A Quote by Chuck Close

Once I started working with the Polaroid, I would take a shot and if that shot was good, then I'd move the model and change the lighting or whatever... slowly sneaking up on what I wanted rather than having to predetermine what it was.
There's nothing worse than an ostentatious shot. Or some lighting that draws attention to itself, and you might go, 'Oh, wow, that's spectacular.' Or that spectacular shot, a big crane move, or something.
When we shot the first series of Aerobic Striptease, we shot five DVD's, so we slowly put out each DVD and timed it out that they were all done and shot and ready to go. We just started shooting the next series once we felt it was time to work on the next one.
Anybody that shoots a hook shot, whatever hand, I jump up and cheer because it's the easiest shot, it's the best tweener shot.
There's nothing worse than an ostentatious shot or some lighting that draws attention to itself, and you might go, 'Oh, wow, that's spectacular.' Or that spectacular shot, a big crane move, or something. But it's not necessarily right for the film — you jump out, you think about the surface, and you don't stay in there with the characters and the story.
Most of my images have been done in-studio, under very controlled lighting conditions. There have been a few that have shot in nature, but even then they were shot almost exclusively at night, and again, under controlled lighting conditions.
If I'm ever working on a set and anyone talks about a master shot, I say there is no master shot. Before I even went to film school, I learned about movies by being in a British feature film, where everything was shot master shot, mid-shot, close-up. But I reject the idea of a master shot. You don't shoot everything mechanically; you find imaginative ways that serve the action.
Most of my images have been done in-studio, under very controlled lighting conditions. There have been a few that have been shot in nature, but even then they were shot almost exclusively at night, and again, under controlled lighting conditions.
I'd rather take a contested shot than an open shot any day ... It's kind of boring when you take open shots
I learned something very important early on: You accept what happens and move on. In other words, if I hit a bad shot, I can't change it. There is only the next shot. That was a big lesson.
The time to hurry is in between shots. It's not over the shot. It's timing how people walk. You have to add that to the equation. If you've got somebody walking slow and they get up to the shot and take their 20 seconds, what's the aggregate time for them to hit that shot in between shots? That's what really matters. It's not the shot at hand.
I shot for French and British Vogue. The British Vogue one featured clothes by Chloe and was shot at Highgate and the John Soane Museum. It came out much better in my opinion. I only did one day and was working with my own make-up and hair people and a model who I've known for years.
I started off as a model maker, so the first part of my career was a model maker and then a motion control camera operator, so I shot a lot of miniatures.
I shot 'Fruitvale Station' on super-16, and then I shot a movie called 'The Harvest' on 35mm, and then I shot 'Little Accidents' on 2-perf 35.
It comes to the point where, if a midrange shot is there, I'm going to take it. If I'm open, I have to shoot that shot. That's a great shot for the team and myself.
The only art I have is a Polaroid from Peter Beard from his book. I shot with him four years ago, and he did a special Polaroid for me, so I consider it a piece of art.
I knew that they were going to be reading actors for Manute, and I wanted to give it a shot. I wanted a shot to do it, and they embraced that and said, "All right, come on in. Let's see what you've got." So, I went in, and the rest is history. It felt good when I went into the office, and it just worked.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!