American cinematographer (Sept 1935)

September 193b • American Cinematographer 379 Release-Prints Reflect Cinematography by Henry Siccardi Heed of Release-Printing, M-G-M Laboratory T HAS frequently been said that a Cinematographer is no better than the release-prints which carry his work to the theatres. The reverse of this statement may have received less publicity, but it is equally a fact that a release-print can be no better than the Cinematographer who makes the negative. Modern high-quality release- printing can bring out every bit of quality a Cinematog- rapher puts into his negative—but it can never add quali- ties he forgets to put on the film. The most desirable single quality is, of course, consis- tency in the photographic treatment of the production. Consistency not only in exposure, but in every other phase of camerawork—lighting, diffusion, and so on. It is ob- viously impossible, in making a production consisting of many hundreds of individual scenes photographed under diverse conditions over a period of weeks, to maintain such ideally perfect exposure that the entire production will go through the printers on one setting of the printer-light. If that were possible, we would probably have no need for printer-light adjustments! None the less, the greater even- ness in the negative exposures, the easier we find it to turn out consistently good release-prints. However, uniformity of lighting and diffusion ore of more practical importance in getting first-class release- prints. Changes in lighting between one sequence and the next are often necessary for dramatic reasons. No one can find fault with such changes. But changes in lighting be- tween dramatically similar sequences, or above all, between scene and scene within the sequence, are indefensible. Such changes are first of all illogical and dramatically disturbing: and from our viewpoint, they are bad because they alter the key and the contrast of our picture. I re- cently saw a picture in which there were several very nicely-photographed low-key sequences. Intercut with the longer shots of these sequences were many closeups in which an entirely different style of lighting was used: where, in the long-shots, the key was low, with relatively little lighten the walls and background, in the closer angles the background wos brilliantly lit. Those close shots stood out like a sore thumb-—-and I imagine the release-print crew had a terrible time trying to make the sequence even tolerably pleasing. Such obvious errors are not, of course, common, for good Cinematogrophers naturally strive to avoid them; but many lesser errors of the some general type come to notice almost daily. For instance, there is the common mistake of using a definite source-lighting for the estab- lishing shots of a sequence—and then virtually ignoring it in the more intimote angles. It is all too easy to do this when the making of a sequence is spread over several days; but in the laboratory we have to deal with the assembled sequence as a unit—-and these little differences don't im- prove our work at all. The different scenes may all be lit in the same key, but the altered lightings bring changes in contrast and general quality which are very hard to cope with. A whole volume could be written about moving-camera shots. They give us almost as much trouble as they give the camera crew, for unless the Cinematographer has a chance to moke them perfectly—with plenty of time for getting even lighting and ample rehearsal—they give us bewildering changes in lighting, in key, and in contrast, all within a single scene, covering only a few feet, of film. But the less said about these shots, the better, for I realize that they nre a thorn in the Cameraman's flesh no less than in ours, and the camera crews are doing everything in their power to make such shots (when they must make them) as perfect as circumstances allow. Diffusion might not seem, at first thought, a matter of much concern to the laboratory, but it is. Most diffusing media tend to grey the image, as well as to diffuse it; and this greying is proportional to the strength of the dif- fusion. Quite aside from this, diffusion tends to alter the contrast of a scene, as well as changing the general photo- graphic quality. It must be evident, therefore, that the laboratory must have a very definite interest in diffusion, and especially in maintaining more consistency in the use of diffusion. A long-shot, with little or no diffusion, and a closeup with heavy diffusion, even though well-matched as to key and lighting, offer two very different problems in printing. To put it bluntly, unless the Cinematographer follows a consistent scheme of diffusion, no laboratory on earth can avoid giving him spotty-looking release-prints. Coping with inconsistent diffusion between scene and scene and sequence and sequence is one of the most difficult problems encountered in all release-print laboratories. Modern release-printing is definitely a scientifically controlled operation, quite different from the unscientific methods of a few years ago. In the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Laboratory, we make all prints for American release, and some foreign master-prints, right within the studio. Our (Continued on Page 384)