Question about polarised extremes of lighting

[gorillaonabike]

https://vimeo.com/71382499

Most of the above was shot in the same place but using the light differently. The 'running' scene and the standing still scenes were shot approximately 10 feet apart but clearly appear to be in entirely different locations.

To do this, we used polar opposite exposure levels and enhanced the effect in post.

What are your thoughts? Are these acceptably within tolerances or are they out?

As a note, the only person to comment on this 30 seconds of footage (in the screening room) clearly indicated they felt uncomfortable about the 'over exposed' levels so wanted to check what y'all think

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=49518

 

[micster]

The overexposure definitely isnt sitting right with me. Also the shot of the two figures infront of the window isnt sitting well with me either. It feels very constrained - it should be a wider shot with more colour involved, to show off the location a lot better. Also the massive pole down the middle of the right actor isnt good framing, it'd look better for each actor to be either side of that line in the window, so one wasn't seemingly cut in the middle.

 

[wheatgrinder]

sorry, I never thought they were different locations? They look a bit different, but it seemed pretty clear to me they were in the same space, was that NOT the intent?

Yeah, the pole in the head trick should be avoided ... you could frame it with the line between them, if the story has a suggestion of "something between the couple" or frame both subjects within one window pane, which suggests sorta boxed in togetherness. ...

If this is a recurring shot, then you could use both options as narrative devices..

 

[gorillaonabike]

The overexposure definitely isnt sitting right with me. Also the shot of the two figures infront of the window isnt sitting well with me either. It feels very constrained - it should be a wider shot with more colour involved, to show off the location a lot better. Also the massive pole down the middle of the right actor isnt good framing, it'd look better for each actor to be either side of that line in the window, so one wasn't seemingly cut in the middle.

Within the context of the short, the overexposure works well but unsure of how it sits within a simple trailer because it is out of context. I'll take your comments on board, maybe take the overexposure down a touch for the trailer.

Looking at the window frame, maybe I will remove it. Now you point it out, I'm not crazy about it so then the question becomes whether it is worth the time just to get rid. My first thought is to maybe remove the element above her head and leave the rest in but need to think about it.

I would challenge the idea of colour. I have used coloured shots and not crazy about them. Too much colour overwhelms the piece. However, agree about taking the shot back a bit. Maybe I will do that. Not sure.

Am caught between spending the time with a Wacom in my hand but this is a serious amount of time to spend so need to think very carefully about this.

 

[gorillaonabike]

sorry, I never thought they were different locations? They look a bit different, but it seemed pretty clear to me they were in the same space, was that NOT the intent?

Yeah, the pole in the head trick should be avoided ... you could frame it with the line between them, if the story has a suggestion of "something between the couple" or frame both subjects within one window pane, which suggests sorta boxed in togetherness. ...

If this is a recurring shot, then you could use both options as narrative devices..

The intent was to make the viewer feel a little uncomfortable and ask questions hence the use of the sound at the end. Also, it is playing backwards so the people and vehicles in the background are moving backwards.

Makes it all 'feel' a little uncomfortable and constrained (I was shooting for 'constrained, trapped'). That is the 'feel' I was aiming for and clearly, the first poster felt it.

Maybe I will try this again without the pole in the head. Maybe I will leave it in and just add a little more light to St Pauls to draw the viewer's eye to it - not sure at this stage. Need to think. Anyone else have an opinion?