Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 81
  1. Collapse Details
    #41
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,135
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DLD View Post
    I once met Denise Crosby. She wasn't lit at all.

    (I also didn't know who she was ... someone had to tell me)
    I hope she was nicer than her co-star, Marina Sirtis(Counselor Deanna Troi). We did a multi-camera shoot with her years ago for an SMT of the opening of a Star Trek themed roller coaster and she was a prima donna *****.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #42
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,054
    Default
    6a00df351e888f8834026be40bdf23200d-800wi.jpg

    Tom Neal as Al Roberts in Edgar G. Ulmer's Detour, 1945


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #43
    Senior Member JPNola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    New Orleans USA
    Posts
    1,441
    Default
    There are many DP's working today who have never executed hard-lighting and would struggle at it. It's an entirely different thing, in a way. You often have to choose one part of a shot to light for best. That is, the lighting is only going to be perfect on the actor at one head position and will quickly go to crap as soon at they turn their head during the scene. You have to choose when in the shot you want that best-lighting to be. When the actor looks at the other actor in the shot? Or when the actor more looks out of the window? Where do I place the good lighting? With use of large source soft-lighting it is more possible to have 'good' lighting throughout the entire shot. Because soft is more forgiving and less dependent upon precision.


    If Wells turns his head left or right even a little bit in the shot below, the place and fall of the shadows goes to crap quickly. The hard-light is really only optimal for one exact head position.

    Citizen Kane 9a.jpg

    With lighting for tv where subjects look at the camera, it's relatively simple because you light for that head position. Things get tricky with multiple cameras and multiple subjects altering the direction they are looking. Especially the "round-table" type of setup. It's not always possible to light someone well for two camera angles concurrently. One camera angle is going to suffer, so you choose which angle that will be.
    Big sources matter.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #44
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,054
    Default
    Screen Shot 2020-12-01 at 8.23.15 AM.jpg

    OK technically the lighting is motivated. But c'mon

    from Star Trek Voyager, S5EP16 "Dark Frontier" (1999) - cinematographer Marvin V. Rush
    www.VideoAbe.com

    "Captain, the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is 'I do not know.'" - Lt. Cmdr. Data


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #45
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    11,342
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    Screen Shot 2020-12-01 at 8.23.15 AM.jpg

    OK technically the lighting is motivated. But c'mon

    from Star Trek Voyager, S5EP16 "Dark Frontier" (1999) - cinematographer Marvin V. Rush
    Interesting choice, it's exact opposite of the classic slash of light illuminating the eyes look, this is more like a big shadow covering the right eye and the left eye in full illumination.
    It probably looked better in context with movement but this still doesn't look very flattering to the alien, almost looks like a mistake although I know it wasn't.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #46
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,054
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    .
    It probably looked better in context with movement but this still doesn't look very flattering to the alien, almost looks like a mistake although I know it wasn't.
    The alien is the borg queen, so - total archvillain. They also do a nice thing with giving her glassy black irises.

    For context, here is the queen lowering her organic bits into her machine body:

    voy-unimatrixzeroparti2a.jpg

    And here is the actress irl:
    Susanna_Thompson.jpg

    So yeah they're trying to make her look terrifying.

    Brilliant character imo. And was the villain in the excellent feature film star trek: first contact (but a different actress and incarnation of the queen)


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #47
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    11,342
    Default
    Cool character but I still don't like the lighting on that frame at least. The other shot looks cool. Pretty lady too playing her.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #48
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,054
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    Cool character but I still don't like the lighting on that frame at least. The other shot looks cool. Pretty lady too playing her.
    Why not? You think it should be more flattering?


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #49
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    11,342
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    Why not? You think it should be more flattering?
    No, not flattering just less distracting. I could sell ominous or significant a lot better with some other face lighting tricks.
    Not having seen the episode and not knowing the character, I might try something noir looking to have her face more hidden
    in shadows, then revealed, it seems really bright around the shadow for a makeup SFX character to me.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #50
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,054
    Default
    It worked pretty well for me when I was watching it. The highlight on the side of her face is a bit too bright for my taste and looks kind of ugly. But I think that's the point and contribute to a lo-fi grungy vibe. The slash of shadow on the face is obviously very carefully placed if you are paying close attention to the lighting. But I think the pattern of light and shadow is beautiful and that laymen won't give it a second thought.

    Re:revealing a makeup SFx character- the artificiality and rubberiness is intentional I think

    Different scene from same episode below - at 1:30 you can see the same lighting design in motion:



    Reply With Quote
     

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •