Motion Picture News (Sept-Oct 1918)

September _'/. 1918 1903 C a^rrt e ir sc Laboratory S ^ ox. cL i o TecKrtiqtt^ 5* 0/i /,z>/if Effects A STUDY of the technical pages of the News covering the last few years, or, indeed, any other period in the history of motion picture entertainment, will show that there has always been steady progress in the design and improvement of cinemachinery and laboratory and studio methods of procedure, from which it is natural to contend that cinematography as an art likewise shows corresponding advances. Whether and to what extent the photographic results of the various producers are constantly improving in artistic and technical quality can only be determined from a visual study of their various offerings upon the screen, and as a devotee of motion picture entertainment whose interest has stood the test of time, we propose to set forth our opinions on certain photographic effects — or perhaps we should say defects — which frequently occur in the screen offerings, to the detriment of the same in most cases. A sign of increased artistry on the part of motion picture producers was the introduction, some years ago of " light effects " in their interior scenes, a " light effect " being broadly defined as that manner of lighting a scene which would produce in the resultant photographs the appearance, or effect, of the various objects or characters in the scene being lighted to an extent which would be expected under the natural conditions which the scene was intended to represent, and with the light on any given object coming from the direction which, likewise, would be noted under the natural conditions supposed to be duplicated in the scene. The sense of this definition, then, should form the basis of intelligent and truly artistic staging and photography where " light effects " are sought, and when its full requirements are borne in mind by the producer and his staff, results are secured which reveal the possibilities of cinematography to even the practised art critic, while they impress, subconsciously, a large multitude who have no artistic or photographic training whatever — sure proof that " light effects," worthy of the name, are valuable artifices in production. To many patrons of motion picture entertainment, and, it seems, even to some producers, the term " light effect " always implies the accentuation of some object in a scene by an overpowering flood of light which will, by visual contrast, cause it to stand out from its surroundings, but we desire to here point out that our definition of a light effect goes further than the mere accentuation of individual details in a scene, and that a light effect of the truest type may be produced without according special consideration to particular objects in a scene, if the scene as a whole is intelligently lighted to produce the effect which we would really observe under the natural conditions intended to be portrayed. Some producers have appreciated this point, and it may be said to their credit that they have studiously tried to produce interior scenes in which the objects and the characters are no more, nor no less brightly illuminated than they would appear in the rooms of an average house, while to further perfect the illusion the directions from which the light is supplied are regulated to conform as nearly as possible to the requirements of an accurate portrayal. Such endeavors, being entirely commendable, can but react to the favor of the producers who have made them, but in the majority of cases producers have not paid sufficient attention to the correct lighting of ordinary interior scenes of conventional character, as is proven by the majority of the results one sees upon the screen. This is partly due to the fact that the majority of our motion pictures are produced under daylight (properly diffused of course), but it seems to be the experience of those having made the experiment that natural lightings of interiors can be most nearly attained in studios using artificial light exclusively. A modern studio installation of artificial lights requires to be a very flexible arrangement, whose separate elements permit the production of light effects of the more vivid type. Considering more narrowly the "light effects" in the average production of the present day, a glaring " defect " pervades a great many of such effects, tending to bring them into disfavor with the critical " movie " patron. This is the harshness or glaring white appearance of the highlights, i.e., faces or other objects which it has been attempted to accentuate, which appear to have been flooded with light, or so severely over-exposed as to rob the screen result of practically all essential detail. The blame for these glaring and unrealistic effects is universally thrust upon the cameraman, not only by the public, but by his employer, the producer himself, but we propose to paint conditions as they really are, thus showing that in the majority of cases the cameraman is not responsible for the harsh " highlights " which appear instead of proper " light effects." Cinematographers, both in New York and on the Coast, have raised their profession to a high status, and there is no doubt whatever that the camera staffs of the leading producers are in the main composed of intelligent photographers, while many surprising results noted upon the screen bear witness to painstaking work on the part of the cameramen. Our investigations show, moreover, that in the production of " light effects," the cinematographers in most cases are doing all that the man behind the camera can do to secure a faithful photographic record of the lights, the shadows and the details in the scenes they picture, and we know that most cameramen engaged upon pretentious work are at great pains to label their cans of exposed negative with accurate and complete instructions as to the nature of the effect desired, and a report of the conditions under which the exposures were made. This forethought on the part of the cameraman goes for naught, however, when the film reaches the laboratory, and it is our intent on this occasion to unconditionally blame the laboratories for the majority of the harsh, absurd and unnatural " effects " mentioned above, for it is a matter of fact that the average developer of negatives in a film laboratory has no conception whatever of the nature of a " light effect," nor of the means and methods by which such effects are produced. The result is that when negatives exposed to accentuate certain features of a scene, whilst leaving others in comparative obscurity, come into the hands of the average dark-room worker, they are misjudged as underexposures and are so unmercifully forced, or " cooked," to use the cameramen's term, that the highlights are hopelessly overdeveloped (and opaque), while details not meant to be obtrusive are brought into prominence to the dismay of the cameraman and producer. Lack of knowledge of studio lighting and the camera procedure is perhaps pardonable in the case of the average dark-room man, since developing is regarded as a separate profession in the motion picture industry, but the indifferent and unintelligent work on negative development of most laboratories has driven the cameramen to labeling all of their exposed film with precise information regarding its treatment, in defense of their own reputations. When, in spite of this, the laboratories continue to ruin correctly exposed and carefully labeled negatives, which in reality occurs every day, the laboratories can no longer escape indictment for many of the harsh results now prevalent in screen offerings, and the officials and production staffs of the various film making concerns should turn to the laboratory, instead ti to the cameraman, for the necessary improvement in the photographic quality of " light effects." Learning Cinematography T. F., New York City, writes as follows: " I have had some experience in still photography and also as an assistant cameraman. I am desirous of getting a thorough knowledge of this line,