[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
what's so hard?
- To: <telecine at xyzoom.alegria.com>
- Subject: what's so hard?
- From: "Bob Festa" <festa at pacbell.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 15:58:38 -0700
- Old-Return-Path: <festa at pacbell.net>
- Resent-From: telecine at sun.alegria.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <"7VilOB.A.XhG.qGPez" at sun>
- Resent-Sender: telecine-request at sun.alegria.com
- Resent-To: multiple recipients of <telecine at sun.alegria.com>
> > Many wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > In answer to your question, there isn't anything hard about being a
> > > or a telecine operator **if**
> > >
I might as well add my .02 to this thread and kill it.
No one has mentioned the highly developed seventh sense of being able to
"read" into a piece of film and discover the intrinsic values that are
resident. You can manage a circus of art directors all day long, but if
don't posess the undefinable skill of looking into the acetate and
the magic to the surface, you will always be a mechanic first and a
colorist last. There is nothing more rewarding than peering into raw OCN,
quickly surveying the filmic landscape, and in a matter of seconds
an image to life that is entirely "yours", be it be natural or created.
This skill set is something that can only be learned after seeing miles of
exposures. Some good, some bad, and some ugly. After learning all of the
film stocks, all of the camera mechanics, and all of the exposure
setups...only then can you say "there's nothing hard about being a
colorist", because you're field of experience has made it look so easy.
Over to you, grasshopper.
Bob Festa festa at pacbell.net
Encore Santa Monica 310 656 7663
thanks to Sam Dlugach, Dean Humphus, & Clark Bierbaum
for support of the TIG in 1997
mailinglist digest available......posting guidelines on the webpage