What happened to the theatrical look?

[bclighting]

Pardon my sort of stream of consciousness post, this was something I was talking to my wife last night.

I was sitting watching Raiders of the Lost Ark the other day and thinking about how the theatrical lighting setups of the past seem to have been lost. It made me wonder what has happened to that "look". I have been trying to put my finger on exactly what created the look of the movies of the past. One thing I have noticed was the hard edge and eye level lighting. Today it almost feels like everything has gotten soft. I also noticed that there was much more backlight, hard and intense backlight at that. I miss the look of those older films. There is something warm and intrinsic about them. They invite you in to a time when the movie experience was something special and valued.

After Raiders was on, the new Crystal Skull one was on. I felt like they tried to somewhat reproduce the look of the old ones without much success. Aside from the overuse of CG, I felt that the lighting was almost distractingly wrong.

So with that in mind, I am curious what else was involved in creating the look of the older films. What am I missing and is it still possible to create a film that looks like they do? If so, why has everyone abandoned the techniques of the past. Maybe someone can point me to something new that could pass as a film from 1981.

One again, sorry about the rant, I just has to express what was rattling around in my head.

[gonzo_entertainment]

I'm with you on the preference. We use hard light almost exclusively. Once in a while the roll of 216 will come out, but you'll never see a soft box or a fluoro on our set, ever. Logistics of the shot means sometimes to can't use a rim light, but if there is any way to rig it (and the time) we always use one.

The diffused look has become very popular. I don't know if it's what they teach in film school now or not, but personally I don't care for it.

[nycineaste]

soft light (quite often) = zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..

I'm raised on a steady diet of Hammer films- to me, hard light is what makes movies look like movies. The worst part of the soft light look is the low contrast look of many night scenes. Wally Pfister and the big hollywood boys can pull it off, since they often add edge light and light the background to create contrast (white areas, basically) in the frame, but when I see a short film with that dull, muddy, boring, low-contrast night look (often just with blue added), I want to scream- its such a lost opportunity to create atmosphere. In hard light, night scenes really POP.

ill say it again: I hate hate hate this look, since its so clearly a huge loss of art in the supposed service of "realism"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z6xGU2_g9s

The trend towards naturalism in movies (especially horror movies) needs to die a little death, the genius of Nolan notwithstanding. Thank goodness Sam Raimi came back with Drag Me To Hell to remind us how important expressionism is to horror movies.

The horror movies ROOTS are in german expressionism!

So yeah, join the club, and make it fake with us, at least it'll be interesting!

[maranfilms]

Blame it on digital cameras, At least I do. I have ranted on this subject like crazy in the past. I see lots of people telling guys that are buying their first cam to get a dslr, and to me, with going that route, they dont learn to light because they dont need much light to get exposure. And thats the problem, they only light for exposure, and not for motivation of the scene. I learned to light more working on a camcorder with a dof adapter because it eats tons of light, and that made me really think about how to light a scene in a way to get exposure, but with motivation as well. I'm so glad dslrs wern't out when I started, because I just might be one of the many that dont have a clue as to how to light a scene for mood, ambience, motivation, ect... The other plus, was I needed hard light, I couldn't really get the look, and lumens I was going for with soft boxes, although I do on occasion mix the two. But I agree, I love a 2k fresnel with a tungston lamp. It's so warm and inviting compared to these blueish greenish kinos and leds. I only will us them if I have to. I prefer tungston.

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I'm with you on the preference. We use hard light almost exclusively. Once in a while the roll of 216 will come out, but you'll never see a soft box or a fluoro on our set, ever. Logistics of the shot means sometimes to can't use a rim light, but if there is any way to rig it (and the time) we always use one.

The diffused look has become very popular. I don't know if it's what they teach in film school now or not, but personally I don't care for it.

To defend the 'defused'... look... Most 'natural lighting' is not hard edged, and so, the defused look maps more easily into 'practicals' with support.

I personally have never liked 'hard light' relative to my own image formation, and accept it as a 'style of yore' for films. The only exception is if someone is trying for a 'vintage' look, then I'll evaluate it relative to the vintage antecedents...

For example, I think "Chinatown"(1974) sort of 'fails' relative to B&W Film Noir, but not so much as to be a total failure... but it doesn't quite get there... And it's not just because the use of 'color' film... most of the sets are lit way above 'film noir' levels...

But anyway... for me the 'softer' lights tend to be more realistic... which I think is a dominant element of the current aesthetic.

"Sin City"(2005) had quite a bit of sharp stylized hard lighting, but that 'style' has not been carried by many other 'major' films... In that regard, "The Spirit"(2008) did not do so well...

[Razz16mm]

http://www.arri.com/uploads/pics/arri_studio_t24_01_det.jpg


Big studio fresnels, this one is 24KW tungsten with a 2 ft diameter lens. Nothing else looks quite like them. Hard and soft qualities to the light depending on how you use it. I love fresnels. They are like big optical paint brushes.

Those 70's and 80's negative stocks were not all that fast. Typically 100 ASA or so and maybe 9 stops or so of usable DR.

[berylium]

To defend the 'defused'... look... Most 'natural lighting' is not hard edged, and so, the defused look maps more easily into 'practicals' with support.

I personally have never liked 'hard light' relative to my own image formation, and accept it as a 'style of yore' for films. The only exception is if someone is trying for a 'vintage' look, then I'll evaluate it relative to the vintage antecedents...

For example, I think "Chinatown"(1974) sort of 'fails' relative to B&W Film Noir, but not so much as to be a total failure... but it doesn't quite get there... And it's not just because the use of 'color' film... most of the sets are lit way above 'film noir' levels...

But anyway... for me the 'softer' lights tend to be more realistic... which I think is a dominant element of the current aesthetic.

"Sin City"(2005) had quite a bit of sharp stylized hard lighting, but that 'style' has not been carried by many other 'major' films... In that regard, "The Spirit"(2008) did not do so well...

I'd argue that most old hollywood films AREN'T lit realistically, and that's what gives them the charm and the romance. Rarely is anyone in real life situations lit with 3 point lights... only in photo studios and hollywood backlots.

That's the problem with lighting for realism... it isn't particularly romantic. Realism is boring... just look around you...

[nycineaste]

Clearly though, each quality of light has its strengths and drawbacks, its pretty silly to say one is overall better than the other.

I mean, who wouldn't want to make something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4kO99Sg1fs

I still haven't figured out how to make hard light work for me, as mentioned in another thread- I can make a room look pretty atmospheric (using a dappled key), but I haven't figured out how to light my dames yet. So I might, for my next short, end up using my small softbox and just trying to get some contrast in there. I do truly hate that super-low contrast night look.

[Patryk_Rebisz]

In "Rider's" times the look you speak off wasn't really a look yet but a way of lighting drama comedy adventures. You however trying to get the same look in 2012 will be making it into a "look" - meaning something artificial and imitating the past. Although you are partially right that "Skull's" lighting was wrong - if they were simply trying to replicate the past they too would be doing something wrong mostly because of the "look" comment above. As always when you try to do something new - and here the new of the "Skulls" was simply trying to avoid the past - you risk failing.

[morgan_moore]

Im a soft light man but thats just taste (and practicality)

I think a low ISO stock, (and therefore the need to use lots of light) would tend to create the look you are after, or a lot of ND to create low ISO stock

Its an expensive approach however!

S

[Gabel]

Raiders is very much classical studio lighting, but done very well. Sometimes it can get too "studio-y" for my taste, with double shadows everywhere and so little diffusion it just screams fake.
First things first, classical lighting started out in black and white, where everything was "unnatural" and it looks great there, as contrast is the only separation, but with color... Well I'm not as keen on it.
Because while too soft light lacks definition, it is also unreal, unmotivated and a lot of the time very unflattering (like the look of very hard light with a lot of lens diffusion). That is not to say to never use hard lights. Quite the contrary. To me, the big difference is to keep the fill and ambient light soft, with the key somewhere in between (and changing depending on the mood) and making use of hard spots, like kickers, but to keep them motivated (perhaps a window letting in hard sunlight?).

Here are to start with a great article breaking down Slocombe's work on Indy (and also explaining why it is hard):
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/lighting_against_the_wind_the_making_of_a_mime_mus ic_video/P2/

And another amazing by the same man (Art Adams) explaining the difference between hard and soft light:
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/lighting_strategies_soft_light_vs._hard_light/

I'm going to lend an example from him about both. That is Star Wars. The first film was shot by Gilbert Taylor, BSC, a great old school British DP. He shot Dr. Strangelove which is one the best looking B&W movies out there. But his work on Star Wars is very classical, using a strong hard light that moves from shot to shot completely unmotivated and counteracted by lens diffusion. The second film was shot by Peter Suschitzky, BSC (today famous for his work with Cronenberg) and is absolutely stunning. He was a more modern DP, using mostly soft light. Gone was the unmotivated, ever moving keylight in favor of big, soft sources. It is a film that could essentially have been made "yesterday". It was more real and to me it is beautiful.

[cpc]

I'd argue that most old hollywood films AREN'T lit realistically, and that's what gives them the charm and the romance. Rarely is anyone in real life situations lit with 3 point lights... only in photo studios and hollywood backlots.

That's the problem with lighting for realism... it isn't particularly romantic. Realism is boring... just look around you...

I disagree.
Naturalistic lighting is often about cheating an ugly light into a beautiful light, without making it appear unnatural. You need to imagine images, see beauty in unexpected angles and "help" existing light. Sounds much less boring to me than just pointing a few hard lights towards the subject and yelling "Action!".
I also doubt that anyone out of the professional film/video world would ever call hard light "romantic". Softish light doesn't exist just because. It is the look of dawn and dusk, the look of the large window, the subtle look of the great paintings: half-tones and wrapping light suggesting shapes, not simply revealing them outright.
This is not to say that hard light is bad. On the contrary, it can be striking, beautiful, and, of course, realistic.


If you watch the old movies carefully you will see that DPs take great care to make hard light appear soft when lighting ladies. Both through frontal positioning to minimize shadows and skin texture, and through on-lens diffusion to minimize skin imperfections and add glow.

BTW, War Horse is a recent example of multiple hard unmotivated sources.

[Gabel]

@cpc: Very well said. It's a great idea to know and understand hard light, but soft light, being more natural is always about motivating light. That light can then be hard too. It's just that if you look around you, there might be a hard sunlight shining into the room and then bouncing off the floor, into the roof and back down, creating a soft ambient level inside, but having a hard source too.

[bclighting]

I am really enjoying this thread and everyone's insight and thoughts. I find it very interesting to see how things were done pretty much the same for 40+ years and then within a decade or so they seemed to have changed so drastically.

Since I started in theater I have always been intrigued by the unmotivated sources of the old movies. It reminds me of theater, which makes sense since that is the birthplace of it all. I agree that fast film stocks and now faster digital sensors are partially to blame. There is nothing like lighting a set with 100,000 kw of light just to get an exposure. Lighting not withstanding, I have to wonder if also the lenses used have changed and become sharper.

As I was looking up some of the other films that popped to mind, like The Sting, I saw that most of these DPs have long since passed. Could part of these techniques (if they could even be called that) have been lost as that generation left?

[gonzo_entertainment]

"But anyway... for me the 'softer' lights tend to be more realistic..."

There's where we get into aesthetics and no "right" answer. The LAST thing I want my shots to look like is "realistic". I'm very much into "Hollywood lighting". On my first film I told my DP to go watch lots of 1940's Warner Brothers.

[nycineaste]

If you watch the old movies carefully you will see that DPs take great care to make hard light appear soft when lighting ladies.

BTW, War Horse is a recent example of multiple hard unmotivated sources.

this thread just got deep:

It's funny you say this- Ive been researching hard light techniques for awhile and one secret I discovered, is that, done well, a scene lit in hard light doesn't look too "sourcey", or obviously lit- in other words, the lighting, while not strictly realistic, is CONVINCING. You do, sometimes, use the idea of motivation, and often use multiple lights (often lighting the background seperately, and often in sections) to build up an organic effect that looks like it could be a natural part of the environment. So, at best, hard lighting is done somewhat naturalistically (although our idea of whats natural has changed with time).

Pulp Fiction DP Andzrej Sekula lights in hard light, and you can see here how the hard light feels like a natural part of the environment:

(warning- language):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-7f7vVCqvI

[CallaghanFilms]

...they dont learn to light because they dont need much light to get exposure. And thats the problem, they only light for exposure, and not for motivation of the scene...This.
I'd argue that most old hollywood films AREN'T lit realistically, and that's what gives them the charm and the romance......And this.

[David Jimerson]

This....And this.

Yes. Much as with the movement of 24 fps, there's a certain unreality which makes things cinematic.

If you want things truly natural, walk around with a camcorder. Boom. You're done.

If you want things cinematic, do the work which gives it to you.

[Gary Huff]

If you want things cinematic, do the work which gives it to you.

Best summation I've heard in a while.

[David Topete]

I have always preferred the look of the soft lit "naturalistic" movies in the 70s. Don't get me wrong I love those classic "Hollywood" lit movies from my childhood. However, I prefer the lighting found in Taxi Driver, A Clockwork Orange, The French Connection and so on much more. One new film that I think replicates the look well is "Milk". Part of the reason though is that it's supposed to take place in the 70s so it LOOKS like its from the 70s.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5x9bD6aoss

Although, as stated before, hard lit sources can also be done well to be part of the environment like in Pulp Fiction. Another one of my favorites being "The Thing" from 1982.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0Z44BIDPPc

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I have to wonder if also the lenses used have changed and become sharper.

Yes, lenses have gotten 'sharper' for several reasons. Older lenses, such as 'pre-50's' often were not coated. Coating became available in the late 30's, but the 'war' effort sort of put everything on hold. One can recall the business about Kaminski having the coating removed from modern lenses to get the vintage look of the shots in "Saving Private Ryan"(1998).

Each glass element in a multielement lens addes to 'flare' if not coated. The coating reduces flare. Flare decreases contrast, which humans interpret as 'sharpness'. In addition, older lenses where 'hand ground', and 'hand calculated', and so did not have the aspheric corrections to allow all the wavelengths in 'visible' light to be focused at the same point. The older lenses would have some aberations, and so, this lended to a 'softer look'. Since most films were B&W, the non-convergence tended to 'blur' rather than color banding/blur.

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Yes. Much as with the movement of 24 fps, there's a certain unreality which makes things cinematic.

If you want things truly natural, walk around with a camcorder. Boom. You're done.



Uh... no... the Camcorder will record the scene as 'it sees it'... not how the human would see it... which is why even in 'natural lighting' set ups, care has to be taken to say, 'soften shadows', place light in 'black holes', etc on a given set/location.

That's because the human vision system does a great amount of dynamic adjustment even in the presence of 'high contrast'.

The closest thing I've seen recently that would allow for 'total naturalism'... is a device that I saw at NAB, which was an Neutral Density filter, that was 'individual pixel' controlled. If a realtime analyzer were to 'look' at the image being presented to the camera, and adjust the ND filter on a pixel by pixel basis, a wide dynamic range image could be mapped into what the camera could accommodate...

As it was the company was touting this filter's ability to create a sharper 'temporal' filter to eliminate motion aliasing, such as spoked wheels appearing to 'turn backwards', which is a common film artifact, as well as human vision system artifact...

[Razz16mm]

I'd argue that most old hollywood films AREN'T lit realistically, and that's what gives them the charm and the romance. Rarely is anyone in real life situations lit with 3 point lights... only in photo studios and hollywood backlots.

That's the problem with lighting for realism... it isn't particularly romantic. Realism is boring... just look around you...

Film and theater both emulate motivated natural light sources at their best. But you do have to add sources that may not be naturalistic to get correct exposure, to focus attention on some aspect of a set or scene, or for more flattering appearance for actors in closeup. The art lies in making those look naturalistic. Light is like paint for the cinematographer.
Theater classically uses a combination of 4 point opposite diagonal cool/warm pairs for general modeling and illumination plus motivated key sources too.

TV news crews use 3 point lighting.

[David Jimerson]

Uh... no... the Camcorder will record the scene as 'it sees it'... not how the human would see it... which is why even in 'natural lighting' set ups, care has to be taken to say, 'soften shadows', place light in 'black holes', etc on a given set/location.

That's because the human vision system does a great amount of dynamic adjustment even in the presence of 'high contrast'.

OK, take the limitations of the camera out of it. The point is, doing no work at all would give you total realism. But no one wants that.

[Razz16mm]

OK, take the limitations of the camera out of it. The point is, doing no work at all would give you total realism. But no one wants that.

You can't take the camera out of it and have a film. What the camera records does not necessarily look like what your eyes see. So total realism as in what you see or what the camera sees?
You can do the work to get the most out of the natural available light, you can augment the available light, or you can overpower it and create something completely different. But the camera will only record what it sees, not what you see or want to see.
There is a lot of beautiful compelling footage shot with only natural available light, but you can bet in most cases if it really looks good it was not shot casually. There is always work to do: picking camera angles to get the best composition and light on your subject, picking time of day, scouting locations for light sources intensity and direction, correct exposure, etc. What about camera filtration or light modification with reflectors or diffusion?

But if you don't do the work, there is no one to blame for dull poorly composed boring footage but the photographer.

[David Jimerson]

You can't take the camera out of it and have a film. What the camera records does not necessarily look like what your eyes see. So total realism as in what you see or what the camera sees?
You can do the work to get the most out of the natural available light, you can augment the available light, or you can overpower it and create something completely different. But the camera will only record what it sees, not what you see or want to see.
There is a lot of beautiful compelling footage shot with only natural available light, but you can bet in most cases if it really looks good it was not shot casually. There is always work to do: picking camera angles to get the best composition and light on your subject, picking time of day, scouting locations for light sources intensity and direction, correct exposure, etc. What about camera filtration or light modification with reflectors or diffusion?

But if you don't do the work, there is no one to blame for dull poorly composed boring footage but the photographer.

I'm not at ALL advocating that anyone do what I said. In fact, I'm saying exactly the opposite -- do the work.

[Razz16mm]

I'm not at ALL advocating that anyone do what I said. In fact, I'm saying exactly the opposite -- do the work.

:thumbsup: I get really tired of flat noisy grossly underexposed DSLR footy. No "cinematic" qualities there.

[dop16mm]

Much of 'Raiders' was lit with classic Carbon Arc lamps which at the time and for years before was the big gun of studio lighting. They have long since been replaced by big HMI's and modern tungstens that can be 12K and above. Modern lighting instruments just don't have the same look, for better or worse. On several recent period films, 'Crystal Skull' and I think War Horse, Spielberg has lamented about not having access to the old arc's to re-create the style.

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

OK, take the limitations of the camera out of it. The point is, doing no work at all would give you total realism. But no one wants that.

Every time I hear(read) the word 'realism'... I think of "Socialist Realism"... which typically wasn't real, but a buzz word created to distance 'socialist' art from 'decadent capitalist' art... and directed to the 'truth'... that is only the positive aspects of the Socialist Worker's Paradise...

But I digress...

I suppose that I think of 'realism' as used here, would be use/support existing 'real light', and modify it for a dramatic effect. If I shot a scene on stage, I may actually setup a spot, hair, and fill in a 'three point' configuration (or just the spot...). But unless the venue had an existing 'hair light' potential like ceiling mounted pars, as some clubs and restaurants do... I'd not set that up normally. If the existing lighting wasn't sufficient for my camera... of course add more... but the 'hard light from nowhere'... there to give a future Marlene Dietrich 'butterflies'... with nose grease on a glass filter to give a 'soft glow' while eye lashes are razor sh not really...

As a note... the "Artist"(2011)... felt 'softer' in lighting than those films of the era... perhaps due to shooting on color film... perhaps lighting... perhaps both... But then I've not seen real(tm) B&W from Negative to Projection Print projected in a very long time... probably since I was young and there would be silent film nights... at certain 'cool' theaters.

[David Jimerson]

By "realism," I mean "exactly like real life."

[DVXBrenda]

Great thread, by the way...
I think we film-goers are programmed to expect great, dramatic lighting. Natural lighting doesn't seem natural because it's not what we're used to. Watching a Dogme film hurts my eyes. And, I admit, I didn't like Barry Lyndon (not just because of Ryan O'Neal's performance.)

[bclighting]

Much of 'Raiders' was lit with classic Carbon Arc lamps which at the time and for years before was the big gun of studio lighting. They have long since been replaced by big HMI's and modern tungstens that can be 12K and above. Modern lighting instruments just don't have the same look, for better or worse. On several recent period films, 'Crystal Skull' and I think War Horse, Spielberg has lamented about not having access to the old arc's to re-create the style.

This got me thinking. They way things have gotten more sensitive as led to the reduction on the amount of light needed to obtain exposure. I wonder if the massive amount of light needed in the past also created part of the look.

On another note, were most carbon fixture also open face type parabolic fixtures with large reflectors? I would think that if you have a large format fixture with a hard beam you would get hard light with a certain softness to it. I may have to play around with that idea, a hard light with a large diameter source and see what happens.

[stefancolson]

This got me thinking. They way things have gotten more sensitive as led to the reduction on the amount of light needed to obtain exposure. I wonder if the massive amount of light needed in the past also created part of the look.

I hear this expressed quite often. Is it the actual quantity of light that makes a difference, or the fact that because the amount of light needed was great enough to pretty much render any ambient light useless, they were basically always "lighting from zero"? I'm willing to bet that a very similar look could be achieved with far fewer watts by starting with a pitch-black location and using similar techniques (things like the specific look of arc lamps notwithstanding).

[David Jimerson]

I'm willing to bet that a very similar look could be achieved with far fewer watts by starting with a pitch-black location and using similar techniques (things like the specific look of arc lamps notwithstanding).

Actually, we pretty much demonstrate that on the Lighting DVD.

[David W. Jones]

The majority of my work, TV commercials. I really enjoy seeing a spot air that had the time and effort, AKA expense put into it where I can say to my wife for example, that was a nice spot. The lighting on the food was perfect! That also translates into the world of indie film production, where so many youngsters feel that their camera can almost see in the dark so they don't need to light. It's also really sad in this day and age of no budget producers who refuse to spend a dime on any type of stylized lighting, and produce the most unwatchable garbage. What's the point?

[gonzo_entertainment]

We try to whenever possible make ambient or practical lights irrelevant. The first thing I do is go around and change every light bulb to a 15w, 25w, etc... (carry a box full of them in my kit). Then usually (not 100% of the time) unless a window is part of the shot we black out every window at the location. I'm so old school if I had budget (which I don't) I would literally shoot everything on a sound stage and rarely use real locations.

[David Jimerson]

We try to whenever possible make ambient or practical lights irrelevant. The first thing I do is go around and change every light bulb to a 15w, 25w, etc... (carry a box full of them in my kit). Then usually (not 100% of the time) unless a window is part of the shot we black out every window at the location. I'm so old school if I had budget (which I don't) I would literally shoot everything on a sound stage and rarely use real locations.

This is a tangent from the thread, but . . . if you're going to all this effort to make the lighting, production design, etc., as good as you can, then why don't you put as much effort into your performances? Ultimately, it's the actors -- that is, the characters -- the audience watches. The rest is atmosphere. You should get the atmosphere right. But none of that matters without the performances to match.

Anyway, just a thought.

[Gary Huff]

But none of that matters without the performances to match.

Agreed. Nothing kills a good script and great shot like shitty acting.

[CallaghanFilms]

Even before the shitty acting begins (or before the shit hits the cam, if you will), a setup/scene can be obliterated by talent the camera doesn't like. Ah, the lost art of screen testing...

[David Jimerson]

Ah, the lost art of screen testing...

This, too. There's really no excuse in the age of digital not to do it. It costs you (virtually) nothing.

[gonzo_entertainment]

This is a tangent from the thread, but . . . if you're going to all this effort to make the lighting, production design, etc., as good as you can, then why don't you put as much effort into your performances? Ultimately, it's the actors -- that is, the characters -- the audience watches. The rest is atmosphere. You should get the atmosphere right. But none of that matters without the performances to match.

Anyway, just a thought.

I don't think any of us (especially only a couple years in as I am) is the complete package. In fact most directors (below the elite best in the business) aren't the complete package. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. I am a pretty good writer and have some "talent" as far as creating the mise en scene. I have WAY too strong a tendency to just let the actors go with their instincts (unless they are really far afield from what I want) just because the process of guiding them is pretty trying and often unpleasant. I'm working on it. I'm also experimenting with an AD as the conduit between me and the actors.

[dvbrother]

Bringing it back to "Raiders of the Lost Ark", keep in mind that even when it was released, it subscribed to an intentionally antiquated look in its lighting. Spielberg and Lucas wanted to revive the old serials from their childhoods and the cinematography tips its hat to the more stylized look of classical Hollywood. Douglas Slocombe, the DP of the first 3 Indy films, was shooting movies since the 1940's, and shot some of the classic Ealing Studios comedies like "The Man in the White Suit" and "The Lavender Hill Mob". He was 67 years-old when he shot "Raiders". Not bad!

But it really had a different look to what Hollywood was up to in the 1970's. A more naturalistic, soft light look was becoming quite the norm for many Hollywood movies during that decade, based partly on the influence of such soft-light masters as Sven Nyquist. Some DPs did well with both hard and soft light (Gordon Willis, for one). But look at the work of Nestor Alemendros, Laszlo Kovacs, Haskell Wexler, Conrad Hall and many, many more. Naturalism was huge in the years right before "Raiders". Even Jordan Cronenweth, who shot "Blade Runner" developed "Crony Lights", which were very similar to modern Chimera soft boxes.
However, you're right. I'm a little tired of the soft, flat, Kino-fied world of modern cinema. Watching old, expressionist black-and-white films with jet-black hard shadows brings warmth to my heart.
Let's use both styles for all the right reasons!

[Gabel]

Bringing it back to "Raiders of the Lost Ark", keep in mind that even when it was released, it subscribed to an intentionally antiquated look in its lighting. Spielberg and Lucas wanted to revive the old serials from their childhoods and the cinematography tips its hat to the more stylized look of classical Hollywood. Douglas Slocombe, the DP of the first 3 Indy films, was shooting movies since the 1940's, and shot some of the classic Ealing Studios comedies like "The Man in the White Suit" and "The Lavender Hill Mob". He was 67 years-old when he shot "Raiders". Not bad!

But it really had a different look to what Hollywood was up to in the 1970's. A more naturalistic, soft light look was becoming quite the norm for many Hollywood movies during that decade, based partly on the influence of such soft-light masters as Sven Nyquist. Some DPs did well with both hard and soft light (Gordon Willis, for one). But look at the work of Nestor Alemendros, Laszlo Kovacs, Haskell Wexler, Conrad Hall and many, many more. Naturalism was huge in the years right before "Raiders". Even Jordan Cronenweth, who shot "Blade Runner" developed "Crony Lights", which were very similar to modern Chimera soft boxes.
However, you're right. I'm a little tired of the soft, flat, Kino-fied world of modern cinema. Watching old, expressionist black-and-white films with jet-black hard shadows brings warmth to my heart.
Let's use both styles for all the right reasons!

Very important, Raiders did not look at all like your typical 80s movie (and was one of the last really classically lit films).
The nice thing about soft light in the 70s and 80s was that while you wanted to keep it soft and natural, it was still hard when it needed to be. Willis is a perfect example, as he switches from harder sources to softer sources, depending on what the scene requieres (and also what is providing the light). Many modern movies as you say have that super soft and flat light, but some can keep the spirit of that. Robbie Richardson springs to mind, as while he often has soft fills and keys, he uses small spot lights to create gradations or really nice kickers for the characters. It gives everything a very three dimensional space really. Same thing with Wally Pfister and of course Deakins, who's probably the most "realistic" DP there is, but it never looks flat or bland what he does.

[dvbrother]

Many modern movies as you say have that super soft and flat light, but some can keep the spirit of that. Robbie Richardson springs to mind, as while he often has soft fills and keys, he uses small spot lights to create gradations or really nice kickers for the characters. It gives everything a very three dimensional space really. Same thing with Wally Pfister and of course Deakins, who's probably the most "realistic" DP there is, but it never looks flat or bland what he does.

I agree. Look, there are some really great DPs working today doing great work. Deakins, Richardson, as you mentioned. I think, on the more flashy side, Dan Mindel (Abrams' Star Trek) does amazing work, lens flares and all. Too many good cinematographers to mention. I think one of the main differences is use of hard light, which now seems to be reserved for big HMI lights punching though windows or lighting exteriors. The simple small fresnel used for a key or backlight seems to be on the decline, with Kinos or china balls replacing them now. Which is great, it all looks soft and amazing on skin, but that punchy look of hard light needs to be brought back into the mainstream.

[Gabel]

I agree. Look, there are some really great DPs working today doing great work. Deakins, Richardson, as you mentioned. I think, on the more flashy side, Dan Mindel (Abrams' Star Trek) does amazing work, lens flares and all. Too many good cinematographers to mention. I think one of the main differences is use of hard light, which now seems to be reserved for big HMI lights punching though windows or lighting exteriors. The simple small fresnel used for a key or backlight seems to be on the decline, with Kinos or china balls replacing them now. Which is great, it all looks soft and amazing on skin, but that punchy look of hard light needs to be brought back into the mainstream.

Well said. Mindel is very nice, so if Larry Fong. As you say, the modern soft light look is amazing on skin tones, but's that why I think it can mix so well with smaller harder lights. The big difference now is that we don't need hard light to provide the key or the fill, but instead they can be used to create character, but too many people skip this I'm afraid.

[gonzo_entertainment]

I re-watched "Gone With the Wind" last night. A veritable orgy of unmotivated rim light. I loved it.

[legrevedotcom]

Isnt this partly what Anne Foerste is doing with Anonymous? I know she was blasting hmis throuh the windows but a lot of the shots are lovely contrasty... Not jet black but very lovely!

[mail4joeg]

"I'd argue that most old hollywood films AREN'T lit realistically, and that's what gives them the charm and the romance. Rarely is anyone in real life situations lit with 3 point lights... only in photo studios and hollywood backlots.
That's the problem with lighting for realism... it isn't particularly romantic. Realism is boring... just look around you..."

Seriously? This is the discussion?

I have no problem with enhancing the subject, but lighting like the old days? It's not done anymore for good reason. There's a fine line between "romantic" and glaringly fake. Reailty isn't boring, unless the person perceiving it is boring.

I certainly welcome the move toward more natural lighting, and those guys who do it make some of the best stuff out there: Deakins, Wally Pfister, Malick, even Kubrick pioneered natural lighting. You're going to say their films are "boring" because of the natrualistic lighting? I'll take that over that face blasted sound stage stuff from the 50's any day.

[gonzo_entertainment]

Matter of taste.
"Naturalistic" lighting has a place. There is subject matter that would look silly done any other way, but that doesn't mean others can't also love the stylized romantic look of those older films. Hard shadows and "beauty" or "hero" lighting. Personally I love it.