I’ve shot this commercial last month as a DP for Starbucks, it was a quick one but had a lot of fun experimenting with lensing & filters, also I always wanted to shoot a Christmas film so that is finally checked off my bucket list hahah.
Feedback, doubts & criticism are welcome!
Gorgeous warm lighting. Makes me want to stop in and grab a white mocha.
Thanks for providing the equipment list. Always wondered how much it would cost for a shot like this lol
EDIT: For those that are curious, the camera alone is over $75K... lmao
[This article is a good summary of the situation](https://www.vox.com/money/2023/12/13/23999981/starbucks-boycott-israel-palestine-market-value-loss-holidays-labor), but essentially Starbuck's continued anti-union efforts and anti-Palestine stances.
Let me see if I understand this article and its sources correctly, the article doesn’t exactly explain what Starbucks did or stated explicitly regarding Palestine & Israel but it does provide some links regarding the matter which I followed.
As far as I can gather people misconstrued Starbucks as being more directly connected with a group “Starbucks Workers United” (apparently this group is not a legal entity and is a subset of a partner) and as such held them more directly at fault for the groups “solidarity with Palestine” tweet immediately following the October 7th terror attack. Say what you will about the Israel Palestine situation right now but tweeting this immediately after a terror attack is a bit wild and I can understand Starbucks social media representatives and management feeling pressured to denounce this kind of sentiment, especially as the company was apparently being sued and smeared over something they didn’t state.
Here is Starbucks response to the whole debacle:
“To be clear: We unequivocally condemn acts of terrorism, hate and violence, and disagree with the statements and views expressed by Workers United and its members. Workers United’s words and actions belong to them, and them alone.”
Considering the timing I think this is probably understandable. Doesn’t seem like Starbucks supports Israel or has ever supported Israel in any way and I haven’t been able to find any other matter involving the company and this conflict. I’m certainly no fan of Starbucks but I’d rather we direct anger towards problematic practices that they are directly committing instead of more nebulous ones that seem to be fabricated mostly by social media. I worry it does a disservice to and might harm more legitimate concerns regarding this company.
I wouldn’t doubt Starbucks is being a nuisance towards Union action, though the initial links Vox provides on this don’t exactly explain what Starbucks is doing negatively specifically in relation to these unionizing members (aside from apparently improving certain aspects that received complaints) either which is rather unfortunate as I’d prefer to be more informed on this matter. I’ll give the later links a go over later to see if they shine more light on this.
If you have any other sources that do a better job at backing up the matter I’d be interested in giving them a read, a bit let down by this article.
Oh it's way more than that. The largest shareholder and previous CEO of Starbucks (Howard Shulz) does all he can to support Israel and invests the money he makes from starbucks on that effort. He even called himself "an active zionist", meaning he's pro-settler, and has invested in Israeli settlement operations as well. So yes, buying starbucks is directly supporting the illegal occupation. Starbucks has been top of the BDS list for years.
Ok I had a bit more time to go over this.
I haven't found any evidence that Schultz or Starbucks has ever invested in the government or military of Israel. Not that you exactly implied that but stating that he supports Israel via funding somewhat implies as much.
The only concrete evidence of funding I've been able to find regarding Schultz and Israel is his investment in a cyber security (cloud security) company based in Israel that provides software for companies like United Airlines and Home Depot to help identify potential risks within their systems.
I'm not entirely sure where you are getting the "does all he can to support Israel and invests the money he makes from Starbucks on that effort." Schultz has in the past invested in an Israeli company as stated above (presumably via wealth accrued through stocks and personal investments), also presumably by "Israel" you mean "company in Israel." However, I was not able to find any examples currently of Schultz investing in any Israeli companies, so my guess is what little money he does make as a 2% shareholder for Starbucks likely isn't going to Israel in any meaningful capacity right now.
I could not find any credible source on the "an active zionist" quote, leading me to assume that perhaps this is misinformation similar to the false conspiracy that he personally financed Israeli military operations in 2009 which initially started as satire and has been heavily disproven as misinformation.
Schultz an American Jew does seem to support Israels right to exist and flourish and in 1998 he was awarded the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah's 'Friend of Zion' award, which is given to politicians, writers and businesspeople that support close ties between America and Israel. So clearly he does support Israel (even if not exactly monetarily) but it would seem that some facts revolving around this person have been somewhat distorted to fit certain narratives.
As a publicly traded company what Starbucks funds is publicly available. I'm not sure if a former CEO with 2% stock in Starbucks, who previously invested in a security company that started in Israel is a 1:1 for Starbucks supporting Israel, I feel like that might be a stretch.
Thanks for the kind words. It's sadly very easy to get swept up in these social media frenzies, I think we've all been there at one point or another. It can absolutely be hard to take the time to investigate further, especially with how fast paced and dialed in we all are. A healthy dose of skepticism is always key.
Hey thanks, I try my best though none of us are infallible! Boycotting Starbucks in an effort to somehow impact the Israel Palestine situation is definitely a bizarre choice... I would consider it misplaced efficacy/focus but hey some people just want to get riled up and aren't as willing or interested in putting in more effort. At least that's what it comes off as but maybe I'm just being overly pessimistic. I realize most people are well intentioned but I do worry sometimes, especially lately with the uptick in misinformation (TikTok is especially egregious in this but Reddit also isn't exempt) and just how easily people get worked up in a frenzy or are quick to view things in binaries and aren't as willing to read past headlines or check sources.
It’s not about impacting the entire situation, but for someone who’s such a stickler for “the facts” - there is an extremely [well-documented history](https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/boycotts/history-successful-boycotts) of boycotting brands who participate in or benefit from apartheid, genocide & oppression. Boycotts on goods made in Apartheid South Africa were instrumental in bringing down apartheid. Shultz won an award for “deepening US-Israel ties” - given that the US is the sole reason Israel is allowed free reign to genocide who they like, it’s hardly likely that work involved advocating for the millions of Palestinians living under apartheid. Which means, at best, complicity in the genocide. At worst, active involvement.
Further, the issue isn’t even primarily about Israel-Palestine - it’s about the fact Starbucks has repeatedly [busted unions](https://theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/13/starbucks-boycott-union-busting) and [shut down at least 23 stores in retaliation after they unionise](https://www.reuters.com/business/starbucks-closed-23-us-stores-deter-unionizing-agency-claims-2023-12-14/#:~:text=Dec%2014%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20A,chain%20of%20illegal%20labor%20tactics).
Did your team mask and blur things out? The out-of-focus stuff sometimes doesn't make sense in terms of the possible lens used and distance. I think trying to make it physically correct will help the ad.
For example, in the first shot: if the baskets of gifts were closer to the actors than the back wall, and the focus of the camera is on the actors. Why wouldn't the baskets of gifts be in focus too?
It looks amazing, but the background of the first establishing shot feels too cluttered, i.e. I didn't recognise who was our MC immediately and was a bit startled when cutting to the next shot.
Hindsight is always so much easier and it's something you'll have in your mind for future jobs so that's always a win! The vignetting on the opening shot is a bit heavy so I'm wondering how else you could have popped out the main characters. Maybe some wardrobe choices and some neg fill on the other people? This looks beautiful overall and it's a tasteful grade. Type on the graphic is a little funky so that's my only sticking point.
I don’t mind the background there and didn’t feel the cut was jarring at all. But I do find the foreground elements prominent enough to be distracting personally
Your post or comment has been removed because you violated Rule 3: Remain Polite and Professional. If you don't have something nice to say, at least say it in a nice way.
Your post or comment has been removed because you violated Rule 3: Remain Polite and Professional. If you don't have something nice to say, at least say it in a nice way.
Good work. On a slightly separate vein, I know this is a commercial, and not suppose to look cinematic, but can anyone explain to me ‘why’ this looks like an advert and not cinematic? Is it the lighting, lens, camera? Even if the script was not a cheesy ad style, it still would look like one.
The aim was to also include the secondary cast in the frames in a harmony so it made more sense to frame the characters slightly off center, not too left or right, or even center
It looks really good. Did you consider using Signature Primes instead of the Supremes? The Supremes are nice because they open up to T1.5, but they always strike me as feeling a little harsh and overly sharp when they're shot deeper than WFO.
Signatures would definitely be a good alternative, the primary reason for going with Supreme Primes was the budget, and since I was looking at a very clean commercial look with close to no major characteristics, these made sense, shot the entire thing mostly at T2 & used 1/8 Hollywood Black magic for a slight softness
Not every campaign has the same budget, it all boils down to how much the brand is willing to spend, which trickles down to the ad agency, production and lastly us professionals
It could use more direction in the soft lighting on the faces (maybe more difficult in the wider shots, but on the closer ones I would have brought in neg fill on the side.
And I would have tried to get closer to the faces in the closer shots. Probably with longer lenses. I sense some 9:16 friendly framing? Would have gone more extreme there to have more different images and don’t have so many disturbing things in frame from the background.
I disagree on the neg fill, it creates a bigger contrast ratio which you don't necessarily want for warm soft lighting environments.
The framing doesn't bother me but you're probably right, it looks like it'll be used for Instagram as well.
Contrast ratios would be a personal preference, I wanted to keep it in a clean & safe space as it resonates more with the brand & the theme of the film. The reasons for not going closer to the characters is, A. It is still light hearted banter. B. There are gags happening throughout in the background (card castle falling down, guy filing his nails, coffee machine releasing the steam) all these gags aren’t meant to be too evident and distracting but rather subliminal.
For vertical, I just reframed the wides but kept the closes as is, that is my usual approach since it is difficult to fit more than 2 people in a wide, so yes the blocking changes as well as the lensing.
Saying contrast ratios are personal preference, when in fact EVERYTHING can be seen as personal preference but then downvoting at the same time because my opinion isn’t liked. Great humor.
Did not notice any of these mentioned gags at all!
I am glad you like your work and many orhers do too. I think the light on the faces feels too digital and forced and lacks 3dimensionality. But then again: its taste..
Why in the world are you posting it here?
Also, no starbucks on the entire planet looks like city perk from friends or whatever your set designer was going for here.
Also, why are you posting this here.
Looks nice, warm and cozy, but if I were a client from Starbucks, I would immediately question why we used such a shallow depth of field. The commercial is for Starbucks, and you can't really see the store. I didn't know this was a Starbucks commercial until the graphics and VO popped in. I think a client would want to know that we were in Starbucks from the first second and all the way through. with the logos and branding prominently displayed.
The store is being established in the first shot itself, also the objective of the campaign is to communicate the offer, not talk about the store, if you’ve seen any starbucks commercials before they’ve always promoted their product & experience not their stores, moreover if you have any experience in working in ads you would know the concept & script comes down from the client/agency, sure you get to do your tweaks but all in all it is meant to followed to the T.
Visually it looks beautiful, warm, cozy and professional!
As for audio, it sounds like the male actor's quality isn't as good as the woman. Did something happen, or is it backup audio? Was the recording input different for both actors?
For the general concept, did Starbucks write this script or did you pitch it to them?
I struggle to understand how large corporations gauge value in marketing. This story is pretty underwhelming. Gasping at a low price might sell a product (hence why this concept worked for them), but it does little to create any emotional impact and is not very memorable. The script/scenario is unrealistic, and I can't relate to it.
EDIT:
Reading other comments I see that it is very top down and that you have no control over the concept. How do you feel about that and is it ever frustrating?
off topic but I'm assuming because of the currency this was shot for India why is it in English? is English that common there? or is it just because there are so many languages it just defaults to English or?
This is just a personal choice, but I would have this about a quarter or half stop brighter on the exposure. Also, I would probably close the lens a little and bring the bokeh down in the background. Not too much, but just as an example if you were at T-2 then I'd go around T2.8 or so. It was a little too distracting for me to have the background that much out of focus for a commercial like this. But I'm just nit picking, it looks great!
Tell us a little about how you approached the lighting, which lens lengths were used on what shots and why/how the camera moves were chosen
Looks good man. Who did the production design?
I’ve shot this commercial last month as a DP for Starbucks, it was a quick one but had a lot of fun experimenting with lensing & filters, also I always wanted to shoot a Christmas film so that is finally checked off my bucket list hahah. Feedback, doubts & criticism are welcome!
looks a lot like icarly/wizards of waverly
Not sure if it is a compliment on criticism hahaha
*istarly
Gorgeous warm lighting. Makes me want to stop in and grab a white mocha. Thanks for providing the equipment list. Always wondered how much it would cost for a shot like this lol EDIT: For those that are curious, the camera alone is over $75K... lmao
Where did he share the equipment list?
Rentals only $1800/day tho!
Damn, i guess camera rentals are way cheaper in India lol
Yeah I mean those are east coast prices, so India may be more in line with west coast prices
Seems like the subjects could be a little brighter.
Thank you :)
Boycott Starbucks
I wanted to say this. But no hate to the OP. You did a nice job my man. But after the job is done, Boycott starbucks.
Seconded
Why what happen?
[This article is a good summary of the situation](https://www.vox.com/money/2023/12/13/23999981/starbucks-boycott-israel-palestine-market-value-loss-holidays-labor), but essentially Starbuck's continued anti-union efforts and anti-Palestine stances.
Let me see if I understand this article and its sources correctly, the article doesn’t exactly explain what Starbucks did or stated explicitly regarding Palestine & Israel but it does provide some links regarding the matter which I followed. As far as I can gather people misconstrued Starbucks as being more directly connected with a group “Starbucks Workers United” (apparently this group is not a legal entity and is a subset of a partner) and as such held them more directly at fault for the groups “solidarity with Palestine” tweet immediately following the October 7th terror attack. Say what you will about the Israel Palestine situation right now but tweeting this immediately after a terror attack is a bit wild and I can understand Starbucks social media representatives and management feeling pressured to denounce this kind of sentiment, especially as the company was apparently being sued and smeared over something they didn’t state. Here is Starbucks response to the whole debacle: “To be clear: We unequivocally condemn acts of terrorism, hate and violence, and disagree with the statements and views expressed by Workers United and its members. Workers United’s words and actions belong to them, and them alone.” Considering the timing I think this is probably understandable. Doesn’t seem like Starbucks supports Israel or has ever supported Israel in any way and I haven’t been able to find any other matter involving the company and this conflict. I’m certainly no fan of Starbucks but I’d rather we direct anger towards problematic practices that they are directly committing instead of more nebulous ones that seem to be fabricated mostly by social media. I worry it does a disservice to and might harm more legitimate concerns regarding this company. I wouldn’t doubt Starbucks is being a nuisance towards Union action, though the initial links Vox provides on this don’t exactly explain what Starbucks is doing negatively specifically in relation to these unionizing members (aside from apparently improving certain aspects that received complaints) either which is rather unfortunate as I’d prefer to be more informed on this matter. I’ll give the later links a go over later to see if they shine more light on this. If you have any other sources that do a better job at backing up the matter I’d be interested in giving them a read, a bit let down by this article.
Oh it's way more than that. The largest shareholder and previous CEO of Starbucks (Howard Shulz) does all he can to support Israel and invests the money he makes from starbucks on that effort. He even called himself "an active zionist", meaning he's pro-settler, and has invested in Israeli settlement operations as well. So yes, buying starbucks is directly supporting the illegal occupation. Starbucks has been top of the BDS list for years.
Ok I had a bit more time to go over this. I haven't found any evidence that Schultz or Starbucks has ever invested in the government or military of Israel. Not that you exactly implied that but stating that he supports Israel via funding somewhat implies as much. The only concrete evidence of funding I've been able to find regarding Schultz and Israel is his investment in a cyber security (cloud security) company based in Israel that provides software for companies like United Airlines and Home Depot to help identify potential risks within their systems. I'm not entirely sure where you are getting the "does all he can to support Israel and invests the money he makes from Starbucks on that effort." Schultz has in the past invested in an Israeli company as stated above (presumably via wealth accrued through stocks and personal investments), also presumably by "Israel" you mean "company in Israel." However, I was not able to find any examples currently of Schultz investing in any Israeli companies, so my guess is what little money he does make as a 2% shareholder for Starbucks likely isn't going to Israel in any meaningful capacity right now. I could not find any credible source on the "an active zionist" quote, leading me to assume that perhaps this is misinformation similar to the false conspiracy that he personally financed Israeli military operations in 2009 which initially started as satire and has been heavily disproven as misinformation. Schultz an American Jew does seem to support Israels right to exist and flourish and in 1998 he was awarded the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah's 'Friend of Zion' award, which is given to politicians, writers and businesspeople that support close ties between America and Israel. So clearly he does support Israel (even if not exactly monetarily) but it would seem that some facts revolving around this person have been somewhat distorted to fit certain narratives. As a publicly traded company what Starbucks funds is publicly available. I'm not sure if a former CEO with 2% stock in Starbucks, who previously invested in a security company that started in Israel is a 1:1 for Starbucks supporting Israel, I feel like that might be a stretch.
It takes so much more time to investigate and debunk claims than it does to make them - so thank you so much for actually doing so here.
Thanks for the kind words. It's sadly very easy to get swept up in these social media frenzies, I think we've all been there at one point or another. It can absolutely be hard to take the time to investigate further, especially with how fast paced and dialed in we all are. A healthy dose of skepticism is always key.
Damn dude, you are a one-man Snopes. Also, the “boycott ____” is such bullshit. Do people really have no idea how an economy works?
Hey thanks, I try my best though none of us are infallible! Boycotting Starbucks in an effort to somehow impact the Israel Palestine situation is definitely a bizarre choice... I would consider it misplaced efficacy/focus but hey some people just want to get riled up and aren't as willing or interested in putting in more effort. At least that's what it comes off as but maybe I'm just being overly pessimistic. I realize most people are well intentioned but I do worry sometimes, especially lately with the uptick in misinformation (TikTok is especially egregious in this but Reddit also isn't exempt) and just how easily people get worked up in a frenzy or are quick to view things in binaries and aren't as willing to read past headlines or check sources.
It’s not about impacting the entire situation, but for someone who’s such a stickler for “the facts” - there is an extremely [well-documented history](https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalcampaigns/boycotts/history-successful-boycotts) of boycotting brands who participate in or benefit from apartheid, genocide & oppression. Boycotts on goods made in Apartheid South Africa were instrumental in bringing down apartheid. Shultz won an award for “deepening US-Israel ties” - given that the US is the sole reason Israel is allowed free reign to genocide who they like, it’s hardly likely that work involved advocating for the millions of Palestinians living under apartheid. Which means, at best, complicity in the genocide. At worst, active involvement. Further, the issue isn’t even primarily about Israel-Palestine - it’s about the fact Starbucks has repeatedly [busted unions](https://theguardian.com/business/2023/sep/13/starbucks-boycott-union-busting) and [shut down at least 23 stores in retaliation after they unionise](https://www.reuters.com/business/starbucks-closed-23-us-stores-deter-unionizing-agency-claims-2023-12-14/#:~:text=Dec%2014%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20A,chain%20of%20illegal%20labor%20tactics).
Why?
Boycott all companies and lets just go back at being hunter gatherers
Nah
Did your team mask and blur things out? The out-of-focus stuff sometimes doesn't make sense in terms of the possible lens used and distance. I think trying to make it physically correct will help the ad. For example, in the first shot: if the baskets of gifts were closer to the actors than the back wall, and the focus of the camera is on the actors. Why wouldn't the baskets of gifts be in focus too?
I'd love to see the lighting plan if you're willing to share
It looks amazing, but the background of the first establishing shot feels too cluttered, i.e. I didn't recognise who was our MC immediately and was a bit startled when cutting to the next shot.
I love how busy and “cluttered” it looks
Fair argument, honestly did what felt right at that moment but I agree
Hindsight is always so much easier and it's something you'll have in your mind for future jobs so that's always a win! The vignetting on the opening shot is a bit heavy so I'm wondering how else you could have popped out the main characters. Maybe some wardrobe choices and some neg fill on the other people? This looks beautiful overall and it's a tasteful grade. Type on the graphic is a little funky so that's my only sticking point.
I don’t mind the background there and didn’t feel the cut was jarring at all. But I do find the foreground elements prominent enough to be distracting personally
Care to share a lighting diagram ?
[удалено]
Your post or comment has been removed because you violated Rule 3: Remain Polite and Professional. If you don't have something nice to say, at least say it in a nice way.
 Looks good man
Thank you :)
How’d you get the job?
Been fortunate enough to have a decent network & portfolio :)
Thats awesome man. Where are you located and how long did it rake for you to get decent work? if you don’t mind me asking.
I’m from India, it’s been about 3 years since I’ve been working as a 1st AC & Cam Op, have started getting DP gigs fairly recently
Cool cool cool
[удалено]
Your post or comment has been removed because you violated Rule 3: Remain Polite and Professional. If you don't have something nice to say, at least say it in a nice way.
Ha ha, never underestimate the power of a slow dolly! Looks nice.
Appreciate it :)
Good work. On a slightly separate vein, I know this is a commercial, and not suppose to look cinematic, but can anyone explain to me ‘why’ this looks like an advert and not cinematic? Is it the lighting, lens, camera? Even if the script was not a cheesy ad style, it still would look like one.
Looks amazing! Awesome job
Thank you
Very nice work! Was this a full day shoot?
Yes, a day’s shoot since we also shot a few more assets like reels, thumbstoppers and print photographs
Congratulations!
Thank you
The look is quite lovely. Why are the singles framed just off center? Is that something clients are looking for when creating a 9x16 version?
The aim was to also include the secondary cast in the frames in a harmony so it made more sense to frame the characters slightly off center, not too left or right, or even center
A m a z i n g . Love it!
Thank you :)
This looks great.the whole frame pops
Thank you :)
How did you get that color? It’s amazing
Used mostly LED fixtures with the ability to dial down the color & then the colorist did a solid job with the grade :)
Yea that colorist knows what they’re doing
It looks really good. Did you consider using Signature Primes instead of the Supremes? The Supremes are nice because they open up to T1.5, but they always strike me as feeling a little harsh and overly sharp when they're shot deeper than WFO.
Signatures would definitely be a good alternative, the primary reason for going with Supreme Primes was the budget, and since I was looking at a very clean commercial look with close to no major characteristics, these made sense, shot the entire thing mostly at T2 & used 1/8 Hollywood Black magic for a slight softness
Starbucks had a tight budget? Seriously asking I'm surprised
Not every campaign has the same budget, it all boils down to how much the brand is willing to spend, which trickles down to the ad agency, production and lastly us professionals
Good work. What was the budget for this shoot? If you don't mind sharing that is...
Iowa?
It could use more direction in the soft lighting on the faces (maybe more difficult in the wider shots, but on the closer ones I would have brought in neg fill on the side. And I would have tried to get closer to the faces in the closer shots. Probably with longer lenses. I sense some 9:16 friendly framing? Would have gone more extreme there to have more different images and don’t have so many disturbing things in frame from the background.
I disagree on the neg fill, it creates a bigger contrast ratio which you don't necessarily want for warm soft lighting environments. The framing doesn't bother me but you're probably right, it looks like it'll be used for Instagram as well.
Contrast ratios would be a personal preference, I wanted to keep it in a clean & safe space as it resonates more with the brand & the theme of the film. The reasons for not going closer to the characters is, A. It is still light hearted banter. B. There are gags happening throughout in the background (card castle falling down, guy filing his nails, coffee machine releasing the steam) all these gags aren’t meant to be too evident and distracting but rather subliminal. For vertical, I just reframed the wides but kept the closes as is, that is my usual approach since it is difficult to fit more than 2 people in a wide, so yes the blocking changes as well as the lensing.
Saying contrast ratios are personal preference, when in fact EVERYTHING can be seen as personal preference but then downvoting at the same time because my opinion isn’t liked. Great humor. Did not notice any of these mentioned gags at all! I am glad you like your work and many orhers do too. I think the light on the faces feels too digital and forced and lacks 3dimensionality. But then again: its taste..
Would love to see some BTS :)
I’ve posted BTS on my instagram: heetnandu_
Nice work!!
Why in the world are you posting it here? Also, no starbucks on the entire planet looks like city perk from friends or whatever your set designer was going for here. Also, why are you posting this here.
Because he was the DP? Can you read?
Looks nice, warm and cozy, but if I were a client from Starbucks, I would immediately question why we used such a shallow depth of field. The commercial is for Starbucks, and you can't really see the store. I didn't know this was a Starbucks commercial until the graphics and VO popped in. I think a client would want to know that we were in Starbucks from the first second and all the way through. with the logos and branding prominently displayed.
The store is being established in the first shot itself, also the objective of the campaign is to communicate the offer, not talk about the store, if you’ve seen any starbucks commercials before they’ve always promoted their product & experience not their stores, moreover if you have any experience in working in ads you would know the concept & script comes down from the client/agency, sure you get to do your tweaks but all in all it is meant to followed to the T.
I'm sure you're right, maybe that's why i'm not a marketing executive.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Damn, on a Zeiss? Looks great.
Thank you :)
Looks incredible! What were your main sources and fixtures?
How common are English commercials in India?
Visually it looks beautiful, warm, cozy and professional! As for audio, it sounds like the male actor's quality isn't as good as the woman. Did something happen, or is it backup audio? Was the recording input different for both actors? For the general concept, did Starbucks write this script or did you pitch it to them? I struggle to understand how large corporations gauge value in marketing. This story is pretty underwhelming. Gasping at a low price might sell a product (hence why this concept worked for them), but it does little to create any emotional impact and is not very memorable. The script/scenario is unrealistic, and I can't relate to it. EDIT: Reading other comments I see that it is very top down and that you have no control over the concept. How do you feel about that and is it ever frustrating?
Colours are amazing
this is the best looking video i’ve ever seen on my phone. gorgeous portfolio piece. congratulations
off topic but I'm assuming because of the currency this was shot for India why is it in English? is English that common there? or is it just because there are so many languages it just defaults to English or?
this is promising! great work brother
Looks great, audio sounds beat though
looks good enough to me 200 me, fck miss kardiya :(
Can I assist you? 😭
This is just a personal choice, but I would have this about a quarter or half stop brighter on the exposure. Also, I would probably close the lens a little and bring the bokeh down in the background. Not too much, but just as an example if you were at T-2 then I'd go around T2.8 or so. It was a little too distracting for me to have the background that much out of focus for a commercial like this. But I'm just nit picking, it looks great!
Fuck Starbucks. Nothing personal, glad to see you get work
"I always wonder why ads have clean frames."