4 ms·

‘working by candlelight would have provided Antoine a focused, well-lit environment for the delicate dissection of two seedlings’ I think the author needs to t

‘working by candlelight would have provided Antoine a focused, well-lit environment for the delicate dissection of two seedlings’ I think the author needs to try using a candle for light.

dylan604 9mo ago
Candlelight doesn't mean a single solitary candle. As an example, here's the famous scene Kubrik's Barry Lyndon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQE73GDo4So https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQE73GDo4So
- _diyar 9mo ago
  Yet this is an infamously dimly-lit scene.
  - artimaeis 9mo ago
    For a camera exposing onto Kodak 5254, probably the fastest available in 1975, blazing ISO 100 film stock. Yeah it’s dim for that. To your eyes as I understand it’s pretty well lit.
    - defrost 9mo ago
      The photo nerd hacking tweak of note here was the pushing of the stock to 200 and using uniquely crafted NASA lenses built to photograph the dark side of the moon with not seen before aparture. Arguably a youtube rending of a compressed digital source viewed on a computer screen falls short of a 1970s full cinema via film live viweing. Technically it was pushing well past the envelope for the day: https://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-famous-f0-7-lenses/ https://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-fa...
  - eszed 9mo ago
    Yeah, I don't quite agree with that, or think of it as any kind of a criticism. The candles are placed in such a way that the faces of the important characters are easily visible, while the spectators fade into the background. This is fine! You're not meant to see their reactions, only hear them. The lighting functions like stage lighting, or (more likely Kubrick's inspiration) chiaroscuro, focusing viewers' attention where it's meant to be. As an aside: I've always suspected that the next scene (outside the house, at the end of this clip) is not naturally lit, though I've never seen anyone write anything about it. Even there, though, the lighting is used dramatically: as she turns, her face goes into shadow, leaving her reaction to his approach unseen, and therefore ambiguous. Sorry / not-sorry , you were making a quick point, which I've totally hijacked to geek out about one of my favorite films of all time. Carry on.
behringer 9mo ago
Often a sign of AI writing.
seizethecheese 9mo ago
To modern ears it seems dim, but to contemporary ears it would be very bright compared to normal nighttime!

‘working by candlelight would have provided Antoine a focused, well-lit environment for the delicate dissection of two seedlings’ I think the author needs to try using a candle for light.

dylan604 9mo ago

Candlelight doesn't mean a single solitary candle. As an example, here's the famous scene Kubrik's Barry Lyndon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQE73GDo4So https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQE73GDo4So

_diyar 9mo ago
Yet this is an infamously dimly-lit scene.
- artimaeis 9mo ago
  For a camera exposing onto Kodak 5254, probably the fastest available in 1975, blazing ISO 100 film stock. Yeah it’s dim for that. To your eyes as I understand it’s pretty well lit.
  - defrost 9mo ago
    The photo nerd hacking tweak of note here was the pushing of the stock to 200 and using uniquely crafted NASA lenses built to photograph the dark side of the moon with not seen before aparture. Arguably a youtube rending of a compressed digital source viewed on a computer screen falls short of a 1970s full cinema via film live viweing. Technically it was pushing well past the envelope for the day: https://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-famous-f0-7-lenses/ https://neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-fa...
- eszed 9mo ago
  Yeah, I don't quite agree with that, or think of it as any kind of a criticism. The candles are placed in such a way that the faces of the important characters are easily visible, while the spectators fade into the background. This is fine! You're not meant to see their reactions, only hear them. The lighting functions like stage lighting, or (more likely Kubrick's inspiration) chiaroscuro, focusing viewers' attention where it's meant to be. As an aside: I've always suspected that the next scene (outside the house, at the end of this clip) is not naturally lit, though I've never seen anyone write anything about it. Even there, though, the lighting is used dramatically: as she turns, her face goes into shadow, leaving her reaction to his approach unseen, and therefore ambiguous. Sorry / not-sorry , you were making a quick point, which I've totally hijacked to geek out about one of my favorite films of all time. Carry on.

behringer 9mo ago

Often a sign of AI writing.

seizethecheese 9mo ago

To modern ears it seems dim, but to contemporary ears it would be very bright compared to normal nighttime!