because every scene was framed using "The Thrirds". My wife watches the movie for the story, I watch it with her but trying to pick up on ideas for my own stuff. They had a huge production staff and the family photos at the end show how many it took to produce this epic, and I'm sure there were others that weren't in the picture.

With regard to the plot, there's another BBC "thing". Ever notice how they have a huge banquet at the end of the series??? ditto with the "BallykissAngle" series.. Staff get to dress up and have a big production meal and that's how it ends. What's nice is their kids or significant other get to say they acted in a TV production movie AND have a good meal to boot.

With the BallykissAngel series, I think the camera shots (or something) were more interesting. And, there were a lot of really funny parts so that was good too.

It's really difficult for me to remember interesting shots which include the framing, lighting angles, and how the scene progresses so having a good book(s) for reference can be helpful.

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Good point when I get drawn into the story or become emotionally involved I don’t pay attention to the techicals and miss flaws and generally not a very reliable critic. With DA my focus is following the many storylines and characters but I think that actually the intended focus.

[Steven Digges]

Hey John,

I hope my comments did not sound snarky, I did not means it that way. Sometimes I sound SO OLD on this board. I like to say I am not that old, I have just been in this business for a very long time;-)

I believe almost everything in life is a fad and things will come and go. I have seen the pendulum swing to extremes many times. I have seen rules I was taught should never be broken become "artistically cool". I even saw an entire music video by a major artist that was shot out of focus the entire time. Out of focus was the style of the damn thing.

The OPs question in this thread is a good one. It has always surprised me there is not more conversations here about "how to shoot properly". It is primarily a technical forum and I think the craft of getting the shot is forgotten sometimes. I attribute that to what motivates an individual to dive into video production. Does the motivating interest lie in a desire to create amazing moving images or is the primary interest a love of the technology we use to create images? I believe it works best if the is a balance of both.

I am one of those guys that earned my living for many years as a still photographer before transitioning into videography. Almost everything I learned as a still shooter ether applied directly to videography or helped me become a better videographer. When I started out studying photography there was no such thing as a pixel yet. Of course we were shooting film and we studied photography. That means it was about light, composition, exposure and primarily the craft of the shot. A few years ago I was cleaning my garage and I took three big boxes of of photography books to goodwill. When I flipped through the boxes I was surprised at how much information in that library is still pertinent today. I laughed one day when a freelancer I hired was trying to tell me shallow DOF had just been invented because of the new large sensor cameras. He did not believe DOF was around in any medium before that. Conversations like that just blow my mind!

Kind Regards,

Steve