Dynamic Lighting with J.Van Auken

Good article. It was the same in still photography. But I read stuff all the time here about people complaining about their cameras and this light problem and that light problem. Then you ask how the scene is lit and they haven't a clue.

I really don't understand how someone can spend $1800 on 35mm adapters, thousands of dollars on cameras, lenses, microphones, etc., and still not own even a basic light meter. I shot for a long time without one with my DVX because I couldn't control my lighting. So I just irised until my subject looked good, shot flat, and cleaned up in post. But when I ordered lights, my light meter was on the same order. As I told my purchasing person, no point in pointing 4 or 5 lights around a set without having any clue what they are really doing.
 
Light meter is tricky to use when you add a 35mm adapter into the mix. Some of them, such as the Brevis, introduce a non-linear light response to the SLR lens, so stopping down 1 stop on the lens doesn't necessarily mean losing twice as much light.
 
Huy Vu said:
Light meter is tricky to use when you add a 35mm adapter into the mix. Some of them, such as the Brevis, introduce a non-linear light response to the SLR lens, so stopping down 1 stop on the lens doesn't necessarily mean losing twice as much light.
Click to expand...

You don't need to use the light meter to set exposure. This isn't film. Using the light meter to determine contrast ratios, scene brightness, etc., is the real value for video. At least in my view.

If you set up a scene file with your favorite settings, and you like to shoot at F4, meter to find out what a 3 IRE or a 7 IRE matches to. Learn what 100 IRE at F4 relates to in terms of footcandles or lux.

The meter should take the guesswork out of your scenes. It's repeatable. You should be able to produce a well defined shot with proper contrast without ever looking at a histogram or zebras. Assuming of course, that you can control the light.

In a situation with a constant light source, you can set your entire scene with contrast ratios. If you've got 1000FC coming in the window, and you put 900FC on the talent as a key, 300 for fill, 250 ambient in the room, and maybe 150 for room for shadows, you can determine how much is going to make it to tape. If you set those shadows at 50FC, you darn well that's going to get lost.
 
Isn't this what a waveform monitor is for?

I'm all for never trusting any LCD, but at the same time film and digital call for different tools. If you told me that a waveform monitor couldn't show me what a light meter could, alright...hand me my light meter. Otherwise, it's just people trying to hold onto what was once the only way to do things.
 
well if a waveform could tell me exactly the ratio on a lampshade practical in the lower left background of my frame, then id gladly chuck my seckonic. theyre great for exposure, but exact ratios, less reliable.
 
Hans Moleman said:
well if a waveform could tell me exactly the ratio on a lampshade practical in the lower left background of my frame, then id gladly chuck my seckonic. theyre great for exposure, but exact ratios, less reliable.
Click to expand...

Ah, for ratios I guess you are right. But using a waveform for maintaining shadow and highlight detail I think is still the better way to go, which is all this guys seems to be suggesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top