How to light like this

R

randomname

Well-known member
I've started watching the show Top of the Lake and am often struck by how beautiful the lighting is. I love how it's both soft and very contrasty, like in this shot
attachment.php


What would the best way to replicate that be?
 
Very soft light from about 90 degrees to her left, and fill about 1/4* as bright on the other side. Looks daylight-balanced, but with grading, etc., that's not guaranteed by any means






*Just an off-the-cuff estimate.
 
randomname said:
I've started watching the show Top of the Lake and am often struck by how beautiful the lighting is. I love how it's both soft and very contrasty, like in this shot
attachment.php


What would the best way to replicate that be?
Click to expand...

If it was 'natural light' then it appears to be a 'window' which is not receiving direct sunlight, and then some form of bounce to fill the shadow side. If it was 'artificial' then lights on a bounce screen, or lights through a diffusion screen, with either bounce or additional diffused light for the shadow side.

A quick google look suggests that the show 'style' is very naturalistic lighting, and as such, my conjecture is they used as much 'natural light' as possible, with artificial support when required to maintain a 'good' exposure.
 
Beautiful? Looks pretty horrible to me? I think it's dull and too soft. In fact, if I'd actually spent time making it look like that, I'd consider it a fail. In fact, that looks very like something shot with a window in the room and light walls. Sorry, but that's a program I shan't be watching.
 
Uh... thanks? The show won the emmy for best cinematography this year but if an internet commenter says it's crap, then I guess it's crap.
 
randomname said:
What size silk would you guys recommend to replicate the look? a 6x6 placed near the talent?
Click to expand...

From my experience, silk is not as common of a diffusion material as one might think, and it's certainly not what I would use to replicate that. Silks don't completely become a new light source when you push something through it, they still can let some hard light through. Could be a 4x frame of 216 or gridcloth, or even a 2x3 frame if you can get it close enough without seeing it, but it doesn't have to be that large for a close-up.
 
Randomname--Paul made it very clear that he was stating his opinion (that's what "to me" means). You like it, he doesn't, and the world goes around. Good golly. What follows, then, is MY opinion, which is no more valid than anyone else's!

Obviously it's impossible to judge the quality of an entire show from a single still, unless it happens to be exceptionally lovely. That one is not an arresting image by any means, but I'm sure it fit the mood of that particular scene, is balanced and feels real.

I see from a short promo (I hadn't seen anything from this show before) that the look of this show ranges from naturalistic to stylized, but seems to lean towards the former. A lot of indie films are shot with that kind of look and it can be quite deceptive and elusive to achieve. The still has an unlit feel, suggesting an ambient window as mentioned above, but many times (and especially on a demanding television schedule) that will require re-creation rather than timing or luck and that is harder than it may seem.

One thing I would mention in relation to some of what was suggested above. One of the biggest misconceptions that comes out of the 3-point lighting model that everyone learns at first is that there are key and fill sides, i.e. if a light on one side creates the key, there must be one on the other making fill. These days with cameras being as sensitive as they are, it is often unnecessary to create fill as the ambience will often do it for you. Many times fill can come from the same side as the key, or above/behind camera. In some instances it's a matter of actually removing light with solids, aka negative fill, to create contrast.
 
Moseph said:
Could be a 4x frame of 216 or gridcloth, or even a 2x3 frame if you can get it close enough without seeing it, but it doesn't have to be that large for a close-up.
Click to expand...

Again, we are looking at a still out of context. The scene may have included considerably wider shots which would require a much larger source to create this effect believably in a larger space. While it is certainly possible to relight a closeup to a certain degree, in reality (and in most episodic situations) it's much more likely to be based on the same source that was used for the master shot. From a cursory examination, the size of the source as seen in Ms. Moss' eyes is at least the size of a 6x6 and more likely bigger, perhaps a set of windows.

To qualify the above, I will often add a little extra diffusion when coming in for closeups on a female character, in the form of a 4x4 opal positioned between them and the main source, or a little passive bounce fill to help under the eyes. It's much more rare to build a whole new source for a close-up.
 
yeah, erm...soft light to the side. Some fill. What most everything is nowadays, almost always. Not that I'm complaining, it's fundamental and it works.

also, don't be a motivation nazi, its not worth it. No doubt, try to motivate the light if and when you can (on one b/w short i did we used a dimmer to flicker the soft box on and off to create the illusion it was coming from a TV), but if you get some kind of soft side light in there, the audience will accept is as some form of ambient light and wont question it too much. Hard lights are harder to make look like a convincing part of the environment (you often need multiple seperate pools of hard light hitting different areas to create the feeling that its environmental/natural and even then it looks stylized/old school)

so yeah soft side light, its the workhorse nowadays amirite ppl

The details depend on factors such as size of the shot and location etc: The smaller the set, the smaller (literally) and lower powered the lights you need.. sounds obvious but took a nimrod like me years to figure out. So if its a tiny room get rid of that giant silk and use a small(er) softbox. Location lighting is a matter of "scale", so that you get the shadow falloff you need. Put up big lights in a small room and all youll do is blast everything with bright light.

my two cents, tho Ive only made a few goofy no-budget shorts
 
Last edited:
CharlesPapert said:
One thing I would mention in relation to some of what was suggested above. One of the biggest misconceptions that comes out of the 3-point lighting model that everyone learns at first is that there are key and fill sides, i.e. if a light on one side creates the key, there must be one on the other making fill. These days with cameras being as sensitive as they are, it is often unnecessary to create fill as the ambience will often do it for you. Many times fill can come from the same side as the key, or above/behind camera. In some instances it's a matter of actually removing light with solids, aka negative fill, to create contrast.
Click to expand...

Making a good key-grip much more desirable on set then a gaffer.

And I did enjoy "Top of the Lake" for it's cinematography, I thought it was refreshing.
 
Last edited:
Jorn van Oostende said:
Making a good key-grip much more desirable on set then a gaffer.
Click to expand...

Equally important positions!

nycineaste said:
The smaller the set, the smaller (literally) and lower powered the lights you need.. sounds obvious but took a nimrod like me years to figure out. So if its a tiny room get rid of that giant silk and use a small(er) softbox. Location lighting is a matter of "scale", so that you get the shadow falloff you need. Put up big lights in a small room and all youll do is blast everything with bright light.
Click to expand...

I get the idea you are suggesting but it's not empirical. Size of source and intensity are two completely different animals. If you are in a small room and intend to push an instrument directly at the subject, then yes, you generally won't need as big a unit as you would in a warehouse. There are a number of scenarios where a large source in a small room is still desirable. If you have to balance against day exterior (open window or door to the outside) that you don't want to blow out, you'll need plenty of level to do so, which means building up the level via firepower. And if you are creating an ambient appearance such as day interior but shooting at night, you'll need big sources to make it look realistic (sometimes as simple as bouncing off the walls--sometimes a bit more complicated). So, I wouldn't say that the edict should be the smaller the room, the smaller the source and/or instrument, although it is may often be the case.
 
You base your decision as to whether your going to watch a show on a single frame?

Based on this frame, one could only guess the light is motivated by a single source such as a window, or a window, or even maybe a window:)
 
Last edited:
maranfilms said:
You base your decision as to whether your going to watch a show on a single frame?

Based on this frame, one could only guess the light is motivated by a single source such as a window, or a window, or even maybe a window:)
Click to expand...

When I posted a response I did look up this series before hand to get a 'feel' for how the lighting was done. It seems that this 'still' does somewhat characterize other shots that have a 'natural' light look.

Whether it is 'really natural' or faked up with artificial lights probably could be better conjectured by looking at the moving picture... as in do they track/pan/follow in from the outside, past a window... or is it just a scene where there's an apparent 'window/doorway' whatever...

Since most of my still photography has been using 'available light'... sure for some a 20K is 'available'... well not quite... but what is found 'naturally' in the location. Hence I do tend to interpret shots based on that experience. Other with more experience with movie lighting, may interpret the light based on setting up artificial to 'look natural'...

These days, given the capabilities of DSLRs and the like... I'd recommend just shooting some test shots with 'natural' available light and see how it goes... and experiment with adding 'bounce', or 'subtracting' light to get effects.
 
Sorry to have ruffled feathers but I've looked again at that frame and honestly see nothing at all that says wow, or from an educationalist's point of view picks out a technique that is anything special or unusual. Are we really saying that this is excellent lighting from the close up? I genuinely cannot see what sets this apart from the rest. In fact, if you took random stills from TV or movies, loads would be better examples of good lighting. I don't watch much US tv, but I'm much more impressed with NCIS if you want to see good creative use of lighting.

I suppose it's like art. There are no rules as to what is a good painting, and one person's masterpiece is complete rubbish to somebody else.

Thinking about my comment on making a judgement to watch based on this, do we not do this already. You flick through the channels on tv and satellite and make split second decisions on which ones to dwell on. If I'd seen that picture on flick through, I would not have stopped. It's not the lighting, to be fair, but the image makes you wonder what the investment in HD was for? I'm not talking about the still grab, but with that lighting and grading, what's the point?
 
I'll go out on a limb and say that I think this is "Top of the Lake." I really liked the series. Elizabeth Moss just this week won the Golden Globe for her performance and other performances are stellar. Robert Mullan just kills in it. So, you might like it after all. It's on Netflix if you have it.

Regarding this frame: the interiors were mostly shot like this, especially when they were at home, which was comfortable but modest - small interiors, the "natural" light pouring in from a huge New Zealand outside. I consider Charles's advice to remember that achieving this light all day, every day, may take more than putting lovely Elizabeth close to the window. The freezing cold water of the lake is a character in the movie and the coolness that permeates this look reflects that. The aesthetic of the flat, desaturated, low contrast look was followed throughout, and for my money, worked beautifully for this dark, psychological piece. It ain't Downton Abbey, so not everyone gets a kicker ;)

Here's where I may take Paul's side. I find this look over used. I think it is over used because it's a look that is forgiving for digital cameras and so has become a sort of default look lately. I think we're turning a corner on this and that soon the thirst for a well saturated, richer, warmer look is going to ascend and it will be harder to acquire and grade. Well, at least that's what I'm looking towards.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Paul on this one - we have to aim higher then some mediocre framing/lighting combo. It's almost insulting for the pros here to have to tell someone how to replicate the most basic of lighting as if the person in question didn't even watch one youtube video about 3-point lighting. Yes, everyone needs to start somewhere but lets not start asking how to light a basic 3-point exercise! It's what the youtube exercise tutorials are for! [for the record i know more people with Emmys that i can count on both of my hands, so it's not exactly as prestigious of an award as one is made to believe]

Watching the trailer it's obvious that the show is not like the screen grab. Not even one frame in the trailer looks "realistic" - all is stylized. So we are kinda talking about apples and oranges. However if the original poster want to accomplish whats in the frame - best scenario is find "natural" contrasts. Turn off all lights in the location and try to relay the window light - or better yet through large diffusion - 6x6 or 8x8 bring a light source in through window. There is some warm fill -most likely from practicals left on in the room. That's all.
 
hscully said:
I'll go out on a limb and say that I think this is "Top of the Lake."
Click to expand...
How is that going out on a limb? It states in the first post it is from Top of the Lake:) I agree this indie look is a little over done these days, but I still quite like it. The Swedish/Danish series The Bridge similarly low-contrast and desaturated but works well for that show.

An easy way to recreate the natural window look for a shot like this is to cart around a Kino Flo Flathead 80. Tougher to do with wides though where a 12' x 12' and a 6k fresnel might be more appropriate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top