Comments on: Studio Photos Taken for the Release of “The Dark Knight”

By: Erik Tande

Erik Tande — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:21:00 +0000

Well said.

By: StephenMumbles

StephenMumbles — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:08:00 +0000

You forget that this is a film directed by Christopher Nolan, who is a perfectionist (as most directors are). They probably had about 10 minutes tops with the actors while they were in costume, who both probably had to be on set directly after the photoshoot took place. So Nolan either was over the photographers shoulder telling him exactly what to snap, or the photographer had a very specific shot list of what to get for the posters and promos.
Very little freedom when you’re working on a big studio film. You do what you’re told. They know what they want.
I don’t really even see a point in complaining about the raw photos anyway. Didn’t we all see the final outcome? They looked fantastic blown up full size and touched up. Isn’t that all that matters? Mission accomplished by the photographer.

By: BDWT

BDWT — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 19:56:00 +0000

I think there should have be a photoshop retouching contest based on these photos. Some really basic guidelines should apply, such as… you may use up to a maximum of 3 photos from this collection to create ONE final promotion poster and any other material used in the final poster must also be previously unedited, public domain images or original content (just to put everyone on the same level playing field). Anyone have any other rules/guideline suggestions?

By: John Godwin

John Godwin — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:31:00 +0000

Yeah, that must be it. One of the most spectacular and eagerly anticipated conclusions to a film trilogy in the history of cinema. A $300 million budget, yet they skimped on a photographer to save a few hundred bucks.

Sounds plausible.

By: Jarrah FitzGerald

Jarrah FitzGerald — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 02:33:00 +0000

I’ve got a feeling a lot of people here don’t actually ‘know’ what they are talking about in this instance. If the lighting had a ‘feel’ or ‘mood’ then the poster artists has to stick to it. I know guys who do movie posters (the recent Total Recall etc) and that sort of work is farmed out to multiple agencies who have multiple employees work on between 2-5 concepts, of which the film studio will use only a couple. They ALL will have a different vision, but ALL of them receive the same files. Low contrast means both shadow and highlight detail to do with what you will, sensor dust on a background that will immediately be removed is irrelevant. This is GOOD lighting: because it did exactly what it was meant to do – provide retouchers with the information they needed. Lots of people seem to want photography to be art, unfortunately most of it isn’t and never will be. Here the artists are the people using the images. The photographer as a technician for helping them achieve this has done a good job. I’d agree not amazing, but it didn’t need to be.

By: Tim Gallo

Tim Gallo — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 01:15:00 +0000

Pretty much sure it was shoot by some cameraman assistant or by a still-photographer from the set. And people who do celebrity portrait knows how much time you get to shoot them (from 3~5 min) and in what conditions you have to do it.
btw, if you look closely you can see that the background is set up on the movie set, probably in the studio… so probably it was really-really fast job.

By: Brendan O'Shea

Brendan O'Shea — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:56:00 +0000

I think you need to take into account how much time the photographer had. Can’t remember who it was, but when Clint Eastwood was asked by the photographer if he could take a test polaroid, Clint replied, “you can take either the test or the actual shot”. That was the poster for ‘The Forbidden’. And vinterchaos, how many thousands do you think it would it cost to keep Heath and Christian in the studio for more than a couple of minutes?

By: Jaron Schneider

Jaron Schneider — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:31:00 +0000

I kinda disagree. Because of the dust on the sensor, I think that the lens comes off quite a bit.

By: Rodrigo Villicaña

Rodrigo Villicaña — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 00:23:00 +0000

If i were going to shoot those kind of photos I wouldn’t let there be any dust and shit on my sensor for ANY reason

By: kurnikoff

kurnikoff — Thu, 20 Sep 2012 23:27:00 +0000

I think its cheaper just to have a grey background and then photoshop whatever you want, but also practical.

Images could have been photoshoped differently for different looks, visions of director etc and for different branding. Easier to photoshop “clean”, low contrast pics instead of stylized look.