Cinematography

I’ve been thinking about stock footage lately, and I’m torn between two realities: Stock is objectively useful. - VS - Stock is also the cinematic equivalent of ordering fries instead of learning how to cook.

On one hand: deadlines, budgets, travel logistics, weather, permits, “this location now costs your entire film” and all the usual reasons we reach for the easy button.

On the other: there’s something mildly tragic about being a cinematographer and not… cinematographing.

So I’m curious where you all land:

When do you buy stock, and when do you go shoot it yourself?

Is it purely a budget/time decision?

Do you feel like stock footage ever cheapens the project (even when it’s technically “good”)?

Or is the real skill knowing when to stop being precious and just grab what works?

And here’s the spicy one:

Is anyone here shooting stock footage “on spec” with the intention of selling it?

If so…

What subjects actually sell (aerials, timelapses, lifestyle, industrial, nature, weird specific transitions of hands doing things)?

Is it a decent side-income or more like “I made $37 this month and now I can afford half a lens cap”?

What marketplaces are worth it, and which ones feel like donating your soul to an algorithm?

I’d love to hear how you’re navigating it, especially if you’ve got a rule of thumb like:

“If it’s story-critical, I shoot it. If it’s connective tissue, I buy it.”

Or if you think that’s delusional and everything is connective tissue now.

Fire away. I'm a grownup (or fake it reasonably well); I can take it.

Hey Cinematography Lounge,

I wanted to share a really useful video that breaks down how color choices shape tone in ways we often feel before we consciously notice.

Watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mtHYSQZkUY

The core idea is simple but powerful: filmmakers have three main color tools that work together to create a cohesive emotional world:

1) Production design

Sets, props, and wardrobe establish the palette “in front of the camera.” The video highlights how this can reinforce story and character, whether it’s heat and tension amplified through warm environments, or emotional distance supported by cooler, modern interiors. It also calls out wardrobe as a budget-friendly way to control palette since it dominates so much screen space.

2) Lighting

Color temperature (and sometimes bold RGB choices) changes how those production colors read emotionally. Warm light can feel romantic or nostalgic, neutral can feel clinical, and cooler tones can feel detached or lonely. The video also points out how more extreme palettes can support heightened internal states, while neutral lighting can keep things grounded and realistic.

3) Color grading

The grade can’t fully reinvent what was captured, but it can refine, unify, and nudge the palette. The video uses examples like applying a tint to make a world feel “off,” or pushing saturation and contrast to the edge for intensity. It also mentions building different LUT “looks” based on photochemical processes, then applying them selectively depending on the emotional beat of a scene.

The reminder I loved most: color isn’t just what we see, it’s what we feel. When it’s intentional, it quietly deepens the story without calling attention to itself.

When you’re planning a project, what do you lock first, production design palette, lighting approach, or the grade target? And what’s one film you think nails its palette perfectly?

F1® The Movie goes behind the scenes of the making of the film partnering with FORMULA 1 teams and drivers like Lewis Hamilton. See how the movie was filmed alongside the FORMULA 1 season, all the cameos of real owners and drivers, and stars like Brad Pitt and Javier Bardem interacting with the racers. Scenes were filmed on real race courses with real cars and fans. See how it all came together!

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiwM41x1QNE)

https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-tv-cinematography-2025-2/

Go behind the scenes of Ballad of a Small Player with Oscar award-winning Director of Photography James Friend, ASC, BSC as he breaks down the many challenges and opportunities of shooting in and around Macau casinos for the Netflix dark comedy.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fRQiB_qVJA)

Cinematographer Robbie Ryan BSC ISC breaks down the visual language of Bugonia, his latest collaboration with director Yorgos Lanthimos—from shooting in VistaVision to embracing long lenses, mechanical constraints, and an evolving on-set process.

Ryan explores how format shapes intimacy, why limitations can sharpen creative intent, and how trusting performance over preconception helped define the film’s distinctive aesthetic. From camera mechanics and optics to lighting choices grounded in location, Bugonia is a reminder that cinematography is as much about restraint and observation as it is about precision.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fX7HsKxTIA)

Legendary LA film stage lighting and motion picture lighting manufacturing company Mole Richardson seems to be going out of business here with a final auction announced recently.

For those not in the know, Mole Richardson has a thrilling history, and pretty much invented the motion picture lighting business. It was founded by the innovative Italian immigrant Peter Mole in 1927, who began selling incandescent tungsten lighting to the film industry, which allowed a more natural lighting than the previous arc lights. The new lights were also silent, an advantage for the new sound films.

Mole-Richardson invented the Fresnel Solar Spot unit in 1935, adapting the fresnel lighthouse lens for use in motion pictures. During World War II, Mole-Richardson concentrated their efforts on developing searchlights for battleships, tanks and artillery units to aid the Allied Forces' battle in Europe and the Pacific. In 1945, Peter Mole was invited to light the first United Nations conference held in San Francisco.

Mole-Richardson was considered by many to be the staple of motion picture and television lighting in the movie industry today, setting the standard for tungsten Fresnel fixtures, and their lighting won four Academy Awards. For a long time, they operated out of a beautiful art deco building on La Brea Ave. in Los Angeles as well.

Apparently the word is that a shift away from in house manufacturing made parts scarce, repairs expensive, and prices rose to unsustainable levels, especially considering the myriad of cheaper alternatives being manufactured overseas.

(https://www.aagauction.com/world-famous-motion-picture-lighting-equipmen...)

Hi everyone!

I’m Andre — a creator with a deep passion for the 90s and early 00s filmmaking workflow. I love everything about that era: the texture, the discipline, the imperfect beauty, the entire hands-on process.

I’m currently looking to connect and network with people who still own, use, or have access to 35mm film cameras and 90s/00s lenses, especially anyone experienced with that old-school workflow.

I’m working on a low budget, but I’m absolutely willing to work hard, assist, learn, and put in the time to be part of projects that use these materials. My long-term goal is to collaborate with a filmmaker who’s creating a project using real film and vintage lenses.

I also plan to shoot a music video on 35mm film combined with a 2000s-era camera lens, and then scan the project to 1080×720 to keep that authentic early-2000s look.

So my questions to the community:

– Who here still works with 35mm and vintage 90s/00s lenses?

– Do you know anyone who still uses that workflow?

– And would anyone be open to networking or collaborating?

Thanks so much — I’d love to connect with anyone who’s keeping that era alive.

Andre

I’m throwing this one to the cine-lounge because I keep hearing confident answers that magically collapse in real footage.

Here’s the dilemma. You’re moving the camera. You can either fly a gimbal and keep a “proper” cinematic shutter, or you can tighten the shutter angle and let gyro or post stabilization do the heavy lifting. Both work. Both look different. Both come with baggage people like to pretend isn’t there.

Once you start stabilizing in post, motion blur stops being your friend. Blur that looks fine unstabilized suddenly smears, warps, or just feels… wrong. So you tighten the shutter. Now the stabilization behaves, but the image starts edging toward hyper-real, clinical, or action-cam territory if you push it too far. Congratulations, you’ve traded float for stutter.

The gimbal solves one set of problems and introduces another. Motion is smooth, sometimes too smooth. Parallax gets polite. Imperfections vanish. Energy can flatten out unless you actively fight the tool. You gain blur and lose grit. Whether that’s a win depends on the shot, the story, and your tolerance for things looking vaguely like a tech demo.

So I’m not interested in dogma here. I’m interested in scars.

Where have you actually landed in real-world use? How tight can you push shutter angle before the image stops feeling intentional? Is there a sweet spot where post stabilization behaves without screaming “war footage”? When does post genuinely replace a gimbal for you, and when does it absolutely fall apart once you see it on a decent-sized screen?

No theory. No spec-sheet bravado. Just what’s held up once motion, blur, and stabilization all start arguing in the same frame?