Framing & Lighting.

Vincent, great post, I agree with you wholeheartedly. You have to light, and when you do, it shouldn't take too long to frame properly. You should have both.

My favorite indie films were all well-lit, if not exceptionally and creatively lit. Independent film is a spirit, an innovative spirit of doing big things with few resources. It shouldn't be an excuse for poor production values.
 
Last edited:
Vincent Wong Yoon Wei said:
For a filmmaker and especially a DP, there can be no compromise on both. No one should even say things like I prefer this over that. Lighting, composition, all these are integral to the whole cinema experience just like misc en scene.

Case in point, Malaysia has been a melting pot for indie works in recent years, I watched quite a few and like most indie works albeit only for their ideas; they have promise and potential but for the most part, the excecution is rough at best; usually really bad lighting or framing, wrong age or face for parts, sloppy editing, and most common, really bad sound editing. But from time to time you find some that have it all, story, acting, execution, lighting, framing, etc, etc, and this elavates the work to a whole new level.

My issue with most indie filmmakers here is that they have this "Don't worry, it is indie" approach to filmmaking. Not enough lights? Don't worry, it is indie. Bad framing? Don't worry, it is indie. Sloppy editing, don't worry it is indie. Bad sound, don't worry, it is indie. Wrong age and looks for the part? Don't worry, it is indie. It is like indie is the word to justify a lacked of discipline in the filmmaking process. This also leads to another issue with the indie scene here; indie is the new word for just plain bad story disguised as artistic or indie style.

Ok, I know I am a little of topic here touching on other aspect of filmmaking but it is really the same at the end of the day, when one starts to compromised on something as basic as lighting, what else is he or she going to start compromising on?

One must push hard for the best possible work and the first step is no compromise in your work. Even on a shoestring budget, you will be amazed at what you can do with one redhead, a bounce board, and a table lamp.

Lighting is not about how many lights you need but how you manipulate the lights to your needs.

To answer the TS question, I will never compromised on either. As a freelance DP, my stand is that both go hand in hand. I rather not work on the project if I have to sacrifice lighting equipments.
Click to expand...

Again, I must disagree... someday, you'll be at a place where you MUST choose which is more important to you... remember, again, I am NOT saying both are not important... I AM saying that your average viewer notices terrible framing before sub-par lighting... see what I am saying?
 
I think what everyone here is overlooking the fact that lighting and framing are subjective terms. "Poor" lighting can be an aesthetic, as well as "poor" framing. Just take a look at any John Cassavetes film (especially Shadows and Faces). I really believe what is important are potent ideas.
 
Brandon Rice said:
Again, I must disagree... someday, you'll be at a place where you MUST choose which is more important to you... remember, again, I am NOT saying both are not important... I AM saying that your average viewer notices terrible framing before sub-par lighting... see what I am saying?
Click to expand...
I had to disagree with you on that. Average viewers will notice both. Sure you can have stuff with decent framing and all but if the lighting is just sub par, it will spoil everything.

They call filmmaking painting with lights for a reason. It all starts with the light first.

ps-I rather not work on that project if I had to compromised on either one. I am a freelance DP and I set a standard for my work. Compromising either will only lower my standards.

Might sound arrogant but this is the attitude needed to improve and to create a high standard of work.
 
Brandon Rice said:
Again, I must disagree... someday, you'll be at a place where you MUST choose which is more important to you... remember, again, I am NOT saying both are not important... I AM saying that your average viewer notices terrible framing before sub-par lighting... see what I am saying?
Click to expand...

I can't imagine a situation where you would have to compromise framing. When and why would that happen?

You're on location... You can either light or not light I suppose depending on time constraints... You need to point and frame the shot... You either do it well or you don't... Doesn't take more or less time to do it right or wrong.

I can see having to compromise lighting, but there should be no excuse for bad composition except ignorance.
 
Fist off, once again I will say that both are equally important.

So maybe the topic of thread should have asked the question in the regards to a certain scenario. For example:

A scene is shot over the period of a day. The shot is setup up at 6:30 in the evening with the sun just going down behind the hills. The only problem is the grip truck hasn't shown with the lights yet. The crew decides to go ahead and do the first take anyway, more or less a dry run while capturing it to film. The performance and framing is great but it is badly under lit (you can can barely see the actor). Finally the lights show up and are set up and it looks amazing, truly a beautifully lit image. Now for take two, the slate slams down, the director yells action, but suddenly the camera operator sneezes, pushing the camera up and over, framing the shot badly with only the actors head in the bottom right corner, the actor pays no attention to the camera shift and performes yet again, amazingly. Okay, now take three should be golden... but wait the camera is out of film, the production is out of money, credit cards are maxed out, and editing begins tomorrow...

So... what do you choose to use in the final cut, the badly lit shot or the badly framed shot?
 
Brandon Rice said:
Again, I must disagree... someday, you'll be at a place where you MUST choose which is more important to you... remember, again, I am NOT saying both are not important... I AM saying that your average viewer notices terrible framing before sub-par lighting... see what I am saying?
Click to expand...


sorry dude, but poor lighting is the initial give away. that and poor blocking. not framing. disjointed blocking si what kill the illusion of space on film. So long as the persons head isnt cut oof the top of the frame the audience will forgive almsot any framing choice.

So long as they can see the faces. look at Clerks. simplest poorest lighting scheme, terrible framing, butgood blocking, and average editing. The illusion of the candystore is upheld.
 
jeremytuttle said:
So... what do you choose to use in the final cut, the badly lit shot or the badly framed shot?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting question, which in my opinion goes to more than just whether lighting or framing is more important. From the description, both takes will ruin the film. I think I would try to find a way to tell the story without that scene. (I know, that's a cop out, but what can you do?)

The other question of this thread is (if I'm interpreting correctly), does a shot with average lighting and great composition contribute more to a film than a shot with average composition and great lighting. In other words, say you have two shots that would work, but you want to choose the better one. I have a strong suspicion that the answer depends on the story, and on what you're trying to accomplish with the shot. But I'm a newbie, so don't take my word for it!
 
TimurCivan said:
So long as they can see the faces. look at Clerks. simplest poorest lighting scheme, terrible framing, butgood blocking, and average editing. The illusion of the candystore is upheld.
Click to expand...

Wait a second. What's the difference between blocking and framing here ...? :huh:
 
its part of it. blocking is when people are gonna move where, and how you deal with thoes transitions. Camera placement, and lens choices. They paly a part in it. well blockedscenes, will flow better, because the actors move within the space, and it looks natural on film.

for example:

a guy walks out of a bar.

first shot, guy approaches bar door from inside, he touches the door and starts to open it. then the next shot is out side, him walking to the bustop. youre setting up for a basic cut. your job is to make sure the editor has adequate coverage to have a seemless cut.

if for example yo udont block well. the guy walking to the bus stop, will be walking in a direction that isnt attractive when cut to from the last shot. Crossing the line is one of these "rules". The framing, is jsut makeing the shot look aesthetic. but the proper sshot blocking is what makes the editor's job easier, and the film flow smoothly. When you shoot think liek an editor. What would feel natural after this movement.
 
I agree with having good Cinematography over Lighting, its as simple as this to me: I have seen shots time and time again (outdoors) just using the Sun and one or two reflectors/ bouncers that look incredible! An outdoors shot using the sun as the only light source with a good Camera Operator guiding a 35mm 2.35:1 frame will come up amazingly cinematic every time. This can not be said the other way around as most audiences will 'cringe' as soon as they lay eyes on the footage no matter how well its lit.
Indoors is another story all together but one that i think can be strongly debated!

Peace...
 
I second your opinion progressive. Natural light shots. Sunlight bounced areas such as between buildings etc usually come out awesome. Watch many hollywood blockbuster action scenes being made. Especially steadycam shots of random action etc. Its mostly natural light.
 
Pro Gressive said:
I agree with having good Cinematography over Lighting, its as simple as this to me: I have seen shots time and time again (outdoors) just using the Sun and one or two reflectors/ bouncers that look incredible!
Click to expand...

Well I'm not sure if this point is valid for framing over lighting, because who is to say that the lighting in your example is not good lighting anyhow?
 
Maybe we need to establish a statement for each? It must be one that we all agree on stateing what good lighting and good framing/ composition is exactly?.... then have a poll! :)
 
Getting an agreement on what is good may make for a difficult task, but the opposite might be easier.

Good is highly subjective, bad is obvious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top