Home of Professional Cinematography since 1996

class="Paragraph" B&W vs Colour

Published : 27th February 2004


Does anyone have any thoughts on why black and white is more flattering than colour in a lot of circumstances ?

Cheers

Matthew Woolf

DOP London/NY



>Does anyone have any thoughts on why black and white is more >flattering than colour in a lot of circumstances ?

More flattering for what kind of shots? Close ups? Establishing shots? Etc.

Jessica Gallant
Los Angeles based Director of Photography
West Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List
http://www.cinematography.net



Jessica Gallant wrote:

>More flattering for what kind of shots? Close ups? Establishing shots?


Shots in general - shots of people I meant - for example black and white wedding photos generally look better than colour photos - more timeless - more forgiving - just interested in hearing people's thoughts - even vistas can sometime look better!

Matthew Woolf
DOP London/NY



>Does anyone have any thoughts on why black and white is more >flattering than colour in a lot of circumstances ?

Three answers : because less information is necessary to process black and white, color information can cloud your perception of lines and texture from the luminance of a photo, and you see the world in color every day so black
and white looks interesting.

Walter Graff
Producer, Director, Creative Director, Cinematographer
HellGate Pictures, Inc.
BlueSky, LLC
www.film-and-video.com



>black and white wedding photos generally look better than colour >photos - more timeless - more forgiving

They used to tell us in basic photography class that shooting black and white immediately gives "instant drama" to your photos...

I think B&W is striking for two major reasons : one, it's one step removed from reality (no color) and is therefore immediately an abstracted image, an interpreted rendering of a scene -- effectively giving it a 'timeless' quality. (One can wax poetic about this for a long time, but I’ll stop here)

Two, shooting in B&W smoothes out the usually-jarring combinations of color that we find in real life : people's mismatched (to each other) clothing, bright red and yellow fast-food signs, a veritable rainbow of cars zooming by... the B&W negative acts as a de facto production designer by reducing all these discordant hues into coordinated shades of gray.

My two cents : D

Paolo Dy



Black & White imagery in general can be quite beautiful, so I'm not surprised that some subjects can be improved by being rendered in monochrome. Color is an extra layer of information to the image and therefore can be distracting. As Nestor Almendros said in his book, it's hard to be garish in B&W - it's inherently elegant. Also, color adds another layer of visual "emotion" to the image (I think of colors as emotional) which may not always be appropriate -- look at "Dr. Strangelove" for example. I think a black comedy like that benefits from being in B&W. Color can sometimes seem sentimental. I also can't imagine a satirical film like "8 1/2" in color. And many more...

Marcello Mastroianni, in the intro of "Making Pictures: A History of European Cinematography", said: "I am really quite nostalgic for black and white, all the more so because I am an actor. In black and white the actor is more magical... he belongs to another species; perhaps he looks more Martian because he is not in color. As soon as you show him in color, he's an Earthman again, a less mysterious kind of 'somebody'."

David Mullen
Cinematographer / L.A.



Matthew Woolf wrote :

>Does anyone have any thoughts on why black and white is more >flattering than colour in a lot of circumstances?

Black and White tends to be more timeless in my opinion. Without color your point of reference is contrast and composition.

If you think color is less flattering do a search for William Eggleston. He is considered the breakout photographer who defined fine art color photography as an art form. His pictures tend to be odd and confusing mixes of color and light. However the more you study his prints the more you understand his perspective on color. "Red Room" is his most noted photograph. He also printed his pictures almost exclusively using the Dye Transfer process. If you can find his prints at local galleries or museums go have a look. They are very interesting works to view and at times frustrating to figure out.

Tom McDonnell
DP
New Orleans, La



I also tremble when I think of the coming tornado of "colour" - Ansel Adams 1944

Jon Mitchell

Elstree, UK based 1st A.C. / Focus Puller



>Does anyone have any thoughts on why black and white is more >flattering than colour in a lot of circumstances?
>Black and White tends to be more timeless in my opinion. Without color >your point of reference is contrast and composition.


Point of fact: In the late 70's I shot a series of interviews of Hollywood directors for CTV, some living in that famous old age home, forgot the name. Many of them were posed the same question. Most of them said that, frankly, they would've preferred shooting color, but it was too expensive. NONE of them (I remember that clearly) said that they considered b/w more appropriate, or art or timeless. Most of them were very open answering all questions as they had obviously nothing to lose. One example was mentioned time and again; Casablanca was scheduled to be shot in color but that was cancelled due to NSF. It became a classic. Was it BECAUSE it was b/w?

I have a few portions that were Colorized and I don't know. Like many aficionados I saw the movie many times in a cinema and the damn thing still moves me deeply. Sometimes I watch these color fragments on my TV and I wonder : would I've cried more?

Or would it have turned out just like those 13 in a dozen Hallmark tearjerkers?

Robert Rouveroy
The Hague, Holland

I plan to live forever. So far, so good.



>...Casablanca was scheduled to be shot in color but that was cancelled >due to NSF.
>It became a classic. Was it BECAUSE it was b/w?....


Good question. How can we decide, it is etched in our memories in B&W. OTOH, think about Gone With the Wind in B&W. Would that have been an improvement?

As to Matthew Woolf's comments about how wedding pictures usually look better in B&W than in color, I couldn't disagree more. I've photographed hundreds of weddings, starting in B&W, gradually adding a few color shots, then all color, now color with some B&W. I recently did one that was all B&W with a couple of color shots added. While there are some wedding pictures that are superb in B&W, IMHO it doesn't do the overall wedding justice. The bride spends months color coordinating everything and you reduce it all to gray scale? The brides are going for B&W now because it's chic, not because it makes sense.

Wade K. Ramsey, DP
Dept. of Cinema & Video Production
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC 29614



>think about Gone With the Wind in B&W. Would that have been an >improvement?

You're thinking in 'better' or 'worse' scenarios which always limits thinking. The question is if you hadn't seen gone with the wind in color and next month you saw it in B&W, would you think it was bad? I don't think so. I look at color or black and white as nothing more than different, not better or worse. Many good stories of love were told in black and white and for some of those we must wonder if they would have been as good in color.

The real question is would it have GWTW been as bad in BW? Well consider that for many years all folks who never saw it in the theatre only saw it on a black and white TV and it still became a classic.

Walter Graff
Producer, Director, Creative Director, Cinematographer
HellGate Pictures, Inc.
BlueSky, LLC
www.film-and-video.com



Walter Graff wrote :

>You're thinking in 'better' or 'worse' scenarios which always limits >thinking. The question is if you hadn't seen gone with the wind in color >and next month you saw it in B&W, would you think it was bad?

Right, because that's what we were discussing, whether or not people, specifically, and specific films look better in B&W than color, or vice versa. It isn't a matter of whether or not we'd accept GWTW as good if we'd only seen it in B&W, it's whether or not that particular story and that scenery and the burning of Atlanta would have been as impressive in B&W as it is in color.

And we like Casablanca in B&W, but have no way of knowing whether color would have improved it (colorizing won't tell us--the colors look fake and the lighting generally doesn't work with it.)

I don't think you can just consider the two as "different, not better or worse" when referring to specific applications. As flavours, sugar and salt are different, not better nor worse, until applied to specific applications. They aren't interchangeable. For some things the simplification of the tones with B&W work best; for others, color is necessary.

IMHO, at least!

Wade K. Ramsey, DP
Dept. of Cinema & Video Production
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC 29614



>They aren't interchangeable. For some things the simplification of the >tones with B&W work best; for others, color is necessary.

Your thinking like a cinematographer. The most important part of a story isn't color or black or white, it's the script and the acting. The rest to use your terms is just salt and sugar to taste. Sure a mood and tone can be set with black and white these days, but there is so much more to good story telling long before you even get to the cinematography.

Walter Graff
Producer, Director, Creative Director, Cinematographer
HellGate Pictures, Inc.
BlueSky, LLC



>Your thinking like a cinematographer.

Well, this is the Cinematography Mailing List.

Jessica Gallant
Los Angeles based Director of Photography
West Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List
http://www.cinematography.net



>I also tremble when I think of the coming tornado of "colour" - Ansel >Adams 1944

"If I was starting out today, I'd be working in color video"
-Ansel Adams to Dick Cavett on the Dick Cavett Show, sometime in the early 80's....

Sam Wells



>I think there is cinema that's impossible in color - like classic film noir.

But isn't film noir is nothing more than a gimmick like swing and tilt lenses or ramping, fads that get notice and hence get copied to nauseum.

Remember it was coined by French film critics who noticed a trend in the techniques used in American crime and detective films. And like all trends, once someone becomes successful at something everyone copies it. Film noir and post noir did have a good run though. Funny how when they tried to bring it back in recent times for various flicks, it failed as an approach because it's a style like long hems on a dress and like any dated technique, it only works for some things and not others and only at certain times and when it's such a stylised approach as film noir, sometimes it actually becomes more important than the film it is used in.

Walter Graff
Producer, Director, Creative Director, Cinematographer
HellGate Pictures, Inc.
BlueSky, LLC



>Your thinking like a cinematographer. Well, this is the Cinematography >Mailing List.

Yes, but sometimes you have to think out of the box. The answer to black and white has so much more to do than just cinematography.

Walter Graff
Producer, Director, Creative Director, Cinematographer
HellGate Pictures, Inc.
BlueSky, LLC



I'm still not sure whether B&W is an accident of history or represents a subliminal level of visual thinking or both.

I think there is cinema that's impossible in color - like classic film noir. I mean I really think it's a product of B&W and it's tonalities.

True we can think of certain more recent films a "noir" and they are in color, but the tradition was established; and it's NOT an accident that the visual components of that tradition emerged from European Expressionism -- and a time in art history where *rejection* of mannerist pleasing color was the ascending trend -- i.e. I'd include monochrome - B&W in that history.

Sam Wells



Walter Graff wrote :

>Your thinking like a cinematographer. The most important part of a story >isn't color or black or white...

Ah, Walter! You are a walking encyclopaedia of film, video, and misc. information, and I greatly appreciate it. But we aren't discussing whether B&W or color are the most important aspects of the film. We're talking about whether or not a given story is better rendered in one or the other. You're now trying to argue that sugar and salt aren't important, it's the food. True, but we're talking flavours. For most foods, flavouring with sugar or salt are not choices. One or the other.

Right now the subject is "black and white v colour." Do you believe that for any story either one is equally effective, neither to be preferred over the other?

Wade K. Ramsey, DP
Dept. of Cinema & Video Production
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC 29614



Sam Wells wrote :

>I'm still not sure whether B&W is an accident of history or represents a >subliminal level of visual thinking or both.

From time to time when I'm watching a film on TV I'll turn the colour all the way down to B&W. Don't ask me why - idle thumbs most probably.

One side effect is that it often allows the eye to study direction, quality and relative intensity of the lighting scheme - undistracted by colour - and the results can be surprising. Some films are definitely improved! Others look ridiculously flat since all the separation in the image is created through the use of contrasting colour.

I highly recommend it.

Tom Townend,
Cinematographer/London.



>Right now the subject is "black and white v colour." Do you believe that >for any story either one is equally effective, neither to be preferred over >the other?

I see black and white in our time as effective when deemed necessary by the film maker. It is often used to express flashbacks, altered states, dream, and anything else that is out of touch with the present conscious of a character.

Outside of that, if a movie was made in black and white in its entirety, it would be the subject of the story that really helped determine whether black and white was necessary. All the black and white would do was to enhance the flavour just like salt and sugar. So whether something is black and white or color makes no difference in my book as I have rarely if ever seen anyone use black and white in an offensive or tasteless way. Have you?

Walter Graff
Producer, Director, Creative Director, Cinematographer
HellGate Pictures, Inc.
BlueSky, LLC



>Yes, but sometimes you have to think out of the box. The answer to >black and white has so much more to do than just cinematography.

Shouldn't the look of the project (which would include whether or not to shoot it in B&W) be determined by the mood and tone of the script?

Jessica Gallant
Los Angeles based Director of Photography
West Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List



Tom Townend wrote :

>From time to time when I'm watching a film on TV I'll turn the colour all >the way down to B&W.

Try this with the legendary Conrad L. Hall's work!

It's gorgeous!

I read an old AC article on lighting American Beauty (a Special Feature on Lighting, I think) where Hall said that he still thinks kind-of-in-black-and-white, in the sense that he creates separation between his subjects and background through differences in *luminance* and not color.

Of course I broke out my DVD’s of American Beauty and Road to Perdition, set the chroma on the TV to zero, and was duly rewarded by some very stunning imagery : The Road to Perdition in particular is GORGEOUS in B&W; I think it's how well-done B&W noir would be done today.

Check it out!

Paolo Dy



Walter Graff wrote :

>...if a movie was made in black and white in its entirety, it would be the >subject of the story that really helped determine whether black and >white was necessary.

So the story can determine whether or not B&W is necessary, but it makes no difference? Seems pretty confusing!

And no, I can't say that I've ever seen B&W used in an offensive or tasteless way.

Must be the salt. Or is it the sugar?

Wade K. Ramsey, DP
Dept. of Cinema & Video Production
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC 29614



I mean look at the classic noir, Maltese Falcon. That third remake wasn't the only noir version of the story. It was the right combination of actors, directors and story that made it a classic. And even then if you look at some of the original reviews of what we now call classics you find that then they weren't all such classics. Nostalgia and age plays a big part of what makes a film a classic, noir or not just like wine. 92 was a good year but offer someone a 36 and watch their mouths drool. Was it as god in 36? Will that 92 be as good as it was in 92 or will it be a classic that folks will pay big bucks to store in forty years? The point is in many ways what makes these films so great has to do more with age than anything else.

Look at some of the original reviews of some of the classics (not necessarily classified as noir) and notice the importance and what makes it that way. In fact, would some of the reviews make you interested in seeing it? My point is that black and white was a technique that was common place and a technique as simple as color is today. The stars are my interpretation of what these movies might have gotten today based on our ratings coupled with the old reviews.

Excerpts:

Double Indemnity [Four Stars] -


When the slayer confesses his crime in the opening sequence and the film still retains all of the suspense and excitement that could possibly be crowded into the most baffling of murder mysteries, that's picture making at its dramatic best. Such masterful use of the flashback, plus soliloquy, technique is made possible by an expertly-written screenplay, a trio of superior performances by the picture's three stars, hair-trigger direction and careful attention to all production details. The feature will have audiences on the edges of their seats throughout its entire length, with never a letdown in the tension. Its cast and favourable "you-must-see-it" reactions should build capacity grosses for any theatre in which it is booked. MacMurray, fast-thinking insurance salesman, believes he has perpetrated the perfect crime, but a flaw trips him.
April 29, 1944

"Citizen Kane" [Two and a half stars]

Citizen Cane is an event in motion pictures. An intelligent and intellectual stimulus, and also an experiment. The report must be that this long-awaited Orson Welles film is noteworthy in its conception, its execution and, indeed, in its entire approach. But it is noteworthy essentially in a critical sense -- in the sense that here is an endeavour to be admired for the expertness and the newness of its treatment, the superb characteristics of its craftsmanship. On those scores, "Citizen Kane" might well be said to have marked a milestone. In reverse approach, however, its characters seem unreal. They never elicit sympathy. Probably few will care much what happens to any of them.


They left this reviewer cold, harbouring the conviction all of them were deliberately created to talk the dialogue assigned for them to say. This suggests that histrionically the performances are automaton-like and lifeless. Yet, daring the seeming contradiction, this is far removed from the truth. Acting-wise, the cast, composed largely of members of Welles' Mercury Theatre and new to films, does an excellent job, but in terms of technical perfection. Perhaps Welles deliberately fashioned them in this mould. There is no way of knowing that, exactly, as there seems to be no way to divorce the air of the fanciful and the unreal which the performers and the picture itself create.
April 12, 1941

Maltese Falcon [Three Stars]

This is no ordinary tale of crime and detection. In point of story (it was a novel by Dashiell -- "The Thin Man" -- Hammett) it is head and shoulders above the average run of such features. Add to that a perfectly chosen cast, a script that is packed with blistering dialogue and suspenseful motivation, and direction that never falters for a moment, and the exhibitor has a bundle of celluloid that is going to do business big business for him regardless of the situation in which it is played. Veteran Humphrey Bogart was never given a part more suitable to his talents than in this role as Samuel Spade, a private investigator with ice, instead of blood, in his veins. Capable and attractive Mary Astor is in the femme lead, while such worthies as Gladys George, Peter Lorre and Jerome Cowan are seen in lesser, but significant, roles. After his partner, Cowan, is murdered, Spade goes on an exciting hunt for the killer uncovering, along the way, the story of the "Maltese Falcon," a statuette encrusted with gold and gems of almost incredible value. He finds the bird and discovers he is up against a ruthless ring of crooks. John Huston directed. 1942

Casablanca [Two Stars]

The title is good at the moment. The story holds up well enough. Seven featured players give their best to roles which reward their efforts in the final accounting. Mounted with careful attention to its North African location the story has moments of charm, nostalgia and wit that should cause it to take hold of the audience's attention and carry along to a happy finish. It is fair Bogart, very good Ingrid Bergman. Storywise it deals with cafe life among refugees from Nazi-dominated Europe who seek exit visas to America. Bogart, Bergman and Paul Henreid play the triangle game. Claude Rains and Conrad Veidt are a couple of cops, French-Nazi, respectively. Bogart softens in the last reel, gets Henreid and Bergman out in a plane at gunpoint and goes off to join the Fighting French with Rains. Michael Curtiz directed. November 1942

Rebel Without a Cause [one and a half Stars]


Because of his outstanding, widely acclaimed performance in "East of Eden" and because of the additional public interest generated by his recent, deplorable, tragic death, the name of James Dean in the title role should in itself assure a profitable exhibition life for this celluloid treatise on juvenile delinquency. Just how the average ticket buyer will receive the picture probably will depend upon individual conceptions of just what causes and constitutes the current, much-publicized confusion and lawlessness that reportedly plagues the teenage generation. To those who think that the problem incorporates heavy psychiatric connotations and is so hydra-headed that the run-o'-mill layman and parents have no conception of underlying motivations, doubts and influences, the film may make sense. Others, and presumably they will be a vast majority, may be prone to opine that the story has few, if any, believable characters, situations or passages of dialogue. Thus handicapped by the script's utter implausibility, which is alleviated not one whit by the strained direction of Nicholas Ray, Dean's delineation is far below the arrestingly high standards set by the above-mentioned portrayal in "Eden." His supporting cast, both its juvenile and adult components, are projected with even less effectiveness. Employment of CinemaScope and WarnerColor accord the feature an air of opulence which should tend to bolster its fiscal future. David Weisbart produced. October 1995

Walter Graff
Producer, Director, Creative Director, Cinematographer
HellGate Pictures, Inc.
BlueSky, LLC



>So the story can determine whether or not B&W is necessary, but it >makes no difference? Seems pretty confusing!

Today a filmmaker can make a choice of whether part or all of his/her film is black and white. If he she chooses to use a bleached bypass product instead of black and white for flashbacks as an example, it makes no difference. Both with convey a consciousness that is not in the present or in the current timeline of the story. Today we have many techniques to choose from so BW is simply a spice in the rack.

>Shouldn't the look of the project (which would include whether or not to >shoot it in B&W) be determined by the mood and tone of the script?

I think it's so subjective that I couldn't even answer the question. What made Spielberg use black and white and a representation of death with a red color? He could have done nay number of things as we have so many techniques to choose from today??

If you get a script and the mood of the scene is a flashback, you could do black and white, beach bypass, tinted, grained out, hi contrast, muted color, color emphasis, wide angle, pan and tilt, etc. Shouldn¹t the mood determine which you should use? The reality is that its a subjective choice and rarely if ever is that choice incorrect these days. We know when to use techniques other than normal printing. In fact you could shoot all of the scenes representing today in black and white and all the flashbacks in color as Raging Bull did. You really can't go wrong today. It's all been done so many times that you simply have to pick from the pile or mix and match to come up with a hybrid effect. When do you use it is not a yes no answer, it's a subjective decision.

Walter Graff
Producer, Director, Creative Director, Cinematographer
HellGate Pictures, Inc.
BlueSky, LLC



Mathew Woolf writes :

>Shots in general - shots of people I meant - for example black and white >wedding photos generally look better than colour photos - more >timeless - more forgiving...

I also think there is a certain timeless elegance to B&W-L'avventura (1960, and what lenses must have been used, by the way? Cookes?)is certainly a very beautiful picture- the vistas, people, dresses, Alfa Romeo... But I detect a certain resistance from the general public-like B&W is long gone, something of the past. Very nice choice for Music Videos (in some cases, I suppose)

John Babl



Tom Townend writes :

>about turning down color on TV, "One side effect is that it often allows >the eye to study direction, quality and relative intensity of the lighting >scheme - undistracted by colour - and the results can be surprising."

When the CBC was switching over to color (middle 60's?), several experts came to teach us to forget all the rules of lighting for b/w. Part of that was showing us that turning down the color on a TV resulted in flat lighting, reflecting colors that were close to each other became mush etc. Yes, you're right, the results can be surprising, especially on the color receivers of that time. Looked awful indeed.

Modern receivers might alleviate that to an extent and you can improve that with playing with the contrast, but we're talking cinematography here. Most modern cinematographers have NO idea that lighting for b/w is several degrees more difficult than for color.

It is probably also the reason that 'Colorization' failed in the marketplace. Colors are unnatural because the reflection values (for want of a better word) are different. Of course it didn't help that the purists among us decried the blasphemy of touching these art forms. Never mind it was not the print that was touched, just the video. Where one could turn down the color without penalty...

Robert Rouveroy
The Hague, Holland

I plan to live forever. So far, so good.



>Most modern cinematographers have NO idea that lighting for b/w is >several degrees more difficult than for color.

When I was in film school, they taught lighting for B&W
before lighting for color - don't other film schools teach
lighting the same way?

Jessica Gallant
Los Angeles based Director of Photography
West Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List



>When I was in film school, they taught lighting for B&W before lighting >for color - don't other film schools teach lighting the same way?

Blessed be the new generation of cinematographers.


We learned by osmosis, starting as coffee boy, probably the best job yet on a set as you're the only one that could go anywhere without being kicked out. By stroke of luck you were asked to move a light, a year later you were best boy. The assistant fell ill so you bluffed your way in, after a while proceeded to operator/focus puller, whatever. Then the endless currying favor with ignorant directors with little money when loh...behold, a C or if you're really bluffing, a B epic. After a few of these, you got yourself an agent and off you go.

I think the first film school as such was started in the late 60's in London, please correct me.

If you started with b/w before lighting for color, believe me, that's back asswards. Probably because they wanted you to forget it quick. Of course, Pan film is relatively forgiving. Try lighting for Ortho.

Robert Rouveroy
The Hague, Holland

I plan to live forever. So far, so good.



> Blessed be the new generation of cinematographers.

Thanks. (I think.)

Jessica Gallant
Los Angeles based Director of Photography
West Coast Systems Administrator, Cinematography Mailing List



Sam Wells, quoting Ansel Adams writes:

> "If I was starting out today, I'd be working in color video" -Ansel Adams >to Dick Cavett on the Dick Cavett Show, sometime in the early 80's....

Artists, painters that is, have the choice of painting in just about any colors they choose, or in B&W if they choose.

Anyone seen any B&W paintings lately?

I think most of the films we regard as classics of black and white photography would have been made in color if the budgets of the period permitted. It's not just the cost of film and prints, but the fact that older color stocks required a great deal more light than B&W stocks...that stretched the budgets.

As Walter says, it's the story and the acting that carry many classic B&W films, not the fact that they were done in B&W.

Brian Heller
IA 600 DP



When one of my favourite films, "It's a Wonderful Life" was colorized, I was not at all prepared to like it. However, after watching it on TV I found it to be- dare I say this- somewhat appealing. I paid a dollar for a colorized copy I saw at a yard sale (for my kids)- only it was just the picture on the box that was in color. The tape inside was B&W. This reminded me once again that it's not called 'show art' but 'show business'.

By the way does anyone know what connection "It's a Wonderful Life" has with "Sesame Street" ?

Please excuse the digression from general cinematography.

Edwin Myers, Atlanta dp



Brian Heller wrote :

> Anyone seen any B&W paintings lately?

Yes, lots. Black and white, monochromes, (very) reduced color palettes, etc....not to mention 'drawings'.

Karl Lohninger
Los Angeles
Sound mixer etc...



> Anyone seen any B&W paintings lately?

You're ignoring a whole art tradition of pen & ink drawings, etchings, woodcuts, etc. that also had an impact on the visual aesthetics of motion pictures. Paint is only one medium used in the graphic arts.

>I think most of the films we regard as classics of black and white >photography would have been made in color if the budgets of the >period permitted.

I'm sure there would have been more, but there were quite a number of directors and DP's who were quite happy to be shooting in B&W (look at Kurosawa, who did not make a color movie until 1970). I only wish it were still a commonly-used option today for movies. Instead, so few are shot in B&W that choosing to make one becomes a major visual statement.

Probably the most interesting period for B&W versus color issues was the 1950's / 60's, when using B&W was clearly more of a deliberate artistic choice rather than merely an economic decision (look at "Psycho", "In Cold Blood", "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence", "The Longest Day", "Last Picture Show", etc.) It's interesting however how quickly B&W declined in usage for major features by the late 1960's.

>As Walter says, it's the story and the acting that carry many classic B&W >films, not the fact that they were done in B&W.

I'd say that the B&W photography in many classic movies are also part of what makes them memorable. If the cinematography wasn't a factor in what made these films stay seared into our brains, then why are any of us even bothering? Just for a pay check? We have to believe that what we do matters, don't we? If story and acting were all that mattered, then why have directors, cinematographers, editors, composers, etc.? Why shoot in anything but DV? Clearly the storytelling matters as well as the story, also contributes to what makes these classic films memorable.

David Mullen
Cinematographer / L.A.



David Mullen writes :

>You're ignoring a whole art tradition of pen & ink drawings, etchings, >woodcuts, etc.

Yes, deliberately. I'm also ignoring cave painting also in color btw; Minoan mosaics in color; Chaldean mosaics in color; Egyptian tomb paintings in color and so on.

>that also had an impact on the visual aesthetics of motion pictures. I >absolutely agree all art influences all art. Paint is only one medium >used in the graphic arts.

Never said it wasn't. I was trying to limit the discussion to what most people consider the more "mainstream" in films such as Hollywood type features and paintings that hang on the walls of museums.

I said : "I think most of the films we regard as classics of black and white photography would have been made in color if the budgets of the period permitted." The fact that nearly all films made today are in color would seem to bear that out.

>I'm sure there would have been more, but there were quite a number of >directors and DP's who were quite happy to be shooting in B&W (look at >Kurosawa, who did not make a color movie until 1970).

I'm quite happy to shoot B&W, and have.

Kurosawa is an interesting example. Didn't he set out to imitate early B&W westerns?

>I only wish it were still a commonly-used option today for movies. >Instead, so few are shot in B&W that choosing to make one becomes a >major visual statement.

I'm not challenging your statement, but I think whether or not it is a major visual statement depends entirely on who is behind the camera. Choosing B&W for the sake of making a statement won't help when one has nothing to say.

> Probably the most interesting period for B&W versus color issues was >the 1950's / 60's, when using B&W was clearly >more of a deliberate >artistic choice rather than merely an economic decision (look at >"Psycho", "In Cold Blood", "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence", "The >Longest Day", "Last Picture Show", etc.)

Why has B&W fallen out of favor as an artistic choice?

>It's interesting however how quickly B&W declined in usage for major >features by the late 1960's.

Yes, as the cost of color film and processing dropped through economies of scale, and as audiences increasingly demanded color.

>I'd say that the B&W photography in many classic movies are also part >of what makes them memorable.

Of course it is, but all of the B&W films you cite above are extremely traditional in their "story telling", and they all have terrific stories to tell, with some extraordinary performances. Which brings us back to the original question : would these films be diminished had they originally been made in color instead of B&W?

>If the cinematography wasn't a factor in what made these films stay >seared into our brains, then why are any of us even bothering?

Of course cinematography is a factor, but it's only really memorable when it is a part of a whole that truly is greater than the sum of its parts. No amount of brilliant cinematography can save a bad script, but many a great script has transcended poor cinematography.

>Just for a pay check? We have to believe that what we do matters, don't we?

That's a rather involved discussion.

>If story and acting were all that mattered, then why have directors, >cinematographers, editors, composers, etc.?

The simple answer is to enhance the story and the acting. In the early days of cinema, those crafts didn't exist as separate crafts, but evolved over time. This doesn't take anything away from the role of the cinematographer. Just keep in mind that the theatre has been around for thousands of years, while cinematography as a craft is a little more than 100 years old.

>Why shoot in anything but DV?

I'd rather see a well done DV with a decent story line than some crock shot in Super Panavision.

>Clearly the storytelling matters as well as the story, also contributes to >what makes these classic films memorable.

I'm glad we agree. But the original question still stands. Would these films be diminished if they had been made in color instead of B&W?

My own opinion is that many films made in B&W would have been made in color had that option been available at the time, and we'd think just as highly of them.

Brian Heller
IA 600 DP



>I'm not challenging your statement, but I think whether or not it is a >major visual statement depends entirely on who is behind the camera.

I'm only saying that in a world where half the films released are in B&W, then you don't stand out like a sore thumb when you shoot in B&W. If I made a B&W film in 1940, I would be less likely to be labelled as being "arty." Nowadays, it's a big decision to shoot in B&W.

>Why has B&W fallen out of favor as an artistic choice?

Two different reasons - one is that color photography, thanks to improving technology plus a change in tastes, started to approach the same dramatic intensity and texture as B&W allowed, so it was less necessary to shoot in B&W for similar emotional tones. This is something Storaro has said, that he can create the same visual intensity but in color, even draining most of the color out of the frame if necessary. The other reason is that while many people would like to shoot in B&W for artistic reasons, there is SO MUCH pressure from distributors and studios to not do it, feeling that it will diminish sales. Even "The Man Who Wasn't There" had to shoot on color negative to satisfy a requirement for a color version for an Asian market. A distributor looks at you like you're crazy for even considering B&W so it's always a major fight. The head of the studio financing "Schindler's List" personally flew out to Poland to beg Spielberg not to shoot the movie in B&W. Spielberg's response was the color was "the wrong casting."

>as audiences increasingly demanded color.

Audiences have always liked color, from the very beginning of cinema. But then, they also like happy endings -- that doesn't mean that you always have to give them everything they want. Otherwise, the studios would just start making a lot of CGI-heavy comic book adaptations...oh, wait a minute.

>Which brings us back to the original question : "Would these films be >diminished had they originally been made in color instead of B&W?

How can we know that? A totally different set of artistic decisions would have been made. Would "Lawrence of Arabia" and "2001" be considered classics had they been shot in 16mm and blown-up? You can't say for sure that they would have captured the audience's imaginations no matter what in their year of release because of their scripts and acting IF shot in a different manner. Same goes for color versus B&W. Would "Adventures of Robin Hood" and "Gone With the Wind" have been as popular if they had been shot in B&W? If no, how can you say that "Citizen Kane" would be just as highly regarded today if it had been shot in Technicolor? I think these decisions DO matter but I also think we can never know what a creative genius like Ford or Welles would have done had they been forced to use color instead.

I think though that it really does affect one's emotional involvement in the scene, maybe not AS MUCH as the acting, but the last gunfight in "My Darling Clementine", with beautiful blue skies instead of monochrome one's, and the brilliant red of Monument Valley's rocks, might have looked wonderful but it may have lacked the grittiness and bleakness of the B&W photography, and therefore may have left less of an impression on one's mind.

Besides, not everyone responds to movies in the same way -- but just because a percentage of the viewing public are more sensitive to visual textures than others doesn't mean that their responses don't count because they are too visually sophisticated compared to the mass of viewers out there. As a young boy, it mattered to ME how these old movies looked. I was a big fan of Godzilla movies when I was in the fourth grade and I remember preferring the original film partially because of the dramatic B&W photography compared to the later color ones, which were too high key to really capture my imagination. While it seems obvious maybe that I was therefore destined to become a cinematographer, I'm sure that there are many young people who also respond emotionally to the visual artistry of a film even if they have no plans to pursue it as a career.

Anyway, I think it's pointless to play this game of "what old Hollywood directors would have done if affordable color was available to them" because it brings up too many what-if's. For example, color photography in the 1930's started out at 3 to 5 ASA, so I'm sure that would have been a turn-off to some. I can't imagine Greg Toland suggesting that he and Ford shoot "The Grapes of Wrath" in the color technology of his day even IF it were handed free to them.

David Mullen
Cinematographer / L.A.



David Mullen wrote:

>color photography in the 1930's started out at 3 to 5 ASA, so I'm sure >that would have been a turn-off to some. I can't imagine Greg Toland >suggesting that he and Ford shoot "The Grapes of Wrath" in the color >technology of his day even

The deep focus scenes in Citizen Kane would have been a piece of cake in 3-Strip Technicolor!

Jeff Kreines



Jessica Gallant writes :

>Most modern cinematographers have NO idea that lighting for b/w is >several degrees more difficult than for color.

If anyone want to see how good and how difficult B&W cinematography can be may I recommend they look out for a screening of SUNRISE (1927) which the American Academy recently had a restored version made and of which Fox have issued a limited edition DVD of. With the exception of Chaplin it was the last of the great silents. It is gorgeous. The DP´s were Karl Struss and Charles Rosher, both of whom received the first ever Oscar for cinematography.

I have managed to get a copy of the DVD and if any UK based DP wants to see it they only have to give me a ring. You may have read an article in the ACM about it. Please all do try to see it ... bug Fox and the Academy to know when there is going to be a screening ... perhaps the ASC should host one ... or try to get hold of the DVD

Sincerely

David Samuelson



David Mullen writes :

>Why shoot in anything but DV? Clearly the storytelling matters as well >as the story, also contributes to what makes these classic films >memorable.

Funny you should say that. If color overtook b/w in the late 60's, it was because color film was much faster, so even less light was needed than for b/w. Think about how future cinema aficionados will judge those classic DV epics like those Lars von Trier efforts while enjoying that SSHD superextracolossalvagansa remakes of the "Grapes of Wrath", "Psycho #4" or "Casablanca #2"

Oh yes, Kurosawa said that he much preferred to shoot in color, but post-war Japan lacked the wherewithal. (Kyodo News, Mainichi Shimbun 1974)


Robert Rouveroy
The Hague, Holland

I plan to live forever. So far, so good.



>By the way does anyone know what connection "It's a Wonderful Life" >has with "Sesame Street" ?

Bert and Ernie got their names form two characters in IAWL.

Walter Graff
Producer, Director, Creative Director, Cinematographer
HellGate Pictures, Inc.
BlueSky, LLC



David Samuelson writes:

>If anyone want to see how good and how difficult B&W cinematography >can be may I recommend they look out for a screening of SUNRISE >(1927) which the American Academy recently had a restored version >made and of which Fox have issued a limited edition DVD of.

I've been awaiting the DVD release for some time.

>With the exception of Chaplin it was the last of the great silents. It is >gorgeous. The DP´s were Karl Struss and Charles Rosher, both of >whom received the first ever Oscar for cinematography.

There is a wonderful interview with Charles Rosher in Kevin Brownlow's "The Parade's Gone By" in which he talks about working on Sunrise with Murnau.

Rosher also describes the mile long real trolley track built for the set of Sunrise. I wonder what that would cost today. No doubt it would be CGI.

Rosher also said that he couldn't work under pressure. If he felt pressured, he'd walk off the set and couldn't be found. I wonder how that would go over these days. Has anyone tried it lately.

>You may have read an article in the ACM about it. Please all do try to >see it ... bug Fox and the Academy to know when there is going to be a >screening ...perhaps the ASC should host one...or try to get hold of the >DVD

Amazon says if you sign up to pre-order, they will use the number of people interested to pressure Fox into releasing it. You don't have to buy it, but it might help to get the numbers up.

Speaking of Brownlow's book, there are chapters on the fact that the "Silent's" were neither silent, because nearly all features had scored music composed for them; nor were they black and white, because nearly all major releases were tinted or toned in incredibly complicated processes. Sometimes entirely by hand one print at a time, frame by frame.

My mother often described the colors of silent films and I thought she had been misremembering, since I knew they were shot in B&W. Until I read Brownlow's book, I didn't understand that my mother was remembering correctly and that it was the prints that were tinted and toned. I loaned Brownlow's book to a friend and I can't recall if he talks about the tinting of Sunrise, but it seems likely that it was.

Finding out about the colouring of the silents was a little bit like when I first learned that the Parthenon and nearly all Greek buildings and sculpture were painted, often in colors that we would consider garish.

Brian Heller
IA 600 DP



>,,,,,I recommend they look out for a screening of SUNRISE (1927),,,,,

Great advice David! Thank you.

This DVD might be hard to get as a single DVD but it *is* currently available in North America as part of a four DVD set called *Studio Classics - Best Picture Collection (Studio: Fox, DVD, Release Date : October 14, 2003, Edition Details: Region 1 encoding (US and Canada only), Language: English, ASIN: B0000AINLS)

This set includes *Sunrise*, *How Green Was My Valley*, *Gentleman's Agreement*, and *All About Eve*. Lot's of Oscars here!!!

Amazon.ca is charging $51CDN for this and it ships in twenty-four hours. It's also available at Amazon.com (USA).

David Perrault, csc

PS: FWIW, the book *Making Pictures: A Century of European Cinematography* (reviewed in this month's AC) is a good deal right now at Amazon - as is the new DVD release of *Visions of Light*. And it's not even Christmas yet!!



I watched the documentary "New York" on PBS over the week-end, from the earliest films in the streets (not all B&W looks the same...)

The stuff looks so cool, it's no wonder After effects and others try to re-create the look.

John Babl



David Perrault writes:

>This DVD might be hard to get as a single DVD but it *is* currently >available in North America as part of a four DVD set called *Studio >Classics - Best Picture Collection

Thank you, David!!

>Amazon.ca is charging $51CDN for this and it ships in twenty-four >hours. It's also available at Amazon.com (USA).

I just bought it.

Brian Heller
IA 600 DP



>Oh yes, Kurosawa said that he much preferred to shoot in color, but >post-war Japan lacked the wherewithal. (Kyodo News, Mainichi >Shimbun 1974)

Considering the sheer number of color films made in Japan while he was still making films in B&W -- some of the most expensive movies being made in Japan in the 1950 and 1960's, I have a hard time believing he did not have the power to get them made in color. It's not just the monster movies of the time being shot in color, but films like "Gate of Hell", "Kwaidan", and Mifune's Kuorsawa-lite "Samurai I, II, and III". Considering that he once ordered entire sets dismantled and reassembled because he spotted a modern nail being used to construct them, it's hard to believe that artistically he wanted to shoot them in color but couldn't, when he exercised that level of control he did over his productions. Also considering that he sometimes lit sets to f/22 in his 1960's scope movies for deep-focus telephoto lens effects, it's hard to believe he'd pull that off with the 50 ASA color film of that day versus 200 ASA Double-X.

I'm not saying that he didn't want to some one of his early post-war films shot in color but couldn't, but clearly by the mid 1960's when he was making "Red Beard" he was going against the trend by still shooting in B&W.

>Funny you should say that. If color overtook b/w in the late 60's, it was >because color film was much faster, so even less light was needed than >for b/w.

Only if you restricted yourself to Plus-X (80 ASA). Kodak released Super-XX in 1938 along with Plus-X, which was 160 ASA and used for "Citizen Kane". Tri-X came out in thew 1950's followed by Double-X. There wasn't a color negative stock faster than 100 ASA until 1981, when Fuji released a 250 ASA stock.

But it's true in that Kodak released 5254, which was 100 ASA, in 1968 and most cinematographers started doing very low-light color photography with that stock (which pushed well), so it was a really boon. But it wasn't until 1981 that color negatives were released that were generally faster than the commonly used PlusX and Double-X.

David Mullen
Cinematographer / L.A.



Sam Wells writes :

>New Yorkers found this puzzling, but those who had moved to the city >from parts of the US and the world that were already in color (where do >you think the phrase "Local Color" comes from ?) appreciated the >Mayor's efforts.

Thanks for the explanation, Sam. I've often wondered where the phrase came from. I thought it had to do with local television stations doing "background color".

>Even today, there are parts of the world that are not in full color. I'd talk >about the unfortunate towns and cities suffering under compressed >color conditions (sometimes designated by the UN as "4:2:2" or "3:1:1" >communities) but that would be off topic for this list.

It may be off topic, but speaking of Mayors, compression explains why our former Mayor -- now doing 5 years in a Federal prison -- was often described as colourful when the press thought he was going to beat the rap, while others viewed the matter as entirely black and white.

Which UN agency would we have to apply to get our designation changed and return to our previously drab
existence?

Brian Heller
IA 600 DP
And current resident of "Divine Providence"



David Mullen writes :

>But it wasn't until 1981 that color negatives were released that were >generally faster than the commonly used PlusX and Double-X.

It wasn't so much the speed of the film that mattered, but the amount (not intensity) of lights that were needed to get depth and modelling in b/w. With color it became much easier to achieve those effects.

Robert Rouveroy
The Hague, Holland

I plan to live forever. So far, so good.



>I watched the documentary "New York" on PBS over the week-end, from >the earliest films in the streets (not all B&W looks the same...)

Contrary to popular belief, New York was not one of the first cities to get color. For instance, despite some Left Bank neighbourhoods that remained holdouts, most of Paris had color at a time when all of New York was monochromatic except for Times Square and parts of Broadway....It's been said that legendary NY mayor Fiorello LaGuardia would describe what Manhattan would look like in color in his weekly radio broadcasts. Native New Yorkers found this puzzling, but those who had moved to the city from parts of the US and the world that were already in color (where do you think the phrase "Local Color" comes from ?) appreciated the Mayor's efforts.

Even today, there are parts of the world that are not in full color. I'd talk about the unfortunate towns and cities suffering under compressed color conditions (sometimes designated by the UN as "4:2:2" or "3:1:1" communities) but that would be off topic for this list.

Sam Wells



>It wasn't so much the speed of the film that mattered, but the amount >(not intensity) of lights that were needed to get depth and modelling in >b/w. With color it became much easier to achieve those effects.

But I think certain aspects of the "depth & modelling" model were being challenged. Think of James Wong Howe's (who certainly knew how to do depth and modelling if anyone did) work on "Hud" -- think French New Wave & Coutard...

I always thought (cf "In Cold Blood") Conrad Hall's specific genius was in bringing/acknowledging a post-war sense of realism into the world of a classic Hollywood tradition....

-Sam Wells



David Mullen wrote:

>...Anyway, I think it's pointless to play this game of "what old Hollywood >directors would have done if affordable color was available to them" >because it brings up too many what-if's.

I don't think that answers the question. The question is, what would they have done had they access to color that was the same speed, usable in the same cameras, and the same relative scale of economy to B&W films in their day as we have today? Of course opting for dead slow film speed and the monstrous Technicolor cameras would have influenced many against color, even if free.

I seem to recall that in discussions we had several years ago about colorizing old B&W films, someone did point out that a number of directors and cinematographers had later said they would have preferred to shoot in color if they'd had the opportunity.

Wade K. Ramsey, DP
Dept. of Cinema & Video Production
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC 29614



Wade Ramsey writes;

>I don't think that answers the question. The question is, what would they >have done had they access to color that was the same speed, usable in >the same cameras, and the same relative scale of economy to B&W >films in their day as we have today?

Yet, that seems to be what John Ford did on "Drums Along the Mowhawk", made the year before "Grapes of Wrath", so Ford was not adverse to color. Film and processing are no longer the major components of film budgets that they
were in those days. What's more, nearly everyone was under contract to the major studios which made the determination about who shot what with whom and in what medium -- color or B&W, and color represented a very significant expense especially if Natalie Kalmus was involved.

As far as Gregg Toland is concerned, if memory serves, all of the dramatic films he shot were in B&W. His only color work was in comedies and musicals.

Brian Heller
IA 600 DP



>Think of James Wong Howe's (who certainly knew how to do depth and >modelling if anyone did) work on "Hud" -- think French New Wave & >Coutard...

About James Wong Howe's depth and modelling, didn't he get a reprimand because Paul Newman's blue eyes were too shadowed on "Hud"? Lovely story, that.

Robert Rouveroy
The Hague, Holland

I plan to live forever. So far, so good.



>I don't think that answers the question. The question is, what would they >have done had they access to color that was the same speed, usable in >the same cameras, and the same relative scale of economy to B&W >films in their day as we have today?

Seems to me like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. People made artistic decisions based on who they were in the culture they were surrounded by, so a 1930's/40's culture where color photography was as cheap, free, and convenient as B&W suggests a culture that would have grown up with color photography. And if that was the state of the culture, then the decisions of the directors of the day would have been very different.

I mean, you could conjure a scenario where it's 1940 and you have a world who watched B&W movies for four decades and then suddenly aliens from outer space handed them a fast and cheap color process, THEN how many would have switched to color, many of whom had spent a decade or so mastering B&W? And while I'm sure that no doubt many would, we can't really say which directors would have switched for which productions. It just becomes a guessing game. Would Welles have shot "Citizen Kane" in color if he had the chance and it was the same ASA as the B&W stocks of his day? Would "Cat People" have been shot in color? "The Killers"? I mean, it's very hard to ignore the historical precedent and state of the culture of the day - for example, would this magically cheap and easy to use color process have appeared on the scene in the 1920's so German Expressionism films would have used it and therefore the 1940's film noirs that were visually inspired by those earlier films also have been shot in color?

Sure, the run-of-the-mill Andy Hardy or Ma & Pa Kettle movies would have been shot in color had it been just as cheap and convenient. Maybe even "Casablanca". But assuming you had a culture where directors had worked their way up from watching great Silent Era films shot in B&W, I'm sure many would have still opted for B&W for artistic reasons.

But the real question is would any great B&W film be as great had it been made in color, be as well-regarded and cherished fifty years later, and personally, I don't think you can say for sure "yes". The popularity of a film and how well it imbeds itself into the cultural landscape is the product of so many factors, not just story and acting, and I don't think you can pull on one thread and not have the whole fabric unravel. What makes "Casablanca" a cherished classic is the combination of dozens of factors, small and large, and even if you think Arthur Edeson's B&W work is only a small factor, you can't be sure it would have made no difference if it had been shot in color, perhaps by some other cameraman.

Maybe I'm just not comfortable with ignoring the historical reality and playing this guessing game of "what if". To me, it does matter what the state of color technology was in the day. I mean, what if a Sony F900 was around in 1930? What if IMAX were as cheap and easy to use as Super-8? Of course many directors and cameramen would have been excited to get a roll of 5218 in 1930, but I'm not sure where it gets you to imagine such scenarios because if 5218 were readily available in the 1930's, movies would have looked radically different.

David Mullen
Cinematographer / L.A.



I wonder how well a colorized version of The Elephant Man would hold up? Or the visually striking 1999 anamorphic French film The Girl on the Bridge?

Howard Phillips



David Mullen wrote :

>Maybe I'm just not comfortable with ignoring the historical reality and >playing this guessing game of "what if".

I agree. It's kind of like that variant of historical fiction, the
"what if historical fiction."

i.e., What would the world be like if Hitler had won WWII, or if JFK hadn't been murdered, if video had been invented before film, or if the CML had been founded by Larry Thorpe?

Jeff "not a fan of that genre" Kreines



David Mullen wrote:

>People made artistic decisions based on who they were in the culture >they were surrounded by, so a 1930's/40's culture where color >photography was as cheap, free, and convenient as B&W suggests a >culture that would have grown up with color photography.

I think you made some valid points there. I'm not advocating that color is better or that every director who shot in B&W would have chosen color, given the opportunity. But what I am saying is that most of them shot in B&W out of necessity, not artistic choice. We look back and revere some of these and give them a patina that perhaps the director never saw. From our perspective we say B&W was the better choice for that particular production, but how often was it a choice, rather than simply a given? Then did the director say to himself, 'This is the medium I have to work with, how best can I utilize it artistically?' Or did he just try to get the best rendition of the story and a let the cinematographer and art director worry about making the image work (making up for the lack of color contrast with lighting and the choice of tones in the costumes and sets)?

As you say, people made decisions based on the culture of the day. And we do the same thing now. But we have a culture in which both color and B&W have been utilized effectively on many types of stories and we are familiar with that. But virtually everything is now shot in color. Is it because it is the best medium for the given story? No, it's because B&W says 'cheap' to the distributor. There's an artistic choice for you. Sure, there is now the possibility of modifying the color with bleach bypass, etc., but what about films shot before those choices were available? And what if the director believes that only B&W will serve this story, not BB or any modification of color, but pure B&W? How many have that choice, realistically? So in the future will critics look back at these productions and credit the director for choosing color when in reality he had no choice? Most don't have the clout of Spielberg to buck the current.

So to a great degree I think we have a very similar situation as did directors in the '30s and '40s. That doesn't mean that a great artist can't adapt himself to the tools in his hands and create something significant. But I wonder sometimes if we don't revere some work simply because of the name of the artist, then try to accept in our minds that it must indeed be great, whether we actually appreciate or understand it or not.

It reminds me of art (and film) critics who wax long about the philosophic depths of some work that the artist himself/herself never dreamt of and even denies.

Wade K. Ramsey, DP
Dept. of Cinema & Video Production
Bob Jones University
Greenville, SC 29614