Dumb shots that really bug me...

[<ShlomoGlickstein>]

One of the STUPIDEST shots I see photogs whenever the story involves a car is the shot of the talking head shot thru the drivers-side mirror--you know, using the reflection of the guy talking.

WHY DO WE USE THIS SHOT??? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!

I think the only reason is to impress other shooters in the market ("Hey! Look at me! Look at this "creative" angle I'm using???") Lots of my friends ask my why they see this shot.


Another shot that bugs the hell out of me is when shooters frame the talking head extreme-left or extreme-right. Gawwwd, I hate that.

To paraphrase a certain ex-TB Buccaneer WR (now Dallas Cowboy): "Just gimme the damn head-shot."

Sorry to vent...but I just saw a story from the competition--and several shots were reflection-shots in the mirror. ARRRRGH!!!

[SAwood]

damn that creative use of framing!
DAMN IT STRAIGHT TO HELL!!!

[<HeadKiller>]

I've always hated the big fat tomato-ey Head plopped right in the center of the frame with its beady eyes looking right at you as it speaks. I thought keeping The Head off to the side, ya know, on the third, with maybe some other relevant stuff in the other two-thirds of the frame-oh yes, and keeping the Head's beady eyes away from the lens-was the way to go

[Terry E. Toller]

I recently saw an interview with a home owner talking about clearing brush from around the house incase of wildland fire. she was standing about 30 feet from the camera, in the middle of her driveway and the shot was wide. NPPA! It looked stupid, in my opinion...

[Flash-Frame]

I am actually working on a new shot for my interviews. By engineering a head plate to the top handle of my camera and mounting it upside down on my camera, I will be able to shoot my interviews upside down!!

I'll be like... "Hey, other guys in my market.. I am cool cause I have upside down interviews, and you guys have the 'old way' of shooting." Then people will write books about me and then the Olsen twins may call me for a wild evening down on Beale St. I may even get an appearance on Conan!

Actually, I like a little creativity in certain stories. Even though some shots or angles may have been seen in other work many times before. Wacky, creative stuff should work well with the package and advance your story. If not.. it's about as useless as air-conditioning in Alaska.

In the interview shot through the driver's car mirror, it would work if you are interviewing a cop who is waiting for speeding cars to write some tickets. Or for a guy who is driving around looking for prostitutes (http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/news_scalawag.html).

So be creative and advance your story. Who knows, the Olsen twins (http://www.mary-kateandashley.com/) may like it and call you.

[(Sin)ical]

This is a funny thread with some hilarious satire. I think the gripes have probably been the same in some different tangent throughout any progression of shooting, or even editing. We all learn new things everyday, but the root of gripe is just too funny. I also agree with a complaint that says thy tricks are not new anymore, and even more overused. It cracks me up that the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other in this business. Creativity has become so formula, that the old standard sets a style seperate from the pack. Where we all were once encouraged to try something new and mix things up...now the demand for straight shooting and old standards have made a considerate comeback. It's almost as though consultants suggest our style. In/Out...what the viewer really wants? Just tell the story? Use creativity to advance a story? If a story is strong in the first place, it needs no extra dress up...right? This is a hipocritical stance for me, because I always made an energetic effort in dressing up a bad idea. If I knew a story was lame from the start, I always tried to make the best of the situation...and put as many bells and whistles on that I knew how. It's funny to me now that none of that was ever really necessary. If something was boring and dull...maybe that's just how it should have looked. There's no secret that the brainchild of a news story is just some producer hunting for a local tie, and how many times can the slow news day be filled with mind numbing monotany? The answer is as many as it takes. Bags of tricks are simply an individual development. So when you see the same old techniques used time and time again, it's generally something new for that particular person. I know the file collection holds all of the old secrets and techniques that the veterans have already done. The trouble is who has time to sit and look at that stuff? That's a shame, because there are just as many mistakes as triumphs to learn from there. This is definetly a hands-on profession, and everyone learns from their own mistakes. If a passion or thirst for this profession exhisted beyond the task of the day, you might still see something new once and a while. At least new to you, right? MTV vs. NPPA...blah, blah, blah! It's just news...nothing more, and definetly less. "New school" is now "old school", and news is simply info-tainment. The veterans used to do more with less, and now it's less with more. I don't think it's by any reason of laziness, or even lack of technological knowledge...but I do think it's something like experience. Doesn't a straight forward story seem more believable? Manipulation and effects certainly have a time and place, but when they don't fit...it leaves me feeling the big "spin." I'm as guilty as any for using extra techniques and effects, but now I'm not suprised as to why the credibility of a story is questioned.

[Lensmith]

Well said (Sin)ical.

I enjoy creative shots when it enhances the story. To be fair, all of us have crossed the line at one time or another, letting creative angles disract from telling a story in a clear and concise manner, easily understood, without distraction.

My persosnal gripe are the interviews shot so wide you really even sure if the person in the frame is the one doing the talking.

[<elvez>]

Sometimes, in the immortal words of the Cinematographer character in Boogie Nights, 'It is what it is.

[<I still HATE 'em.>]

Early in my career (23 years ago), I was a fresh-faced, eager-beaver right outta college. I tried to get real creative shooting my talking heads.

One day my ND and EP called me in to talk about a story of mine that just aired.

"WHAT THE HALL WAS THAT??!!"
"REMEMBER, YOU'RE A TV NEWS PHOTOG...NOT SOME G**AMN HOLLYWOOD CINEMATOGRAPHER!"

Ever since then, I don't mess around with framing my talking-head shots. What I WILL do instead is get creative with the lighting if it's indoors (turn off room lights, background patterns, scrims/diffusers, etc). If it's outdoors, I have the guy/gal DOING SOMETHING ACTIVE and lav them.

My ears are still ringing from that basting I took 23-years ago. But I haven't been yelled at ever since in the 8-shops that I've since worked.

PS- If the reporter wants to do something goofy (a la "reporter involvement", then I let them. Hell, it's their ass on the screen!)

[Baltimore Shooter]

Originally posted by &lt;I still HATE 'em.&gt;:
...Ever since then, I don't mess around with framing my talking-head shots...My ears are still ringing from that basting I took 23-years ago. But I haven't been yelled at ever since in the 8-shops that I've since worked.I think that's a shame because some great stuff has come out of daring to break out of the mold and try something new.

Maybe ask the ND and/or EP BEFORE you try somethign new. If we didn't think of new and creative ways, things would never evolve. We'd still be in the "Model A Ford" of television production.

I say be daring and don't be afraid to break out, but ask your supervisors before you do such a thing. If they say no, do as they wish but always keep your ideas with you, as you may find someone who loves them.

Warren

[Baltimore Shooter]

Originally posted by &lt;ShlomoGlickstein&gt;:
...Another shot that bugs the hell out of me is when shooters frame the talking head extreme-left or extreme-right. Gawwwd, I hate that.60 Minutes has been doing this for years, with great success.

What bugs me lately is centering the talking head right in the center of the shot and having them look off camera. Talk about looking amateurish. Or how bout positioning the camera about 45 degrees from the subject, so they’re almost profile...hate that!

Warren

[<The Creative>]

I applaud the creative. I applaud the imagination. Keep it up! ...and if you don't like it...well turn off the TV! Cuz, I'm so sure the viewers thinks that way.

Remember, it's for the viewer, not the NPPA!

[DERF]

Baltimore, I don't think that is really a possibility. Even on the routine stories you never know what you are going to get until you get there. Depending on the person, location, surroundings, story, reporter, time constraints, etc. you may have to do something that might need an ND's approval but the chances of you knowing that ahead of time are pretty small.

Sometimes ideas sound odd vocally but seen on tape look great. Sometimes vice-versa. Either way they are going to notice that you are trying new things, which you correctly stated should always be our objective. If they don't like it, your right, later on someone may. If they do like it keep trying new things.

As a fomer Chief there were plenty of things that bothered me but none so great as seeing a mic cord hanging off someones shirt or tie or whatever. I discarded more resume tapes for just that simple thing.

Reason: It shows that you don't care about the little things. Your package may be terrific and very creative but if those little everyday things are unimportant to you than you need to look elsewhere.

[ August 03, 2004, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: DERF ]

[SandRat]

Originally posted by &lt;I still HATE 'em.&gt;:

Ever since then, I don't mess around with framing my talking-head shots. What I WILL do instead is get creative with the lighting if it's indoors (turn off room lights, background patterns, scrims/diffusers, etc). If it's outdoors, I have the guy/gal DOING SOMETHING ACTIVE and lav them.

I'm personally tired of seeing a talking head with a mini-blind/cookie cutter/light projection behind them. I want to see the environment as it is. Sure, throw a few lights on the subject so you can get a decent esposure, but stop with the gels and patterns in the background. Less is more.

Along the same lines as the extreme framing is the number of packages that have so many cuts that I can't even focus on a shot before it's gone. I understand pacing, but be selective in using fast cuts. I get a headache watching machine-gun-cut packages. If you got a nice shot, leave it up long enought to see it.

[SAwood]

so, the question going thru my mind, and (sin)ical touched on it, is does creative framing even make a difference in the viewers eyes? For me, it's satisfying to use a different angle and nice framing, but does the viewer care? I like the idea of keeping it simple, but we are pushed for the maximum in creativity, so you have a shot in the mirror, or to the left or right. But does it make a difference to the 55 year old who just wants to find out what's going on around the city? Does my extra effort really matter? I'm pretty new at this, so I can't speak from experience on this one. This has been burning in my belly for a while now, so what do you guys think? Does creativity help the viewer, or just help us?

[Tippster]

Things I hate:

- Snap-zooms
- Worm-Cam low angle shots
- Hand-held Live shots
- Walk'n'talk bridges/standups/liveshots
- Ultra Close-up talking heads... it's called "Headroom"
- Unnaturally Colored Backgrounds
- Orange Video
- Halos (ie. too-hot Hairlights)
- shutter in non-sports situations

But most of all I hate the idiot consultants that claim the above are necessary because the audience wants them.

[Baltimore Shooter]

Originally posted by SAwood:
so, the question going thru my mind, and (sin)ical touched on it, is does creative framing even make a difference in the viewers eyes? For me, it's satisfying to use a different angle and nice framing, but does the viewer care? I like the idea of keeping it simple, but we are pushed for the maximum in creativity, so you have a shot in the mirror, or to the left or right. But does it make a difference to the 55 year old who just wants to find out what's going on around the city? Does my extra effort really matter? I'm pretty new at this, so I can't speak from experience on this one. This has been burning in my belly for a while now, so what do you guys think? Does creativity help the viewer, or just help us? I think it DOES make a difference. Example: remember the old PBS style of documentary production? Old boring talking heads that were straight on and went on forever (and ever), sometimes against a black background. DULL & BORING!

Enter (dare I say) MTV w/ quicker shots of a talking head that was lit and composed differently. Okay, the early days were enough to make our head spin. They backed way off and found a happy medium between the stoggy old way and the early MTV way. Today look at "Behind The Music" w different colors of light in the background (the candle thing is getting old), softening filters, a SLIGHT Dutch angle, etc. Documentaries are more interesting to watch than those old PBS ones that'll even put a viewer pumped up on caffine to sleep.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't raised on the MTV thing, hell I never even saw the channel til I was 21 (1990).

Tippster, I think the low angles, snap zooms, etc. have their place. But as with everything else, only when appropriate and only in moderation. Just my observation.

Warren

[<LOL>]

Originally posted by Tippster:
Things I hate:

- Snap-zooms
- Worm-Cam low angle shots
- Hand-held Live shots
- Walk'n'talk bridges/standups/liveshots
- Ultra Close-up talking heads... it's called "Headroom"
- Unnaturally Colored Backgrounds
- Orange Video
- Halos (ie. too-hot Hairlights)
- shutter in non-sports situations

But most of all I hate the idiot consultants that claim the above are necessary because the audience wants them. Yep, you're Network. ;)

[Tippster]

Nope, I'm "Agency." The true definition of a "Media Whore."

[ewink]

Originally posted by Tippster:
Things I hate:

-
- Ultra Close-up talking heads... it's called "Headroom"
Working at a Sinclair station I get to see some of the News Central stuff we get sent. I have noticed on more than one occasion that the interview was shot with eyes at the top of the frame, mouth at the bottom...

Now, IMHO, I think interviews should be shot tight. Not that tight obviously, but personally, for me, unless there is something very interesting going on around the interviewee, background does nothing but distract from what the person is saying.

I have of course broken form that, like at a playground dedication I did once I got the interview framed up with a piece of play ground equipment perfectly over her shoulder. It was looser than I like to shoot, but it looked good and worked.

I was once made to shoot an interview ever so loose to make sure I got an entire 8 foot banner in the shot as well. Never again. Reporter be damned.

I think if you have a style, whether it be NPPA sanctioned (spelling sorry) or not, and it works, you should stick with it. A photog may say 'man that rear view mirror shot is so 1982', but a viewer may say 'cool!'

No one knows what viewers want. Viewers don't even know what they want. I say just do your job, i your style, the best you can and it will please some people. Not everyone. But some.

Now if you get angry calls and letter bombs telling you that the through the pipe and up the nose stuff has got to go, well then, let it go. :)

[Jimmy]

Part of being creative is experimenting. For veteran photographers, the reflection shot, snap zooms or what ever else may be cliche'. But for newer photographers trying to make their way in the world, experimenting with these techniques are not only useful transitions (sometimes), but they help the 'student' grow. In no way would I step on someone for trying something new to him/her. I'd encourage them to attempt even more.
For some of us (at least for me), the challenge is to continue to grow as photographers.

[2000lux]

I think those interviews in the car mirror and such are ok and may add enough visual interest to your story to make the viewer put down his Playboy for a second. I just don't like when they are over used in a package. Do just one of your interviews for the story that way, do the second one sitting on the hood, the third in the driver's seat, the fourth in the trunk... You get my point. I just hate seeing the same trick used several times in the same package. You might even just do a couple questions in the mirror and then switch to a "normal" set up.

[chroma cranker]

i hate photogs that don't SHOOT and MOVE. some photogs stand in one place and shoot all their video. its lazy. as far as shooting people in cars, i try shooting interviews from every angle to make the interviews look different. i think the MCU shot with the stick mic is lazy. Oh yeah stop shooting cut aways of hands!!!!!!!!!

[2000lux]

God I hate the hand shot! I've found my self using it from time to time to get out of a jump cut but I've always hated it!

[OU- BOBCAT]

My rule of thumb is only shoot hands if the person is holding something or wearing a piece of jewelery pertaining to the story...

[SHOOT TO KILL]

Cliche' shots are just that when they are done just to be done. It is true that stepping into these helps a beginner to (maybe) think out of the box. But alot of guys stay right there-going for the low shot, the swish pan and not really knowing why-except that it "looks cool". These guys can't see the forest for the trees.

There are no hard and fast rules.I find this liberating, but I suspect some shooters wish there was a "works every time" formula to fall back on so they don't have to think so hard about their story. I say this because it's what their shooting looks like...

It's one thing to have the tools and another to know when to use each one for their purpose. Theory is key. Know the rules and when to break them. Does this shot tell the story? Take you somewhere? Then it's probably just a waste of time.

Getting back to the original question, I get peeved by any shooting style that is done just to do it and not because it works for the subject matter. I like anything that is used in proper context and ubove all, if your stunt driving looses the average viewer, it's useless.

[nosticks]

This thread is a perfect example of why this business is so subjective...yes even for photographers...and it's going to stay that way. There will never be a style, or a shot, or a technique that pleases everybody, but I think that's what's great about this business. If we all did things the exact same way then what a boring profession we would all be in. Some like the wallpaper, long shot, no movement pkg's and others like to take it off this sticks and run around like a mad man, but who's to say which is better. If you already have a certain style, then that's great, but don't disregard someone with an opposite style, you never know where you might find that next trick!

Saying all of that my biggest pet peeve is jumpcuts. I would rather have an extreme close up of an eyelash then a harsh transition!

[<Piratenews>]

The day I quit trying something new is the day I quit TV. If you want to be lazy and keep shooting the same old thing, then get a job shooting kids in the Easter Bunny's lap at the mall.

[DGTate]

The "snap-zoom" is my favorite!!

[<Goobertron>]

A-frickin-men Nosticks. I am by no means a veteran at this thing called videography, but I just have to laugh when I hear these people pontificating on "this is the way to do this" or "this shot is stupid". There are many different styles out there and all have their time and place. The challenge is to figure out when and where that time and place is. What works in Miami doesn't work in Pheonix which doesn't work somewhere else. So if you want to keep following your little formula for success, whether that be NPPA or MTV, in your little TV world, go right ahead. I'd rather keep my options open.

[Lenslinger]

This has been a great thread! Masters and novice alike locked in vigorous discourse, laying down mandates and shattering age-old standards. You guys need your own talk show! I for one agree with much of what has been said here, and am pretty much repelled by the rest. What I would have given for this resource when I first started looking through lenses. May have avoided a lot of ugly TV.

New shooters are wise to master every trick shot listed above, then work to avoid them whenever possible. Fundamentals will always win out over flash, but who wants to always watch fundamentals? In the warbling arc that is my camera career, I've stumbled over countless techniques new to me but old to others. After an initial period of overuse, I'll tuck it away in my proverbial 'toolbox' - a worn leather satchel of dubious origin (but that's not important right now).

When the time is right, I'll bring my new whatchamathingy back out and add a little flourish to the day's dismality. The day I stop collecting these tools of the trade, or even let them grow rusty in the sack, may I put down my camera and pursue that lifelong dream of being a loin-cloth model. Until then, I'll use my special tools sparsely, knowing that moderation is key.

After all you can't rightly trash-talk a shot, technique, or look until you can duplicate it, right? I'm all for standards and practices, but some of you mantra Nazis scare the hell out of me. I mean, feel free to pour forth with all your experience - as it is by far the best teacher...but a rundown of forbidden formulas? An index of illegal approaches?, A tally of taboo techniques? An honest-to-God list of things I'm not supposed to do with a viewfinder?

Blow me...

[ August 05, 2004, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Lenslinger ]

[Frank McBride]

I don't understand the posts in this and other threads that assume there is an NPPA style of shooting. If you take a look at the stories that win in NPPA contests, you will see many different styles of shooting and editing.

The best shooting style is the one the story calls for. No one style could possibly be appropriate in every case.

BTW, I've never used the rear-view reflection shot, but I like it.


FMc

[Deaf and Blind]

I have sat here reading the various posts, rants about shots etc...

What do I see on the news the other evening? A story from some-where in the US and slap bang in the middle of it is a cut away of a chap in a car side mirror.
My wife started giving me funny looks as I started to laugh like a lunatic.
I guess you had to be there but it was just so apt after reading the posts on here.

Should stop smokin that funny ****...

[DERF]

Three cheers for Lenslinger...

Hip hip hooray...Hip hip hooray...Hip hip hooray!

I love it when people can see through all of the high and mighty "I don't do this because" junk and just tell it like it is.

I never joined NPPA, never wanted to, but I used some of their "style", just the same as I used Chris's and Rocky's and Art's and Brett's and Bud's (one of the best shooters I have ever seen). And I am sure that people used some things that I did.

So many of you guys say that what we do is art, well then let it be art. Don't put down another's art, looka t it with an open eye and see where he was leading you or what the motivation was.

I am in the spot production world now and my boss has a very different mindset of where we should go than I do. But that doesn't make either of our opinions wrong. Right now I am working on a project that will be right down his alley. But yesterday I had to do an emergency fix for the editor next door and I did it my way. He loved it. Why? Because it was simple and easy to follow and understand.

That being said the shot that I hate to see is the one that was never shot. How are you going to know if it is a bad shot unless you shoot it and look at it in conjunction with the rest of your story. Every one of those shoots listed above has a place and a purpose and should be used if called for. That includes the jump cut. I have seen some very well done jump cuts in news stories and in commercial spots. It is all in how you use it.

Don't ever listen to people who say don't, don't, don't. Instead always give it a try then another try and another try until you get it right.

Remember it is supposed to be a fun job. TRY to make it so.

[2000lux]

In the warbling arc that is my camera career...Another humdinger form Lenslinger! :)

Baltimore shooter hit the nail on the head. "everything in moderation." It seems to me that most of the ranting here is about over used shots or effects. I don't like the hand cut away, even though I've used it, because I've seen it a billion times before. However, if it adds some thing to the story; if you're showing a wedding ring, a nervous tick, or they're clutching some thing relevant then great, use it! SandRat is sick of the Venetian blind cookie. I can understand that too. Often it doesn't even look real. Perhaps some of us should get some cardboard and a mat kife and make some interesting new cookies. Mix it up a bit! Tippster has a veritable shopping list of stuff he hates seeing. Some of that stuff anoys me too when there's no reason for it or it's evidence of sloppy work. However, there is a time and a place for every thing.

I think creative shooting makes a huge difference in the telling of a story. As we've all said, "With out us, it's radio." Or worse, print. Given two shows with equally good reporting, they'll chose either the one that's shot well, or the one with the cutest reporters. :rolleyes: :P :)

[Tippster]

Sheesh. For a bunch of supposed journalists you guys certainly don't read very carefully. I NEVER said "No one should do these things." I wrote:

Things I hate:Well, let me defend my dislike of the "techniques" in question:

Snap-zooms - Why are these necessary? We have these things called "edits" that allow you to "cut" from the wide shot to the close-up. To use this wonky method simply to skip an edit seems rather silly and will likely make your average Local News Viewer (Hint: NOT the 18 & under crowd) feel a bit nauseous. This effect, BTW, is usually found in crap stories and are only used to "spice them up." IMHO that's garbage TV. "The kitty was stuck in this tree (WS) and fell (snap-zoom CU) on this rock!"

Worm-Cam low angle shots - See above.If you're bored shooting interviews from a natural perspective, give the upside-down thang a try. It's JUST as valid. When was the last time you had a conversation with someone while they were standing and you were on the floor? What happened - did you break your leg? Was the content of their nostrils the crux of the soundbite?

Hand-held Live shots - invented by consultants to give their news coverage an edgier feel. You can thank the Geniuses behind NYPD Blue for this one. Contrived at best, and, unless you're in a moving car or swinging from a tree, completely unnecessary.

Walk'n'talk bridges/standups/liveshots - the bane of my viewing existence. If there's motivation for it, then naturally you should use them. Too bad that &gt;90% are NOT. Especially painful is the nightime W&T from one pool of light to the next, with one big F'in black hole in the background. Boy, are those ever edifying. Breaking news? Sure, I'll buy it, but not if you're only going to take the viewer on the exact same trip in your package.

Ultra Close-up talking heads... it's called "Headroom" - I'm still waiting on a credible defense for these. Maybe if it's some kind of skin-disease story or the bastard has Cranial Elephantiasis... Otherwise, what's wrong with showing their hair and neck, ESPECIALLY since the ID super is going to cover their mouth for 1/2 the bite????

Unnaturally Colored Backgrounds - Circus stories...Rock concerts.. the State Fair? I'll buy that for a dollar. Terrorism... Politics... Schoolboard problems? Please, Wigga, please. It looks godawful and causes the viewer to spend more of their tiny attention span on the background than on the content of the bite. If that's your mission... well then... "Mission Accomplished."

Orange Video - Unless you're getting paid by ESPN, your video will not likely end up on Sports Century. They use this lighting technique for a specific purpose: to make you feel NOSTALGIC, since B&W is a no-no according to the suits. You ever see a Sepia print or an old, yellowed newspaper? Same story. Yes it looks cool, but there's more reason to it than THAT.

Halos (ie. too-hot Hairlights) - I have YET to meet the experienced shooter that does this on purpose. I have met many poor lighting shooters that once the difference is pointed out they seem to have a (pardon the pun) Lightbulb go off over their heads. (Stop groaning, Stewart! :D )

shutter in non-sports situations - has been covered Ad Nauseam on this Board.

Please don't think I'm attacking any of you personally, unless you're a "Consultant" in which case I do/am/whatever... Ahem... I too think that when it's (say it with me now) MOTIVATED the use of some of these techniques can add to the story. However, the trite statement of "I'm not coming back with BORING video..." is BS. You shoot the way the story demands, not the way you feel that day. Get the solid, "boring" stuff first, then experiment. Then you use what fits without getting stuck.

I have waaaayyy too many flashbacks (now that I'm dieting) to succesfully fill those urges whilst keeping my job. Alas, a youth mis-spent. ;)

[<Can't STAND it>]

The IMFAMOUS !!!!!! Walk from nowhere to nowhere just to be walking. PahhhhhhhhhLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ stop your reporters from doing that. :mad:

[<ntlz>]

I bet some of you are the people that's been judging my contest stories. So subjective. That's why I don't enter NPPA contests anymore (if you're wondering, I've won several times).

My boss and peers like my work, even the snap-zooms and all the other 'dirty little tricks'.

Whatever. You guys stay boring, and keep patting yoursevles on the back for those nicely staged sequences. My boss prefers we do everything we can to make our packages snappy. If all of you NPPA fans don't like it, who cares. The one that signs my check likes it, and that's what matters.

Keep on keepin on.

[<flaksoldaten>]

Originally posted by &lt;ntlz&gt;:
Whatever. You guys stay boring, and keep patting yoursevles on the back for those nicely staged sequences. My boss prefers we do everything we can to make our packages snappy. If all of you NPPA fans don't like it, who cares. Shows what you know. Most of the people here bashing your style of shooting dislike the NPPA just as much.

FWIW, I've won a couple dozen NPPA awards and have never staged a f*cking thing. I also make my packages "snappy" and keep my boss happy.

Have a great day! :rolleyes:

[Lenslinger]

Well founded, Tipp. You've bolstered your stance with sound reasoning and the occasional potshot. On much we agree...

Snap-zooms - What the hell's a snap zoom? A breakdance move? A movie trilogy? A breakfast cereal?

Worm-Cam low angle shots - I was alot more fond of these when my back was younger. Can't remember the last time I used one in an interview. Now, if I'm at the Easter Egg hunt...

Hand-held Live shots - Of this I'm guilty, though only with a wide-angle to smooth out movement. Just don't get too close to the female talent - they'll deck you for making them look fat.

Walk'n'talk bridges/standups/liveshots - Walk and talk live shots are a current mandate at my shop. It's like the suits found a way to make black hole dog-lick live shots even more stupefying.

Ultra Close-up talking heads... it's called "Headroom" I must take exception with this. Without exploring a subject's epidermis TOO closely or blocking their mouth with the gargantuan lower third graphic, I'm okay with tighter interview shot. Granted, it's a slippery slope, but I'd rather see the face, than the head.

Unnaturally Colored Backgrounds - I'll use colored gels to spice up some series' endeavour, but I'd no sooner use them for general news as I would a disco ball and smoke machine.

Orange Video - I'm unfamiliar with this one - as I honestly couldn't tell you what cable channel ESPN is on if you put a gun to my head. Wanna see my library?

Halos (ie. too-hot Hairlights) - Ah, the overindulgent back-lighter. I've seen frumpy public information officers lit like the aliens in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". Where's Richard Dreyfuss?

shutter in non-sports situations - An infectious habit among only the goober-est of shooters. Violators should be drawn and quartered, or at least be made to shoot the next two dozen Adopt-a-Pet segments.

Of all you've said (besides that godawful 'lightbulb' line :eek: ), I can get behind this the most:

You shoot the way the story demands, not the way you feel that day.Amen, Brother. Anything else is camera masturbation - a sin we're probably all guilty of at one time or another. Now lemme tell ya about a shot I really despise, ya know there one where you knock the back-focus out of whack and shoot fuzzy all day? God I HATE that!

[BluesCam]

The bottom line... shoot the style that your client likes. I had one client that had to have motion in every shot. You news guys would hate that.

I have one client that wants nothing at eye level. Everything must be a low or high angle and all interviews are framed at the collar and the ear on the edge of safe title.

I try to mix up my shots and add motion when possible (dolly & jib). That's not practical for R&G news, but the news mag shows love it.

As someone else said "it's all subjective."
It sure is. Know your client and give them what they want, even if you think it is ridiculous. After all, it's their nickle.
Good luck.

[Flash-Frame]

I totally agree with you Tipp, except for the jab about the upside down interviews. I almost have that perfected. I'll give more details when the experiment is finished.

[Tippster]

HEH!

[<sinical>]

why don't you genius' just give everyone a list of the thing YOU like to see and we will all get to work on becoming as big og a HACK as you are...blow me and your list.

[Baltimore Shooter]

On the post production side, here's one that's bugging the hell outta me lately. it's the clip that's been sped up to 400 or 500% then imediately slowed down to 50 or even 25%. It was cool when it first appeared, but now, it's soooo over used. Just because you have the capibility doesn't mean you have to use it all the f**king time!

Warren

[(Sin)ical]

Please note the unregistered sinical is not a post by myself. If it's supposed to be a shot at me...I really didn't feel it.

[<tvguy1980>]

I hate when people use crazy weird wipes for no reason. The statement "I think they are cool" just doesn't cut it for me. I have been editing non-linear for about 5 years... I short time I know. I may have used 20 wipes in that entire time.

[<Just because he can...>]

Here's what peeves me, seeing that side mirror shot in one package, and than seeing it again in another. Then it pops up like mushrooms in alot of packages sometimes working sometime not....It was cool the first time, but how bout something else now.

I get irritated when a reporter comes to me and says "could you do one of those snap zooms in my stand-up, I saw it in so and so's standup last week and it looked really cool" No, I can't do it if it's just to look cool...does it relate to our story?

[danesch]

I'm really not one for creative interviews that distract. If it lends itself to the pkg. then I guess it's ok, but if it is too much then it is no better than a reporter stand-up with no purpose... it takes the piece to a screetching hault. My creativity comes with my video and nats. I try to make my video meaningful.

I shot a story once about a very small town that was still written in the books as a city. At the beginning of the day I was able to get the town mailman in his personal car. I shot him leaning up against a mailbox. For the rest of the pkg. every shot had a mailbox somewhere in the frame reminding everyone that the mail man is still there. We went on to interview people at the local bar who said they were going to run for mayor if this was in fact a city. The last bite was from an old man who said what I was waiting for. "Maybe the mailman should run." I closed with a shot of the mailman driving away down a dusty road.

I shot a story about drivers on a certain road. Basic story... But I needed an angle. So I went to a place that knows everything about drivers... the golf store. I asked the man about drivers on the streets as he held his driver in his hand.

Interviews, I usually use a basic three button CU. If you want to get creative... do it with sound and b-roll and most importantly... your angle.

[<ntlz>]

Prudes.

Yeah, you guys keep it boring. I think I'll just keep having fun with all the techniques some of you think is blase'. Like I said before, my boss and collegues here like what I'm doing. So, I'll keep doing it until I'm told to stop. Some of you think being creative is shooting sequences, (many of which are staged, c'mon, admit it). That technique has been around forever. Please, genious photogs, show me something new. Then I'll say you are creative.

[2000lux]

I just wanted to add that I'm tired of table lamps in the background. I know there isn't much to use in those think tank studios, conference rooms, or the myriad of other crummy places we have to shoot, but please try to come up with some thing new! Yesterday I was just veging out watching TV much of the day (it was a loooong week at work) and there was one in practically evey interview! Use it if you have to, but they're quite over utilized right now.

Now that I've said that, tomorrow I'll probably have to shoot an interview in a lamp shop. :)

[Shootblue]

2000lux--

"I have a fetish for bronze pots in the background."--Darrell Barton.

[<24p>]

OK, now that football season is looming please no more camera set on the field with the football or helmet etc. in the foreground. I know it's hard to resist. I have trouble breaking the habit myself, but just say no.

[<GANNON>]

I'm sorry, but I gotta defend a couple of techniques. I rarely post on this board...but this time I'm passionate about some of the subject matter...so here goes. Oh yeah, my last name does kind of rhyme with "GOOBER", so that is probably why I enjoy the use of the SHUTTER in any situation where you feel it advances the story, or gives you a visual feel that draws attention of the viewer. God forbid that by use of compelling video and framing techniques that we draw the woman cooking dinner for the family to glance at the tv and see a great image with non-standard framing and walk over to that tv and turn up the volume and gain another viewer for my station's product. I do not shoot all things with the shutter on, but as a tool it is often effective for me. How effective...well I'll send you a resume...you may hate it...but it will get your attention...and the story will always dictate the style....even though it nudges up to the line once in a while. I also love colored gels. Again more things for the viewer to see and enjoy...and come on...a colored light pulls your attention from a soundbite. I thought my old ND had "ADD". I gotta agree about the consultant stuff...we often do as they say...drives me nuts. I understand y'all's arguments about the stylistic stuff and why you hate it. My argument to you is that often times creative non-standard stuff draws viewers in to your story. Here's where my ND and I have the dialogue of what news should look like. My bottom line...outwork, out-hustle, out-sequence, and nat sound everybody in your market. Do it everyday as creatively as possible. Never let the story get blown away by the style. The only bad shots I hate are out of focus, blue, shaky...maybe all three. But as Esco says ...dude that's an effect I was going for. Only kidding..he has never said that about his own work. I may be a non-standard photojournalist...I use all the tools that a lot of people hate...gels...shutter...tilted angles...snap zooms...wide angle lenses. I will say this..I'm having fun and I'll out work anybody to win the story...shutter or not. Now excuse me as I head back to "Goober" central to bask in my Gooberosity...late..G$

[I Play Geetar]

"GANNON" if that is your real name, why so hostile? I mean so what if you use the shutter because you can't work without it, so what if you use gels because somewhere along the line someone told you that you should do it. Creativity is one thing but when you edge towards distraction that's another.

Can't you be creative and be like all the old guys that only complain because they have to get off their respective tushes and shoot something. I mean hey why isn't 8 shots good enough for a PKG. I personally enjoy the 10 second pan tile pullout zoom to over exposure myself and yes I was going for that effect.

Get real "Gannon" (if again that is your real name). I am old and cranky and like my shooting mondane and boring like Lensmith and Tippster. Average is where it is at baby. Be like every other shooter and not kick A** on a daily basis. BE LIKE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!