This goes out to all those low budget producers who will somehow read the above comment, and then in our next meeting, pull it up and say "look, Roger Deakins said that you don't need lights with the Alexa" ...
To clarify to those reading this and as an preemptive strike against, I must clarify that very little lighting is in context of Roger Deakin's work. This does not mean he's pumping ISO and shooting wide open with no-lighting or 1k's. It likely means he's just not having to put twelve 18k's on condors.
Point being, he is happy that he can use less light.... which means still more than most people on DVXuser get to use.
I say this because we don't JUST light to get exposure. We still need lights to make an image look how we want it. Only once in a very seldom lot, do we find natural lighting which conveys exactly what our artistic desires desire... and even then, with the changing nature of the world, our sun, and etc, we likely find that wonderful and perfect natural light is fleeting; thus we need to replicate it with unnatural means.
Little lighting is still lighting.
This goes out to all those low budget producers who will somehow read the above comment, and then in our next meeting, pull it up and say "look, Roger Deakins said that you don't need lights with the Alexa" ...
As the example given in the article stated very little light was used, I'd say this is an example of the rare time when natural light in their environment worked.
