Available Light

scorsesefan

scorsesefan

Veteran
I shoot mostly personal documentaries at this point and due to Long Covid and a back problem I started leaving my light kit at home. I have always shot verite this way, but even shooting talking head stuff I find myself for the most part being able to adapt to/adapt the practicals and natural light sources to my shooting needs. My current cam is a low light beast (fx3) and I'm meticulous about WB. Anyone else doing this? Any additional tips?
 
I don't mind a minimalist setup once in awhile, but I have to at least have a dimmable daylight (or bi-color) key light for the subject's face. It just looks so much better when you can pop a little lighting from the proper angle, plus it gives them some nice catch lights in the eyes. Everything else is optional, but a key light is . . . key. The variable ND on my FX6 makes it so easy to dial in just the right amount of exposure to pull it all together.
 
The portable LED market is probably more saturated than any other (in video production); there are so many small panels, tubes, even larger foldable kits to choose from that you should be able to find something to bring/add to your kit.

On a budget, I loved the Quasar Science tubes (the original ones that were very cheap) with a dimmer from Amazon, but they were a real pain to set up if you don't do thorough research and have everything you should.

$30 for an unmatched amount of light output for the price:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...600k_2_tb.html
 
Surely in this day and age there is a setup that can take a tiny COB light and spread it out via a collapsible/inflatable diffuser to make a reasonable sized key light for interviews....? Do I have to invent a setup that expands out into a booklight?
 
CharlesPapert said:
Surely in this day and age there is a setup that can take a tiny COB light and spread it out via a collapsible/inflatable diffuser to make a reasonable sized key light for interviews....? Do I have to invent a setup that expands out into a booklight?
Click to expand...

Invent it, Charles. AFAIK all of the softboxes that will give you some decent soft light are the big parabolic softboxes...
 
Experience with artificial lighting has made me much better at using natural light (and practicals). I find that I still think in terms of fill, key, eye light, soft and hard light, separation even when it's just me, the sun and some walls.

Often though, if I've brought no lights at all I'll find a setup that would have been PERFECT with the addition of one light source. So my super-minimal kit has one LED COB (60 watts) w/ softbox and one tiny Aputure panel that I can attach to a clamp. As someone on another thread said once - a small LED COB isn't a light, it's a get-out-of-jail card.

If the problem is your back rather than setup time you could also bring a few of those standard-fitting LED bulbs for replacing practicals and a pack of gels for any bigger sources that are the wrong colour.
 
Last edited:
As with everything in video. skill and experience is the way forward. Matching the kit to the job.

Both of these statements have value.

'I wait for the perfect light, i dont interfere with nature'

'june - doing the christmas advert: after blacking out the location we opened with with a soft 12.12 for fill, art and I worked to deliver the coloured pracitcals you see on the screen, I think there were 200 odd fixtures across the three sets, luckily my gaffer noted all my settings and positions as two days later we were back for some pickups"

====

I would note..

The sun is big power ful far away (no inverse squeare law hassles) and free.

Maybe the first step is using the sun (or cloudy sky)

Then maybe we start to modify the sun, the simplest modifiers are some white toilet paper from the rest room, the back of a menu or magazine, an aluminium tray or pan lid ( free siht youfind on location. - (can you tell food was one of my earliest gigs!)

Then there are purchased modifiers .. maybe an 18in pop out diffuser (one of my standard items in my most mobile kit) or a 4.4 bit of shower curtain and 1/4 a roll of tape. There are $20 or under and fit in the side pouch of a bag. Window, showr curtain, interviewee.. will be top end quality work

If you are working no lights .. you MUST have a 4.4 shower curtain and some clips or tape.

Using them well wll bring serious good results.

I guess my next step is being able to see if it is dark.. I have a 28w amazon panel ($100) and a 40w 'electric dedo' ($500*), and vlocks. One, only one, of these lights will basially 'get me out of jail in the dark and by part of a small shooting package. I might consider a single aperture MC for this role. the 18in pop out is the basic diffusion. A superclamp with 'pin' is the smallest 'grip package**' for work with one of these fixtures.

Beyond that im in my little truck or part of a crew with a few ton gaffer lorry.

I think my main comment is that sun+shower curtain may deliver stronger images than a poorly used 'three point light kit'

I think a strong thing lights deliver is consistency in the cut.

One one my best 'weapons' is my 6x4 diffusor I can keep setup in my van. But now we wander into actual lighting :)

====




*on set my battery dedo became known as the 'electric dedo' whereas the mains dedos are just dedos.. it was funny if you were there.

** a 'C clamp' (with 5/8 pin) maybe smaller chaeap lighter than a superclamp.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/C-Clamp-Att...s%2C251&sr=8-5

the power of a cardelini clamp is not needed to support tiny fixtures.
 
Last edited:
Andy9 said:
Experience with artificial lighting has made me much better at using natural light (and practicals). I find that I still think in terms of fill, key, eye light, soft and hard light, separation even when it's just me, the sun and some walls.

Often though, if I've brought no lights at all I'll find a setup that would have been PERFECT with the addition of one light source. So my super-minimal kit has one LED COB (60 watts) w/ softbox and one tiny Aputure panel that I can attach to a clamp. As someone on another thread said once - a small LED COB isn't a light, it's a get-out-of-jail card.

If the problem is your back rather than setup time you could also bring a few of those standard-fitting LED bulbs for replacing practicals and a pack of gels for any bigger sources that are the wrong colour.
Click to expand...
Thanks. The problem is my back and time. The usual scenario is me scrambling to set up equipment while talking to the interview subject (I’m the director as well) so I feel the pressure to get things going quickly…
 
scorsesefan said:
Thanks. The problem is my back and time. The usual scenario is me scrambling to set up equipment while talking to the interview subject (I’m the director as well) so I feel the pressure to get things going quickly…
Click to expand...

I never allow the interview subject to be in the room while I setup. Never. There are many reasons NOT to have them around, for my benefit as well as their own.
 
Yeah, one of the worst things for one man bands.

Many of us have experienced the pins and needles and internal brain-on-fire while a subject is in the room waiting and you're setting up lights, moving lights, setting up cameras, switching lenses, checking specs, wiring lavs, checking connections, testing levels, moving this here, moving that there...all while the PA/assistant or two kind of just stand there because it's just quicker just to do it yourself.

When I was working more in production I made it a #1 priority to get to a location 2-3 hours before (if possible) and have it all to myself to prepare it well.

Of course not always possible when you have multiple locations in one day, one after another, running-and-gunning your little tail off.
 
Whenever possible I set up before the subject arrives but it’s not always possible. Often I’m shooting in the subject’s office or other personal space and asking them to leave is not possible. I also find the more time you spend with the subject beforehand the more at ease they become…
 
CharlesPapert said:
Surely in this day and age there is a setup that can take a tiny COB light and spread it out via a collapsible/inflatable diffuser to make a reasonable sized key light for interviews....? Do I have to invent a setup that expands out into a booklight?
Click to expand...

not exactly a collapsible booklight, but close -- the umbrella softbox: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1110969-REG/savage_usb43b_umbrella_softbox_bounce_43.html

I have numerous sizes of this as well as grids that I clip on
 
scorsesefan said:
I shoot mostly personal documentaries at this point and due to Long Covid and a back problem I started leaving my light kit at home. I have always shot verite this way, but even shooting talking head stuff I find myself for the most part being able to adapt to/adapt the practicals and natural light sources to my shooting needs. My current cam is a low light beast (fx3) and I'm meticulous about WB. Anyone else doing this? Any additional tips?
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of shooting with available light but as a viewer, depending on the documentary, don't really care if the interviews aren't polished and think it can sometimes add to the look.

I think at this point the available light look is hardly adding much production value. Can you instead lean completely into the non-set up, with the trade off being you gain more of your schedule back? As in, at least think about what a faster, no frills interview would get you in terms of the overall documentary. If it's the difference between shooting extra, potentially much more interesting scenes with the subject then being faster could be a huge help. So many netflix documentaries go all out on the interviews simply because all they have for b-roll are panning over photos or (please no more) cinegraphs.
 
rob norton said:
I'm not a fan of shooting with available light but as a viewer, depending on the documentary, don't really care if the interviews aren't polished and think it can sometimes add to the look.

I think at this point the available light look is hardly adding much production value. Can you instead lean completely into the non-set up, with the trade off being you gain more of your schedule back? As in, at least think about what a faster, no frills interview would get you in terms of the overall documentary. If it's the difference between shooting extra, potentially much more interesting scenes with the subject then being faster could be a huge help. So many netflix documentaries go all out on the interviews simply because all they have for b-roll are panning over photos or (please no more) cinegraphs.
Click to expand...

Well said, Rob. My docs are heavily verite, so the interviews are the potatoes not the meat. Very much the opposite of the typical Netflix documentary...
 
rob norton said:
So many netflix documentaries go all out on the interviews simply because all they have for b-roll are panning over photos or (please no more) cinegraphs.
Click to expand...

Uh, good interviews and interesting/engaging b-roll are not mutually exclusive.

If a show has shitty interviews, I quit. If it's not worth your time to shoot a pleasing shot, then it's not worth my time to watch your half-assed lazy work. If you don't care about visuals, then perhaps a podcast or radio documentary is more appropriate.

On a related note, I try my best not to watch anything that relies on Zoom-style interviews. If it's not important enough for the producers to send a professional crew to do it right, then it's not important enough for me to watch. If you don't stand up for standards, and refuse to watch or be associated with garbage content, then you are part of the problem and don't cry when your entire profession is replaced with consumers shooting with cell phones.

So, go ahead and leave your lights at home. Leave your tripod too. Maybe just bring an on-camera microphone to make things even easier. After all, the main goal of production is to carry less gear and move faster. A great recipe for success.
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
Uh, good interviews and interesting/engaging b-roll are not mutually exclusive.

If a show has ****ty interviews, I quit. If it's not worth your time to shoot a pleasing shot, then it's not worth my time to watch your half-assed lazy work. If you don't care about visuals, then perhaps a podcast or radio documentary is more appropriate.

On a related note, I try my best not to watch anything that relies on Zoom-style interviews. If it's not important enough for the producers to send a professional crew to do it right, then it's not important enough for me to watch. If you don't stand up for standards, and refuse to watch or be associated with garbage content, then you are part of the problem and don't cry when your entire profession is replaced with consumers shooting with cell phones.

So, go ahead and leave your lights at home. Leave your tripod too. Maybe just bring an on-camera microphone to make things even easier. After all, the main goal of production is to carry less gear and move faster. A great recipe for success.
Click to expand...

They're usually not mutually exclusive but they might be. I agree if something looks bad it's a reflection on the overall effort, but I didn't say anything about the interviews looking bad. Not that a nicely lit interview is bound to the living room, but ditching lights should mean freeing up locations and better locations are also elevating production values. Flexibility with compositions potentially enhance the look. I prefer staying fairly traditional but also like some ultra wide interviews, maybe only possible with no film equipment in shot.

Also, a one person band lighting kit that can easily be transported isn't necessarily a hall pass either. What one person can achieve lighting wise should still be hitting a fairly low ceiling vs. a team of people, so it's not quite fair applying the logic of not bothering because there are higher end options.

Doug, we're on the same page for interviews and fighting the good fight for video production being a valuable service, I'm just saying there may be times where it's worth assigning more time to shooting the scenes if it means an overall stronger product.
 
This doesn't really relate to the argument above about visuals vs good interviews, I was just reminded of it as the interviews are so remarkable that it would also work as a podcast / radio programme. In case you missed it:

Once upon a time in Northern Ireland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v68PoFI78Kc

I assume that to get interviews this powerful requires a lot more than being a 'good interviewer' - it will need (lots of) time, honesty, vulnerability from the people behind the camera. All of these are 'expensive' in one way or another and this expense will not necessarily be immediately visible on screen.

That said, Doug's heuristic: "If it's not worth your time to shoot a pleasing shot, then it's not worth my time to watch" would certainly have worked for this series as it looks great.
 
rob norton said:
. So many netflix documentaries go all out on the interviews simply because all they have for b-roll are panning over photos or (please no more) cinegraphs.
Click to expand...

One thing I really dislike, that has become a big trend these days, is having a second camera angle on the interviewee from the side, almost a profile-looking shot. Every single time it's used it looks awful. Why do I want to see a profile mugshot? I'm not talking about having a wide shot and close up from nearly the same angle, which is fine, I'm talking about a 2nd angle that is 90 degrees off axis. Not only is it a waste of time to setup during the shoot, but it also shows a real laziness on the part of the producers not to come up with better b-roll or other cutaways for an interview.

What's even worse is when you have a CEO or someone speaking directly into the camera, and then suddenly they cut to a profile shot from the side. It looks ridiculous and is completely lazy production.
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
One thing I really dislike, that has become a big trend these days, is having a second camera angle on the interviewee from the side, almost a profile-looking shot. Every single time it's used it looks awful. Why do I want to see a profile mugshot? I'm not talking about having a wide shot and close up from nearly the same angle, which is fine, I'm talking about a 2nd angle that is 90 degrees off axis. Not only is it a waste of time to setup during the shoot, but it also shows a real laziness on the part of the producers not to come up with better b-roll or other cutaways for an interview.

What's even worse is when you have a CEO or someone speaking directly into the camera, and then suddenly they cut to a profile shot from the side. It looks ridiculous and is completely lazy production.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Awful. But folk need somewhere to cut without having to spend thier sorry lives collecting relevant Broll.

Folk seem to have missed that on 'the news' the presenter turns to the side camrera when it goes live, making eye contact down the new barrell. Not looking like they are talking.. to the wall(?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top