In the past two years, I've been able to combine two things I feel very
passionate about: live theatre and photography. I've done this by
doing production photography for the drama program at the school my children
attend.
I was asked to take photographs. After a bit of hunting around for what
really was needed, I've settled into doing what is called 'production photos' -
photographs which show various moments during a performance of the play.
Typically, these photographs are used in the theatre lobby, as publicity photos,
etc.
As of the end of June, 1999, I've photographed perhaps a dozen plays.
Along the way, I've learned quite a few lessons the hard, painful way.
What follows is a brain-dump of what I've managed to learn, categorized thus:
Take the time to get to know the
director, stage manager, choreographer, and lighting director.
You’ll need their help and they need to be confident
you’re not going to do something annoying, stupid, or dangerous. When
in doubt about whether you’re doing something that annoys
them, ask. It probably isn’t but it fixes in their minds
that you want to be accommodating, which means that they probably
won’t kill you outright when you make some mistake and
actually do something annoying and stupid.
At first, I went to early
rehearsals trying to get a feel for how the play went and to put
together a shot list. This was hopelessly optimistic and runs
smack into a fundamental premise of the theater, which is that
generally the show is still being changed right up to the instant
of the performance (and sometimes during it).
It is a big help to know
the general lines of the play, who the main characters are, and
what are the high energy moments of the performance. If it’s
possible to see a complete run-through of the play before you
shoot, it’s certainly worth it. On the other hand, it’s
perfectly possible to get good photographs going in cold, if you
know generally what you’re looking for.
Break all the film out of boxes
and cans, so that you have only to reach into a pocket and take
out a roll of film. Have one bag for unexposed film, another for
exposed film. As you break the film out of boxes and cans,
discard the boxes and put the cans away in a separate place to be
recycled. You don’t want to have to wade through boatloads
of litter and empty cans later on – it just increases the
probability that you’ll lose some exposed film (which is arguably the most
valuable substance known to mankind).
Before the rehearsal begins,
establish with the director and stage crew where you can go and
where you can't. Take the time to clear all the clutter out of
the area where you will be moving around while photographing.
During the rehearsal, of course, it will be dark so it's
essential to clear the clutter or you'll surely trip over it.
Take spare batteries for
everything that runs on batteries. I have had a camera meter
battery go dead in the middle of a rehearsal, and the only thing
that kept it from being totally irritating was that I had a spare
in the bag.
Wear soft-soled shoes that
don’t squeak. Dark clothing is a help.
I generally take something cold to
drink, and guzzle it down during intermission. I have a shoulder
that bothers me on occasion and I’ve found that holding a
camera up in front of my face for 2.5 hours non-stop can irritate
it badly. Now I generally take some ibuprofen before I start
shooting, and this seems to keep the pain down to a dull ache at
worst. Remember that once a dress rehearsal starts, it generally
doesn’t stop, so it’s worth hitting the bathroom before
the start.
Intermission (if there is one) is
likely to be brief. Remember that intermission is a good time to
check the film in each body and reload those bodies that are near
the end of the roll. It’s far better to reload during an
intermission or during some stop in the rehearsal than to reload
on the fly, even if this means wasting part of a roll of film.
Find out from the director/stage
crew if you can get on the stage during the rehearsal. If
it’s possible to be on the stage, it’s worth exploring.
The director may not be willing to allow this, so remember to ask
first. The big advantage to working from the same surface the
performance is on is that you’ll be on the same level as the
performers, and you’ll be able to move in quite closely. If
you do move in closely, pay close attention to which performers
react to your presence and which do not. Some performers can
continue without a hitch when you and your camera are very close.
Others cannot, will get flustered, lose their place, forget their
lines, and generally mess up. Remember that your goal is to make
the best possible photographs of the best possible performance.
Getting in the way is not the path to that goal. Also, be aware
of what’s happening around you. Being in the middle of the
set during a scenery change is a perfect formula for disaster.
I generally expose film during the
final dress/tech rehearsal. I then process the film that night,
immediately after I expose it, and then contact print the
negatives first thing the next morning. I have the contact print
process worked out, so I expose all the contact prints, stuffing
the exposed paper into a paper safe, and then I gang-process the
contact prints in a tray line, four prints at a time. Using this
streamlined process, contact printing goes quickly, and the RC
paper is washed and dried in a matter of minutes. I then edit
down to the final images using the contact prints and the
negatives on a light box, and then I go right ahead and print the
final 11x14 images, often in one longish darkroom session. The
schedule goal is to have the display prints ready to hand over
two days after the shoot at the latest, so that they can be
displayed in the lobby area during the public performances of the
play.
In general my goal is to end up
with 12-14 good images printed full frame on 11x14 paper.
I’ve found that 8x10 prints are simply too small to have any
impact in a crowded place, and add to the crowding since people
tend to move in close to look at them. Despite the goal being
12-14 prints, I’m finding that I tend to end up with more
like 16-18 prints.
To get fast turnaround, I keep the
printing pretty simple. Most of the prints are either straight
prints or are very nearly so. Because of the need for fast
turnaround, there’s just no time for working out (or
executing) long, complicated printing sequences. RC paper is a
must simply because it dries so damn fast. An RC print dryer
would be a help but a hair dryer works in a pinch. A dry to dry
print processor like a Durst Printo or equivalent would be a
Godsend.
My editing process is very simple
– I take each contact sheet in turn, and simply make a list
of the good looking shots on a Post-It note, which gets affixed
to the contact sheet. After I’ve run through all the contact
sheets, I make a second pass through them. On the second pass,
I’ve seen everything once, have a general idea of
what’s available, and thus I’m considerably more
ruthless about cutting images. Again, I cut images by crossing
them off the Post-It. On the second pass, I usually end up with
about three to four times as many images as I need to print. Many
of them are variations of each other, either done with different
focal lengths, done from different angles, etc. This is not a
problem, and I don’t try to select between the good
variations just yet.
The next editing step is to sort
the images into categories – I do this by making one Post-It
per category. My categories are generally along the lines of
"Character A gets angry with Character B" or something
similar. Then I go through each category, and pick the one image
that I think is best. If you have more than two images in one
category, it goes much faster if you review the images, and then
make choices by picking two choices and comparing, pick the
winner, and then continue, comparing only two images at a time.
Often during the review of the choices, one image will be the
clear standout, and you can just pick that one and move on to the
next category. It’s well worth viewing each candidate
negative on a light box with a good loupe, to avoid picking
images that are little soft or have some other defect when you
have another acceptable candidate without that defect.
Once I have it winnowed down to
one good image in each category, I then start sorting the images
down into winners and also-rans. The simplest method is to go
through the candidate categories/images, and pick those that are
clear standout winner images and place them in the winner pile. I
then go through the remaining candidates, and either sort them
into the also-ran pile or into the winner pile. I usually spread
the Post-It’s for the winners spread out on the table, which
makes it easy to keep track of how many images you’ve
selected and also makes it easy to make sure the images are
sufficiently diverse, represent the narrative thread of the play,
highlight the important points of the play (without being
spoilers), show off the entire cast, etc.
I’ve found that the lighting
is tremendously variable, ranging from excellent to hopeless for
photographic purposes. Remember that lighting that is very
successful from a dramatic point of view can be problematic from
a photographic one. Sometimes the difficulty with lighting is
that it’s very localized, leading to very high scene
contrast. More often, it’s a matter of just not having
enough light to get the high shutter speeds you want at the
apertures you’d like to have.
The basic solution to the latter
problem is high-speed film. Since I’m basically a black
& white photographer, I find there are basically two suitable
films: Kodak Tmax-3200P (aka TMZ) and Ilford Delta 3200.
I shoot TMZ at EI 800, developed
in XTOL 1+1 in a Jobo rotary processor. I find that generally
it’s a bad idea to push process the film to get more film
speed. The scenes are already contrasty, and pushing the film
increases the contrast, and just makes it harder to get decent
looking prints. Push processing also increases grain, something
I’d prefer to avoid. I’ve also tried TMZ in D-76 1+1,
and in Tmax and Tmax-RS developers. XTOL produces results that I
find to be substantially better than any of those combinations.
Recently I’ve tried Delta
3200, also processed in XTOL 1+1 in a Jobo. Delta 3200 is about
1/3 to ½ stop faster than TMZ. It also has a longer toe, and has
a shoulder (TMZ seems to be linear far past the point where
you’d ever actually expose it). The toe and shoulder present
real problems for theater photography, because you’re
typically confronted with a scene where important detail is in
shadow, but the foreground characters are quite brightly lit. In
this case, you have little choice but to expose for the shadow
detail, and let the brightly lit foreground fall way up on the
film curve. If the curve is straight, this isn’t a problem.
With Delta 3200, you need to keep the shadow detail pretty far up
on the film curve, because otherwise you don’t get enough
shadow contrast. But when you increase exposure, you move that
foreground character up onto the shoulder, and lose contrast
there. In my trials of Delta 3200 I had considerable difficulty
with detail in brightly lit white objects being completely blown
out.
Generally, I seem to expose about
three or four rolls of 36 exposures per hour of performance, so
that for a typical performance I end up with eight to ten rolls
of exposed film. When I first started I exposed substantially
more film, often up to 12-14 rolls per performance. As I’ve
gotten better the amount of film has slowly fallen and the
results have slowly improved. I make it a point to take twice as
much film to the rehearsal as I think I will expose.
Another good plan is to have
another photographer help you expose film. I have two friends who
have helped me out this way, and it's more of an assistance than
you can imagine. The biggest advantage is that two (or three)
people can cover more angles than one person, which helps when
you get caught in the wrong place. The second biggest advantage
is that with two people, one can be shooting while the other
reloads a body. There's nothing like hearing the shutter of
another photographer's camera while you're reloading to help you
relax. My thirteen year old daughter is now my default backup
photographer.
I print everything on Kodak
PolyMax II RC. At first, I used the N finish, which is very much
like the old Kodak N surface for fiber base paper. It’s not
glossy and displays well under unfavorable lighting. The shadow
contrast of this paper is not particularly high, and that
combined with the longish toe of TMZ tends to blot out subtle
shadow detail. You just have to live with it. Printing everything
a bit light helps a lot, and is probably a good idea since the
prints are likely to be displayed under mediocre lighting.
More recently, I’ve switched
to the E (Lustre) finish, which has the advantage that the blacks
are a bit deeper than the semi-matte N finish, but still is not
so glossy that the reflections are distracting when the prints
are displayed in a busy, crowded place with not-too-great
lighting.
All of the prints are processed in
a tray line consisting of PolyMax-T developer, acetic acid stop
bath, rapid fixer, and a water wash. After processing, the prints
are dried face up on nylon screens. I try to control dust spots
while printing but sometimes spot the prints if a print is a
problem.
I started out using a Leica M6
body with 35mm f/2 ASPH Summicron, 50mm f/2 Summicron, and 90mm
f/2 Summicron lenses. Since then I’ve acquired another M6
body and two more lenses – a 50mm f/1.0 Noctilux and a 75mm
f/1.4 Summilux.
All photos are taken using the
existing stage lighting. Using a strobe disturbs the performers
and obliterates the design of the stage lighting. Sometimes
I’ve wanted to set up several small strobes to fill the
background, but I’ve never tried it.
The Leica M6 is nearly ideal for
this sort of work. The cameras are small, quiet, and unobtrusive,
which means that you can get in close without intimidating the
performers. I lose very few shots due to performers changing eye
line to look at the camera. A motor drive is not needed, but
motorized rewind would be a big help (or maybe several bodies and
an assistant to reload). Focusing a rangefinder in low light is
difficult but better than focusing an SLR under the same light.
Some scenes are so softly lighted that autofocus would be
hopeless. Beware of cameras that use a small intense light to
throw an autofocus assist pattern – they are very
distracting to the performers. My daughter has solved this problem by
covering the assist light on her camera with gaffer's tape during the shoot.
Although at first I felt that
faster lenses would not help because of problems with the shallow
depth of field, I find in practice the faster lenses are a big
win. My opinion has changed primarily because very shallow depth
of field can be used to isolate one performer, or to draw
attention to one aspect of the image but render the background
unrecognizable. A certain familiarity with the depth of field
that different lenses give at different f-stops is a big help.
Shooting wide open also gives you a faster shutter speed, which
can be an advantage.
Although I get good results
relying on the relatively primitive in-camera meter of the M6, I
find that using a spot meter can be a big help. At first I used a
Zone VI modified Pentax Digital spotmeter, which works very well.
Since then, I’ve started using a Sekonic L-508 combination
spotmeter and incident meter. The incident feature is very useful
for exploring the stage lighting, especially if you show up in
advance and can persuade the stage crew run through the lighting
cue by cue. Generally I use the spot meter only to check when I
find a lighting situation that I suspect is beyond the capability
of the in-camera meter and I have plenty of time. When in doubt,
over-expose.
My daughter is now helping with
the photography - for the last play (Greater Tuna) five of the
sixteen delivered images were hers (she's embarrassingly good!).
She uses an Canon EOS Elan and a Canon 50mm f/1.4 EF lens. This
is also an excellent camera for this work - small, relatively
unobtrusive, and quiet with a good fast lens. I now greatly
regret getting rid of the 85mm f/1.8 USM, which she could no
doubt use to good advantage. The 50mm f/1.4, by the way, is an
excellent lens. Warning: while the Elan is an excellent camera for
this purpose, it does use an autofocus assist light. It should either be
disabled using the appropriate custom function setting, or else you should cover
the light with gaffer's tape or the equivalent.
Some of the time, it’s
impossible to avoid shooting where some of the lighting is
hitting your lens. Use lens hoods, the bigger the better. Make
sure everything is scrupulously clean before shooting starts and
every use opportunity to clean it again. (Carry a microfiber lens
cloth all the time).
I find it very helpful to wear a
vest while shooting. I keep lenses in the large baggy pockets;
each lens has its own private pocket to prevent them banging
against each other. The vest offers lots of pockets, which means
you can also stuff the spot meter in one, film in another,
exposed film in yet another, etc. I generally take off lens caps
and base caps and do without them while shooting. They just get
in the way, get dropped and impossible to find in the dark, etc.
The lenses are pretty safe in the pocket.
It helps to be metering whenever
you aren’t exposing film, and constantly adjusting the
camera to match the metering. This will help catch lighting
changes. Note that every time you move, the lighting will
change because different amounts of the scene will fall into
shadow (if the lighting is directional). If you use a manual
focus camera, it’s a good idea to refocus as the scene
changes, so that you’re ready to make an exposure all the
time, without taking time to fiddle around.
Another issue with exposure is
more a matter of expectation. Often there’s no shadow detail
at all. It’s just not there. It’s not a matter of
exposing for the shadows, because they’re going to be blank
no matter what you do. Spot metering the shadows and faces, I
often got seven or eight stops of difference. The trick is to
expose for skin tones, hope that black clothing will show a
little detail, and let it go. When in doubt, pick the longer
shutter time or wider aperture. A frame with narrow depth of
field or slightly motion blurred can be printed, but one without
any exposure is a goner.
Wide angle, inclusive shots are
very hard. The lighting is uneven, there’s lots of
difficulty with background that distracts, and depth of field is
a real problem. You need to know they’re coming and be set
in advance. Part of the difficulty is that the tension and energy
between characters is what makes a good theatre photo, and
it’s awfully hard to portray that energy when it’s
spread all across the stage.
The most successful shots are the
ones that capture peak moments of interaction between performers
– moments when they touch, when they incline their heads
towards each other, when their eyes meet.
Without those visual cues of
what’s going on, the picture will be lifeless. Eye contact
is a nearly 100% winner. If there is more than one performer on
stage, contrive to line them up so that one falls in the
background of the other; the depth works better than having them
side by side. A tableau is easier to catch than a fleeting glance
but much less effective as a photograph. If you photograph a
musical be wary of singing people, who usually have their mouths
open in an unflattering and unnatural way.
Pay attention to the background
and position yourself so that you are lining things up against
the good part of the set. Watch for clutter around the
performers’ heads. There's a fine line between having enough
detail to keep the background from being boring and having it be
too cluttered. Often the very back of the stage will consist of a
cyclorama ('cyc' in theater parlance) or scrim upon which various
things are projected (or the color and brightness of which is
controlled by lighting). Simple images are projected on a
cyclorama by fitting an opaque mask (a 'gobo') into a light,
which then shines on the cyclorama to show the image. Such images
often make wonderful backgrounds for photographs, so it's worth
noting when they're used and contriving to use it to full
advantage. In general it's better to have *something* in the
background of the photo, so it's worth getting into the habit of
looking for any lighting projected onto the cyc and then looking
for ways to exploit it.
A shot of an isolated performer
will work only if the posture and lighting are suggestive of the
character’s frame of mind. Hand gestures are a big help
here. In my experience images of isolated performers are almost
always losers unless you capture a very dramatic moment with an
evocative gesture or facial expression. It can be hard to resist
the temptation to make exposures but it’s almost certainly a
waste of film. A better use of time would be to reload a body
that was running low on film.
Tight head and shoulders framing
can help, but the shallow depth of field can be a problem.
Focusing on the eyes is a must. The shallow depth of field can be
used to advantage by focusing on the key performer but lining up
the right angle to get the other performer in the background in
the right place but clearly out of focus (but still
recognizable). Some lenses have more cohesive out of focus
rendering and that’s a big help with this. Often it works
well to have the performer(s) that’s out of focus be in
front of the focus plane. Be aware that the depth of field is
deeper behind the plane of focus than in front by a factor of
two.
When working with shallow depth of
field, it seems that there are some general rules that help.
Things out of focus in front of the plane of sharp focus can be
very distracting; far more distracting, for instance, than an out
of focus background. When using very fast lenses (f/1.4 and
faster) wide open, the depth of field will be non-existent. In
that case, I follow a simple rule - focus on the eyes. Generally
a performer's face will be the point of highest interest in the
print, and people seem to interpret an image where they can see
the eyelashes crisply as 'in focus' even if the rest of the image
is soft.
Generally tightly composed images
work out better than more loosely composed ones. Move in close,
then move in closer.
The most favorable angle may
involve being up in the air. Standing on a chair helps. Beware of
shooting too far from shoulder level. Shooting from above tends
to make the photos look more like photos of a play rather than
like the images drawn from reality, and thus (to my eye) are less
effective. Shooting from below will result in ‘Nostril
Shots’. If you have the bad fortune to be working in a
theatre with a pit area that is well below the level of the
stage, and you cannot be up on the stage with the performers
you’re got a real problem, because the only way to get above
the level of the performers’ waists is to move well back
into the seating where the pitch of the floor will lift you up.
About the only solution I can see
is fast, long focal length lenses and a monopod. If you are on
very good terms with the director and stage crew, you might
consider having them lay risers in the pit to lift you up and
give you room to work.
Don’t forget to look for
pictures of the director, choreographer, stage manager, lighting
director, stage crew, light crew, musicians, musical director et
al.
Hats. Hats cast shadows. Big,
nasty shadows. Talk to the costume designer and the
performers and convince them to wear the hat far back on
their head. Black hats are really bad. Black hats with
really wide brims are really, really, really bad.
Actors/actresses should not be allowed to wear big, black
hats with really wide brims. Your best bet is to work to
build a relationship with the costume designer and try to
work around issues like this. Building a relationship
with the lighting designer can help, too.
Profiles. Strongly
directional lighting makes surface texture very apparent
in skin. Beware. Likewise, the strongly directional
lighting often casts the meridian of shadow across a face
in an unpleasant way. The best approach to avoiding this
is to try to shoot slightly off the axis of lighting. Too
close to the lighting axis, and things go flat. Too far
off the axis and there are large unpleasant shadows. In
the middle is a narrow region of contentment.
Dark clothing. It messes up
meter readings. It’s terrible to print because
it’s so hard to get detail in anything dark.
White clothing. See dark
clothing, above.
Reflective things, such as
sequins, jewelry, buttons, eyeglasses. They’re sure
to be reflecting in a nasty way just at the moment of
exposure. The only solution will be to spot them out of
the print.
