 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.215.224.21
In Reply to: RE: Movie cameras and still photo ones radically are posted by tinear on January 18, 2008 at 10:50:46
Looking at the lovely Drew in these photos and the lovely Drew in films, it is obvious that both images cannot be an accurate depiction. Or can they? The photo is clearly accurate - that is what Drew really looks like. The film cameras are accurate too - they show what Drew looks like after the make-up department has had their way with her, and after the lighting technicians and directors of photography on the set have manipulated the light and images.
Which is the real Drew? The Drew as she appears when wiping the sleep from her eyes in the morning? When getting out of the shower? The photograph does. Which leads us to the obvious conclusion that the film cameras fail to give us the real Drew. They give us the manipulated Drew. Next obvious conclusion? The film cameras cannot see through the manipulation. Final Conclusion? The film cameras are fooled. They transmit manipulated data to the audience.
On the other hand, Drew could take special care to apply make-up before leaving her humble abode, and the still camera would likewise be fooled. Point is this - the camera is fooled all the time. It shows you what the actresses, the directors, and the studios want you to see.
"Please, give ONE example of an aging or unattractive actress that, IN A FILM, appeared other than what she is."
Well, since Drew is neither an aging actress (actually, they all are, but I assume you meant that in a different way), nor an unattractive actress (at least this seems to be the consensus), your query is not applicable to this post.
To answer your question, though, I suggest that Drew looks older in the photo than she does in her films. I posit that there are many actresses that, without makeup and sympathetic lighting, look older in "real life" than they do in their films. But you'll never know, because, well, they fool the camera, and are very careful about what they let you see.
Follow Ups:
If the makeup made Drew look a certain way and the camera showed that specific look, then it was accurate.
"If the makeup made Drew look a certain way and the camera showed that specific look, then it was accurate."
No foolin'. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit. Or maybe it is the ability to read. Or maybe it you simply like to be contrary. Once again, here is what I wrote:
"The film cameras are accurate too - they show what Drew looks like after the make-up department has had their way with her, and after the lighting technicians and directors of photography on the set have manipulated the light and images.
They are both accurate. The question, which you invariably fail to understand, is whether the camera accurately depicts the real Drew when it shows her after she has applied her make-up. The answer is an obvious no. It accurately shows the made-up Drew. Which means that she, or her make-up artist, has fooled the camera in hiding the real Drew. That is called reasoning. As proof that you have no such skills, let us consider what you wrote below:
"It's tough to fool the camera."
It ain't tough to fool the camera. It's damned easy. What the still camera showed is Drew as she really is. What the film cameras show is the fabricated and processed Drew. Now, please, please, please, tell me that you understand this, and that your earlier statement was a fool's error.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
