Photographers in movies and TV-series

[Petrus]

It was interesting to see how photographers use their press cameras (Graflex, Horseman etc) in the TV series "Crown". Shooting almost without aiming, from too far away, never changing or turning the film holder or changing the flash bulb... Besides I think there should be more Rolleiflexes at least in the sixties.

Generally the movie photographer hordes (in more modern times) use often amateur camera models, hold the cameras wrong and unprofessional ways, nobody really seems to act right but is just a part of an unruly mob.

Apparently nobody thinks of hiring a press photography consultant to train these extras for the parts they are supposed to play. Looks like any film crew acquaintance who owns a decent looking camera is fit to play a press photographer.

[petermfiore]

It's really not that important to the production. This kind of thing goes on with all the arts and almost everything else when it's just background. It just doesn't matter all that much to them.

[Jim Metzger]

My favorite pet peeve is when a photographer takes a single shot but the sound track has a motor drive going off.

[Jeremy Roussak]

That's very far from the gravest inaccuracy in the series! Anyone with a specialist interest can find something to upset them: the Queen's uniform has mistakes in it, I'm told, and Olivia Coleman's salute would have an RSM screaming blue murder.

It's fiction, loosely based on fact (with some deliberate falsification, in keeping with the author's prejudices) and laced with a heavy dose of speculation. It's best not to take it too seriously.

Jeremy

[petermfiore]

Have you seen the movie "The Public Eye"...They did it more or less right. In this case, the movie is about a press photographer. It mattered this time.

Link to the Wikipedia page >>> https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tTP1TdIKjfPSDJg9BIoKE3KyUxWSK1MVcjNL8tMBQCGoQmW&q=public+eye+movie&oq=public+eye&aqs=chrome.5.69i57j0l2j46j0j46j0j46.6960j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Petrus]

Have you seen the movie "The Public Eye"...They did it more or less right. In this case, the movie is about a press photographer. It mattered this time.

Of course I have seen it, I believe they actually tried to get things right.

[John Camp]

The most annoying thing about movie/television portrayals of photographers is that they're usually predators of some kind, even when they're shown as news photographers. In the streaming series "4400," which is what we critics call "Not Very Good," a serial killer is shown photographing prospective victims with a film SLR which is weird enough by itself. But really, a serial killer? They had to go there?

One non-predator movie -- I actually think that much of the late 20th Century surge in photography as created by the movie "Blowup" in which a hip young London photographer who drives a Rolls Royce convertible is shown photographing naked teenager models. Little did we know that that's what the photography life was like, all Rolls Royces and naked blondes.

[Chris Kern]

I actually think that much of the late 20th Century surge in photography as created by the movie "Blowup" in which a hip young London photographer who drives a Rolls Royce convertible is shown photographing naked teenager models. Little did we know that that's what the photography life was like, all Rolls Royces and naked blondes.

I don't think he ever owned a Rolls, but our former compadre on this forum, Rob Campbell—he apparently got bored and pulled the metaphorical ripcord a while back—seems to have snapped his share of naked blondes during his career ... not least Brigitte Bardot, who reportedly referred to him as her favorite photographer.

[Robert Roaldi]

I tired of the CSI series quickly but from what I remember the photographers on the show always seemed to fire the shutter twice. Was I misunderstanding the sound or did others notice this?

[Peter McLennan]

What a predictable lot we are!  My eye always goes towards whatever photographers are in the scene.  Can't help ourselves can we?

I must say, however, that most of the video news cameras are correct for the period, and the actor/operators were well trained in their use.

I also must say that it's beautifully photographed.  The last season used a different DP for nearly every episode and there was nary an ASC or BSC among them.  Kudos to the producers for taking a chance on the unknown yet obviously skilled.

[Petrus]

Speaking of news cam operators what annoyed me in the "Groundhog Day" was that the video guy kept running a commentary himself even when the newsperson was live on camera. I would fire a guy immediately for doing something like that. He also kept looking past the camera (not through the viewfinder) even when shooting hand/shoulder held. Maybe because the director wanted to show his face once in a while. Anyway, fighter pilots in movies always take of their oxygen masks (and thus also microphones) in a tight spot...

[John Camp]

One of the more laughable things you see in movies is terrorists (usually some villainous-looking Arab or fleshy, vaguely Eastern European) taking pictures of, say, the Houses of Parliament the better to plan his attack. But why the photos? He can stand there and see the target. He can purchase postcards of the things he is photographing. He can take tours. He can go to Google Earth and see satellite photos. He can go to Google Images and see literally hundreds and maybe thousands of photos both interior and exterior. You would be far better drawing diagrams or making notes than taking photos, but then, that wouldn't be properly villainous.

[Petrus]

One of the more laughable things you see in movies is terrorists (usually some villainous-looking Arab or fleshy, vaguely Eastern European) taking pictures of, say, the Houses of Parliament the better to plan his attack. But why the photos? He can stand there and see the target. He can purchase postcards of the things he is photographing. He can take tours. He can go to Google Earth and see satellite photos. He can go to Google Images and see literally hundreds and maybe thousands of photos both interior and exterior. You would be far better drawing diagrams or making notes than taking photos, but then, that wouldn't be properly villainous.

Yes, why all that trouble, when all villains/good guys can get 3D auto cad plans of any building on earth instantly online to their computers.

[faberryman]

One of the more laughable things you see in movies is terrorists (usually some villainous-looking Arab or fleshy, vaguely Eastern European) taking pictures of, say, the Houses of Parliament the better to plan his attack. But why the photos? He can stand there and see the target. He can purchase postcards of the things he is photographing. He can take tours. He can go to Google Earth and see satellite photos. He can go to Google Images and see literally hundreds and maybe thousands of photos both interior and exterior. You would be far better drawing diagrams or making notes than taking photos, but then, that wouldn't be properly villainous.

It is especially ridiculous when the villain uses a Canon camera. No self-respecting villain would ever use a Canon.

[John Camp]

It is especially ridiculous when the villain uses a Canon camera. No self-respecting villain would ever use a Canon.

+1

[Craig Lamson]

It is especially ridiculous when the villain uses a Canon camera. No self-respecting villain would ever use a Canon.

Only the good guys and super heros use Canons.

[Rhossydd]

Apparently nobody thinks of hiring a press photography consultant to train these extras for the parts they are supposed to play.

There's three problems with that;
Firstly, someone has to recognise there's a need for it.
Secondly, that it's worth spending the money to hire someone for that small benefit. Worth pointing out that once you've trained a supporting artist* for a particular task they're eligible to be paid more for their 'specialist' skill
Thirdly, you assume that the supporting artist is capable of learning the task at all.

Having spent over forty years in TV studios and sets I can assure you that the last item causes the biggest problem. I've watched as a professional on-set photographer has tried to teach an SA how to use a camera with an almost total lack of success many times.


*Supporting artist is the prefered title for those previously called extras.

[Petrus]

I have the problem of quickly noticing things most people miss (press photographer instincts?). An example from "Crown": the Queen sits in a train with a set of silverware on a table in front of her. The light reflections from the silver do not change at all even though the scenery and light in the window moves constantly.

In "Mandalorian" the characters are in a burnt forest with a big full moon hanging in the sky in the background. When the camera starts to move slightly sideways the near branches move in relation to the moon, but the background branches do not. Sloppy rendering.

Many more...

[petermfiore]

I have the problem of quickly noticing things most people miss (press photographer instincts?).

It is the curse of the visually aware. I know because I suffer from the same affliction. However, it does come in quite handy in my life's long career.   

[B-Ark]

My pet peeve - some photographer taking a shot at night time using a film SLR with a long lens. Shutter click sound is always very short, and they end up with a sharp image. I wish I was that good.