John Horwitz wrote:
why would you think this is "Cinema"

Sure it is.  A lot of cinema is similarly lit, in an environment.  There isn't a huge recipe that constitues "cinematic".  If the shot looks like it could have been a single frame off any moving production, it qualifies.


To the OP -  The lighting from your example is simplistic. All it requires is a basic good exposure of the environment, with just enough subject light to convey what you want -  well lit subject, or subdued-lit subject, and from what direction.  It's after the capture that you might add cinematic tonalities and localized dynamic contrast to achieve "drama". Keep in mind that cinema favors separation, so backlighting is a comment element, which can be the sun, a reflection, or an artificial source. An easy way to light it is to observe what backlighting occurs naturally, set exposure for that, and then add enough front or side light for the look you want.

Where cinematic lighting differs to some extent is that instead of thinking about the frame as a portrait (though that is a common element of cinema when introducing a character), much of the movie is devoted to a character study, so the information conveyed is "what can I say about this character" rather then " this is a nice picture of a person".  In that sense, they have the freedom to block up the blacks for dramatic effect, because the goal is content, whereas we portrait guys are somewhat averse to shorter tonal ranges. Movies also often employ more specular lighting for "snap" because softer lighting lacks drama.

Kelvin Hammond wrote:
A lot of cinema is similarly lit...

But this is not - nor is it a 'still' shot from a cimematic production....it's basic lighting, nothing new, nothing startling and nothing really interesting.

John Horwitz wrote:

But this is not - nor is it a 'still' shot from a cimematic production....it's basic lighting, nothing new, nothing startling and nothing really interesting.

It's contextual though... what one person sees as cinematic may not be what another person defines it as.  Looking at other examples on the reference site, it's clearly not straight-up portraiture, and it has a discernible style, which could be imitated or used as a springboard.

I've been doing this a long time, so 99% so what I see is "nothing new, nothing startling and nothing really interesting."  The thing is, THAT's not a relevant point.  All that is relevant is that the OP finds it appealing.

Kelvin Hammond wrote:
[  All that is relevant is that the OP finds it appealing.

No accounting for lack of taste - I guess...chuckle!

Kelvin Hammond wrote:

Sure it is.  A lot of cinema is similarly lit, in an environment.  There isn't a huge recipe that constitues "cinematic".  If the shot looks like it could have been a single frame off any moving production, it qualifies.


To the OP -  The lighting from your example is simplistic. All it requires is a basic good exposure of the environment, with just enough subject light to convey what you want -  well lit subject, or subdued-lit subject, and from what direction.  It's after the capture that you might add cinematic tonalities and localized dynamic contrast to achieve "drama". Keep in mind that cinema favors separation, so backlighting is a comment element, which can be the sun, a reflection, or an artificial source. An easy way to light it is to observe what backlighting occurs naturally, set exposure for that, and then add enough front or side light for the look you want.

Where cinematic lighting differs to some extent is that instead of thinking about the frame as a portrait (though that is a common element of cinema when introducing a character), much of the movie is devoted to a character study, so the information conveyed is "what can I say about this character" rather then " this is a nice picture of a person".  In that sense, they have the freedom to block up the blacks for dramatic effect, because the goal is content, whereas we portrait guys are somewhat averse to shorter tonal ranges. Movies also often employ more specular lighting for "snap" because softer lighting lacks drama.

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Yes I've noticed the backlighting in a lot of the examples I've seen.

@John, the photographer who took the photo has much of his work described as cinematic, so what else would you call it?

Jennifer Walsh - TPS wrote:
Who knew there could be so much debate over an adjective....

Welcome to the internet, where your opinion is wrong.

Dave McDermott wrote:
@John, the photographer who took the photo has much of his work described as cinematic, so what else would you call it?

Well, a rose by any other name...but I digress. My first thought was 'Boring' but that indicated praise of a sort...my second thought was 'Naive' but again that is a genre by itself. So I'll go with 'VAPID' and not in the endearing way such as ethereal  - but in the sense that there is little substance and certainly no thought behind it.


It reminds me of the Huff post recently touting the "Future of photography" or some such nonsense. I guess it is another case of someone easily amused by fluff!

John Horwitz wrote:

Well, a rose by any other name...but I digress. My first thought was 'Boring' but that indicated praise of a sort...my second thought was 'Naive' but again that is a genre by itself. So I'll go with 'VAPID' and not in the endearing way such as ethereal  - but in the sense that there is little substance and certainly no thought behind it.


It reminds me of the Huff post recently touting the "Future of photography" or some such nonsense. I guess it is another case of someone easily amused by fluff!

Why the condescending tone? It may not be your cup of tea but that's irrelevant to the discussion. I like it and was just looking for advice on how to achieve it. So far you've contributed nothing but sarcastic sneering.

Dave McDermott wrote:
I like it and was just looking for advice on how to achieve it.

Simple question:
"Why do you think this is 'Cinematic'?"

John Horwitz wrote:

Simple question:
"Why do you think this is 'Cinematic'?"

Well I googled cinematic portraits and it was one of the first images that popped up. Plus the photographer in question describes a lot of his work as cinematic. look you can call it whatever you want. We could spend all day discussing what is and isn't cinematic, but I couldn't be bothered. It's something I like which is all that matters.

Peter House wrote:
Hah, this is my friend. He shoots some stuff in my studio. I am actually in his portfolio LOL.

Anyways, its a cool image and he has a great style. This particular image appears to be shot with a beauty dish from above, with some kickers from behind. Right one appears gelled. And a light leak from bottom left.

Cheers.

Thank you. Exactly the answer I was looking for.

PhillipM wrote:
I always thought lighting was about putting where you want, and taking it away from where you don't to achieve the look you want.

What's so damn hard about that?

^Exactly this^

John Horwitz wrote:
OK - he said it is - therefore it must be: post hoc ergo propter hoc. Well, THAT was entertaining

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL_vHDjG5Wk

So what then, we should just take your definition as fact? I don't know why you're making such a big deal out of this to be honest.

Dave McDermott wrote:
[ I don't know why you're making such a big deal out of this to be honest.

Well Dave - I asked one simple question - why did you think this was cinema?  and all you could answer was that HE called his work cinematic...

cin·e·mat·ic
    of or relating to motion pictures.
       having qualities characteristic of motion pictures.
        "the cinematic feel of their video"

if you like it - fine but cinematic it ain't!

John Horwitz wrote:

Well Dave - I asked one simple question - why did you think this was cinema?  and all you could answer was that HE called his work cinematic...

cin·e·mat·ic
    of or relating to motion pictures.
       having qualities characteristic of motion pictures.
        "the cinematic feel of their video"

if you like it - fine but cinematic it ain't!

Like a lot of things in photography it's fairly subjective though. Most of the searches for cinematic portraits showed up similar results. It's not just that one photographer. I suppose everyone else is wrong and you're right.

Dave McDermott wrote:
I suppose everyone else is wrong and you're right.

I finally agree with you!

John Horwitz wrote:

Well Dave - I asked one simple question - why did you think this was cinema?  and all you could answer was that HE called his work cinematic...

cin·e·mat·ic
    of or relating to motion pictures.
       having qualities characteristic of motion pictures.
        "the cinematic feel of their video"

if you like it - fine but cinematic it ain't!

I watched Employee of the Month...  Would you say that the OPs example is more or less cinematic then that?

**said with same tone as "Well Focker, I have nipples, can you milk me?"**

Lol.   Defining "cinematic" is like a discussion on here about defining porn. Does Gonzo look like Playboy? Which is the "true" porn?

Kelvin Hammond wrote:
[
Defining "cinematic" is like a discussion on here about defining porn.

If you concede that 'cinematic' is a genre - defining it becomes easy...indeed no harder than any other genre. Abstract, Modern, Post-Modern, Absurdist, Cubist, Pictorial...to name but a few.

The problem here is the OP defined it and I asked a very simple question that he has steadfastly refused to answer.

Peter House wrote:
Anyways, its a cool image and he has a great style. This particular image appears to be shot with a beauty dish from above, with some kickers from behind. Right one appears gelled. And a light leak from bottom left.
Cheers.

Yep - I agree that's what it looks like. It's also toned in post.

John Horwitz wrote:

The problem here is the OP defined it and I asked a very simple question that he has steadfastly refused to answer.

Why exactly is it a "problem"? You're the only one here who seems to have a problem with it. I asked a question on how to achieve a certain look and you had to go and get all pedantic about it. Some of the top photographers like Joe McNally, Joel L and Jay P Morgan to name but a few, have done cinematic portraits. As I said, should we just take your definition as fact?

Dave McDermott wrote:
Why exactly is it a "problem"?

who are the guys you mentioned - never heard of any of them

Dave McDermott wrote:
Ohh God, I give up.

I use a gradient map for similar effects.

John Horwitz wrote:

If you concede that 'cinematic' is a genre - defining it becomes easy...indeed no harder than any other genre. Abstract, Modern, Post-Modern, Absurdist, Cubist, Pictorial...to name but a few.

The problem here is the OP defined it and I asked a very simple question that he has steadfastly refused to answer.

Er, ok... I'll concede that cinematic is the horizontally oriented genre, since it's possible to shoot still landscapes vertically.

Kelvin Hammond wrote:
Er, ok... I'll concede that cinematic is the horizontally oriented genre,

...and don't you love that he listed 2 people who shoot editorial  and  journalism as well as one who shoots posters?

John Horwitz wrote:
No accounting for lack of taste - I guess...chuckle!

I've found we can *always* rely on the MM forums to provide a platform for a random hater who's overly impressed with himself and unimpressed by everything else in the world. You are that guy today. Congratulations! Try adding something of substance, huh?

OP: My take on cinematic style is about subject isolation, and -- yes -- a lot to do with color grading to manipulate mood.