Exposure in film photography

Exposure in film photography Sept 16, 2017 3:11:30 GMT Salzmank, spiderwort, and 1 more like this

Quote

Post by Doghouse6 on Sept 16, 2017 3:11:30 GMT

Sept 16, 2017 1:52:09 GMT spiderwort said:

Sept 15, 2017 22:23:58 GMT Flynn said:

You're welcome, Flynn. As to the scene in LAURA, I'll address the topic in general: The DP sets lights for the darkness to be visible enough for that part of the scene. At the same time he also lights for the room when the lights are turned on.

When the actor is in the darkness we only see the lighting the DP set for the dark part of the scene. But when the actor turns the lights on, the lighting the DP set for that part of the scene is turned on in sync with the actor hitting the switch. It's a two-step process done with a dimmer board. Hope this makes sense.

Again, I was hoping you'd weigh in, holding in abeyance my theory based on limited understanding (basically, that no compensation was required for the reasons you explained; as I recall, the shot in question was a "master" type long shot - rather than a Gregg Toland-style "deep focus" one - with nothing significant in the foreground, but with full depth of field encompassing the entire set at both levels of illumination).

Considering that one happened to bring to mind another shot in Laura, this one rather the opposite in focal and lighting design: a closeup of Gene Tierney in Andrews's interrogation room in which the exposure is set for the general stage lighting, but in which Tierney's face "blooms" from the overexposure when Andrews turns on the practicals (the harsh spotlights aimed at her from the desk). The shot - and the effect - is one of my favorites in the film: a starkly "noir-ish" one that stands out from the glossy yet restrained elegance that Preminger and DP Joseph LaShelle employ in most of the film's setups.