Nick Ware

Interesting read on the BBC News website today, entitled: “The camera tech propelling shows like Adolescence”. If you know what a “Oner” is, you know.

The question is, at what point does camerawork become obtrusive and detract from the plot, and become a turn-off for old codgers like me?

Hugh Snape

To me that’s a bit like the big mic in shot “convention” which so many podcasters adopt; it’s a distraction from the content . . .

Paul Thackray

That sort of ‘different ‘ way of shooting only works on a very occasional basis. It also only works if the script is very strong.

Adolescent was a very strong story. Had it not of been, no one would watch beyond ep1. If any, but the regular format is used more than occasionally people will switch off.

Regular shooting formats are like that for good reasons.

Alec Bray

You may remembers a discussion on the Tech Ops website about the camera being an integral part of a drama, rather than just a witness to the action:

http://tech-ops.co.uk/next/the-camera-is-an-actor-in-the-drama/

It included an article by Dr. Douglas McNaughton which emphasised the role of the camera. Of course, that was written in the days of bulky cameras and substantial (big) camera cranes, so the integration of the camera into the drama was quite difficult (although lots of good work WAS done, of course).

Lightweight cameras with image stabilising technology means that the camera can really be part of the action, not just recording the action of others but actually contributing AS AN ACTOR in the drama. Done properly, the tools nowadays available can contribute immensely to a drama. The camera can be written into the script as the eyes and ears of “character X”, not just planned later shot by shot.

I think that the first time I really notice the camera acting as a performer was in the opening scene of “Broadchurch” with the camera “running” down the street.

I also think that the “one shot” approach really really worked in the first two episodes of “Adolescence” and gave an almost gut-wrenching sense of presence, of being there. I was not so convinced with the last two episodes, as these seemed to be a much more traditional view of the action – camera as the “fourth wall” and so on.

Barry Wilkinson

As an ex broadcast cameraman, one trend drives me mad. It’s all about the framing of close shots. I was brought up with framing of close ups to give “looking room” where if the face looks to the right, you give space on the right of frame. Now there is a trend to illogically put the nose of the person right up to the edge of the frame and leave space behind the head. I think this is a case of the director having seen this technique in a movie and deciding it was trendy. It may make sense if the space behind the head portrayed some useful information, such as another person behind them lurking before an attack. Usually there is nothing of importance behind the head and when I see this technique used it makes me shout at the tv in annoyance.

It’s used on Emmerdale depending on who is the director and also some scenes seem to be “ under lit “ for whatever reason, hardly appropriate on a soap, but maybe on a proper movie.

Peter Neill

I’m seeing far too many interviews with negative looking room which I find very off putting.

William Nuttall

Under Lit, take a look at present day Enders Interiors if you could be bothered!

Garth Tucker

As a director I liked to frame my CUs so that if two opposing shots were mixed the noses would not quite overlap. I remember speaking to a Senior Cameraman (Les Dawson) from Yorkshire TV about 12 years after I last worked with him. As he left to catch his train back to Leeds he got about 12 yards away before he turned and shouted back to me, “Do you still do that funny looking room?’” Bless him, he was an excellent cameraman.