Cinematography: Theory and Practice: Image Making for Cinematographers, Directors, and Videographers [Paperback]

If you want technicals, books which cover similar territory are "Matters of Light & Depth" (Lowell), "Cinematography" & "Film Lighting" (Malkiewicz), "Placing Shadows" (Gloman/Letourneau), or even "Bare-Bones Guide" (Schroeppel -- which includes a very practical description of the 'Rule of Thirds', ie. the "Golden Mean").

If you're on a 'classical' kick, you could do a whole lot worse than "5 C's" (Mascelli), "Painting with Light" (Alton), or even "The Visual Story" (Block), which explores new media thru the lens[sic] of Eisenstein. Actually, you probably should buy "5 C's" & "Painting" anyway; they're very old, & just-recently returned to print... & in this age of accelerated obsolescence, these books might vanish again, forever.

But if you are interested in the aesthetics of cinematography, you'd do *much* better with texts such as "Cinematography: Screencraft" (Ettedgui), or with the classic "Film Art: An Introduction" (Bordwell/Thompson). In fact, after all the great reviews for "Cinematography: Image Making", I was expecting some sort of full-color/high-quality updated version of "Film Art". Nope... not even close.

IMHO, the book which best combines both worlds (technical + aesthetic) is Viera's "Lighting for Film & Electronic Cinematography". He starts with basic principles, & then quickly moves to famous shots, breaking each one down in terms of what the cinematographer was thinking, what they were 'aiming' for, & how [specifically] to put your lights to duplicate that setup. Wow.

So perhaps the title ("Cinematography: Image Making") is a misnomer, & should be "Technical Image Making". No wait-- there are some shots of beautiful cinematography in the text, right? Um, yes, but... with one terrible caveat: the majority of the images in this book which do come from great films -- are DIGITAL SCREEN-CAPTURES FROM VIDEO(?!!!) Interlaced, blurry, artifacted, awful. Unconscionable.

What a waste of potential, & of good photo-stock paper. Save your $$ for Viera's book, or Lowell's. Or you could do a whole lot worse than "5 C's" or Alton's book... which are old, but classics, describing theory & techniques as appropriate today as they were 100 years ago.

"3 Stars" for "Not-Bad"; "1 Star" for "Crushing Disappointment".

Most books are either sort of airy, light-weight musings about aesthetics and philosophy and the other kind is strictly technical: lenses, exposure, etc. This is the one book that covers just about everything you need to know in order to be a professional cinematographer (or an amateur who knows as much as a pro).

It covers everthing from the basics to very advanced stuff and the one thing that most of my camera assistant and camera apprentice friends really like is that it covers "professional practice": the way things are done on real sets, including things like what are the responsibilties of each person: the AC, the gaffer, the grip, etc.

It has a chapter on lighting and one on creating the "look" of a film, but the one thing it doesn't go into heavily is set lighting. That is, I guess, because this author has another book about lighting (which was also a textbook in a film school course I took.) He (or she?) also says in introduction that lighting is a vast subject and there is no way to fit it into one or two chapters - it has to have it's own book.

Anyway, this book is so good, I bought some to give as Christmas presents to friends. Even the ones who are already working professional DP's enjoyed it and said they loved it. I think it is also used in some of the directing courses here at USC. The first half of the book is about the kinds of things a director needs to know as well as the DP: coverage, editorial, crossing the line, that kind of stuff.