Jeff Bridges' New Book

[Pieter12]

Since there was a mention of The Dude in another thread, I thought this interview for his latest book was interesting: https://neworleansphotoalliance.org/august-2021-booklens/

 

[Arthurwg]

JB is a damn good photographer. I can't stand people with more than one talent.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

JB is a damn good photographer. I can't stand people with more than one talent.

Don't forget piano and guitar player. Who knows what else. Lots of great movies.

I read a while back he has cancer. Shame...

 

[Helge]

Jeff is an awesome photographer.
And I can say that knowing that I liked a big chunk of his work before I had a name put on it.
Of course using the Widelux and shooting on movie sets could be said to be kind of cheating.
But then anyone using his access privileges and life circumstances would be cheating.
Which of course is poppycock.
He composes really well and is a good at directing/catching his subjects.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Love his work, and his passion for film. He's like a kid with a new toy when he shows off his Widelux.

 

[removed account4]

Don't forget piano and guitar player. Who knows what else. Lots of great movies.

I read a while back he has cancer. Shame...

+1!

 

[Pieter12]

Don't forget piano and guitar player. Who knows what else. Lots of great movies.

And he mentions clay a couple of times in the interview. I assume he throws pots.

 

[Arthurwg]

The Dude Abides. God willing he will survive as well.

 

[CMoore]

The Dude Abides. God willing he will survive as well.

I wonder if the Police Detectives ever generated any "Leads" as to who stole The Dude's car......man.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's nice to have the access to movie sets and other famous people to photograph. It gives you a leg up. How great does your craft have to be if you can shoot the stars? No one really cares about my pictures of my Cousin Elaine regardless of how artistic they are.

 

[Arthurwg]

It's nice to have the access to movie sets and other famous people to photograph. It gives you a leg up. How great does your craft have to be if you can shoot the stars? No one really cares about my pictures of my Cousin Elaine regardless of how artistic they are.

War is even better than movie sets for generating great pictures.

 

[CMoore]

It's nice to have the access to movie sets and other famous people to photograph. It gives you a leg up. How great does your craft have to be if you can shoot the stars? No one really cares about my pictures of my Cousin Elaine regardless of how artistic they are.

Yeah, there is no way around it.
If you are Paul McCartneys wife, or Jackie Stewarts wife, or Tiger Woods wife...........you are going to have access to famous people and places that most photographers will never have.
What can you say.?

 

[NB23]

Probably my favorite photo book, Andy Summer’s I’ll be watching you. A great insider view, jam packed with excellent photography. Hours of viewing pleasure

 

[CMoore]

Probably my favorite photo book, Andy Summer’s I’ll be watching you. A great insider view, jam packed with excellent photography. Hours of viewing pleasure

........not even somebody's Husband/Wife......but a real Somebody them self.

 

[Pieter12]

Yes, part of the appeal of Mr. Bridge's (and others) books is the behind the scenes shots of celebrities, who already look good in photographs. He has access to places others don't--not even the crew would necessarily be permitted to shoot the actors on set, except the still photographer assigned to the production. And even then, their job is to document the shoot as well as generate publicity photos. But he brings something else to it, a sense of artistry and sometimes humor that goes beyond the celebrity attraction. Believe me, you need more than a star to make a great photograph, sometimes not having that sort of talent in front of the camera is just a poor excuse for the lack of talent behind the camera.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Interesting article and shots. I presume that the blow-up spectators is what you see in the scenes of crowds watching the horse racing. That close and they are nothing like human beings but cleverly shot there is clearly nothing to indicate it isn't a crowd of people

Has to be cheaper and easier than paying extras

Oh, and based on the D3200 shots and the P3200 I agree that P3200 does seem have the edge in lack of grain

pentaxuser

 

[btaylor]

It's nice to have the access to movie sets and other famous people to photograph. It gives you a leg up. How great does your craft have to be if you can shoot the stars? No one really cares about my pictures of my Cousin Elaine regardless of how artistic they are.

Well said. We recently hired a photographer at work for our marketing efforts. We are in the LA area so a lot of media is produced here. I took a look at her portfolio after she bid for our job and kaPow! - lots of recognizable faces. They looked fabulous of course, and you really can’t ignore their significant presence as famous people or their talent and training to look attractive and interesting on camera. The portraits of the people at work were good. But we are just ordinary folk, and we look it.

 

[Dismayed]

JB is a damn good photographer. I can't stand people with more than one talent.

He seems like a decent person, too. So many faults!

 

[Helge]

It's nice to have the access to movie sets and other famous people to photograph. It gives you a leg up. How great does your craft have to be if you can shoot the stars? No one really cares about my pictures of my Cousin Elaine regardless of how artistic they are.

There is also the possibility of seeming like a hack when you just “go for gold”.
“Anyone” can “just” travel to someplace exotic/expensive or go to a celebrity bar/premiere/gain access to a movie shoot and get something similar in exoticness/recognize-ability to Bridges photos.

Your Elaine photos, if well composed and capturing something basic human, will resonate with most too. But for different reasons.

This is not religion. There is no defined dogma of right and wrong. Anything that could be said to be definitively wrong by some, you can always find a counter where someone has nailed that no-no in some way.

 

[BobD]

Thanks Interesting article and shots. I presume that the blow-up spectators is what you see in the scenes of crowds watching the horse racing. That close and they are nothing like human beings but cleverly shot there is clearly nothing to indicate it isn't a crowd of people

Has to be cheaper and easier than paying extras

Oh, and based on the D3200 shots and the P3200 I agree that P3200 does seem have the edge in lack of grain

pentaxuser

It's a LOT cheaper than extras. I worked as a Hollywood extra for years.

Even cheaper than the inflatable people are the "flat people" used sometimes which are just flat cutouts. Real extras are interspersed to provide motion and a more realistic effect. It looks very odd close-up but from a distance, it is completely believable.

 

[CMoore]

It's a LOT cheaper than extras. I worked as a Hollywood extra for years.

Even cheaper than the inflatable people are the "flat people" used sometimes which are just flat cutouts. Real extras are interspersed to provide motion and a more realistic effect. It looks very odd close-up but from a distance, it is completely believable.

Would that just be a digital effect now, assuming it was not very close.?
but to just show Hundreds/Thousands of people at a sporting event, i would think there is a digital alternative at this point.?

 

[BobD]

Would that just be a digital effect now, assuming it was not very close.?
but to just show Hundreds/Thousands of people at a sporting event, i would think there is a digital alternative at this point.?

I retired from Hollywood work about 10 years ago. I imagine they do use "digital extras" now for at least some large crowds. Actually, the 1997 movie Titanic used CGI extras in some brief scenes, But, most extra work isn't in stadium-sized crowds anyway. CGI isn't cheap either and crowd scenes are avoided whenever possible. There are ways to cheat too. Show long shots of real non-paid crowds and then shoot close on your actors surrounded by a few extras with crowd sound effects.

 

[Pieter12]

Would that just be a digital effect now, assuming it was not very close.?
but to just show Hundreds/Thousands of people at a sporting event, i would think there is a digital alternative at this point.?

Inflatable or flat ("practical") extras shot in-camera is still cheaper if the shot is on location, no green screen. Plus you can mix real extras in for action and closer to the camera.

 

[BobD]

People often think of extras in terms of throngs of hundreds or thousands but those kinds of shoots are uncommon. In most instances, an extra is simply a non-speaking performer. Usually from a few to a few dozen at most. I've had jobs where I was the only performer of any kind -- I just had no lines so I was paid as an extra.

 

[CMoore]

People often think of extras in terms of throngs of hundreds or thousands but those kinds of shoots are uncommon. In most instances, an extra is simply a non-speaking performer. Usually from a few to a few dozen at most. I've had jobs where I was the only performer of any kind -- I just had no lines so I was paid as an extra.

When you see Extras on the street...for example...and they are talking to each other, what is actually going on.?
Are they speaking normally, in a low voice, or are they just pretending to speak and simply moving their lips.?