Methods
A location scout typically takes descriptive, panoramic photographs or video of location possibilities. A good location scout will make photos of a location possibility that reflect the aesthetic goals of the production and will also include visually descriptive utilitarian photography and info in his/her presentation, documenting much more than just what will potentially appear onscreen.
Additional descriptive information might include (as might be relevant):
- reverse/alternate angle (photographing TOWARD where camera might be), panoramic photography- to show space available for camera, lighting, video assist, hair and makeup (and clients on a commercial shoot)
- GPS coordinates, compass directions, other map data as may be applicable
- ambient lighting conditions at various times of day (or night), solar data, i.e. angle of sun at different times of day
- photos of holding/staging areas and available parking and/or parking restriction signage
- hand sketches of street/building layout(s), building/room floor plan(s), room or area dimension data
- crew/vehicle access data, i.e. doorways, hallways, elevators, stairs, availability and info of personnel needed for access
- notes regarding ambient sound conditions
- On the shoot day, if a set is to be "dressed" (props/furniture added or (re)moved), Locations Department and/or Art Department/Property Master Staff/Prop Stylist will photograph the specific areas to be affected so as to assure that the location will be returned to its original state once filming is completed.
Read more about this topic: Location Scouting
Famous quotes containing the word methods:
“All men are equally proud. The only difference is that not all take the same methods of showing it.”
—François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680)
“We can best help you to prevent war not by repeating your words and following your methods but by finding new words and creating new methods.”
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)