Interview light setup test

[Run&Gun]

That's such a big vertical space, that I would have been tempted to just work with it and use the ambient light - the room looks interesting enough for an establishing shot - what did you end up using in the background if anything? The post before that in front of a garage door begs the question - why not just do it in the garage!?!? lol

We've actually shot in his office before as a natural background, but this shoot had a set identical look for all subjects. Honestly this was one of those shoots that's PERFECT for a boring hotel conference room. It was a backdrop with fairly dramatic(read: shadows, no fill) lighting on the subject. The lighting set-up was actually pretty simple, but it had to be completely controlled to achieve it. You couldn't do it in a room full of bright ambient light.

 

[puredrifting]

We've actually shot in his office before as a natural background, but this shoot had a set identical look for all subjects. Honestly this was one of those shoots that's PERFECT for a boring hotel conference room. It was a backdrop with fairly dramatic(read: shadows, no fill) lighting on the subject. The lighting set-up was actually pretty simple, but it had to be completely controlled to achieve it. You couldn't do it in a room full of bright ambient light.

Been there so many times, it's PITA but sometimes what is required. Same with green screen. I hate shooting green screen, to me, creatively, it's a cop out but a lot of clients still want to shoot every interview green screen. If you have a big window room with tons of ambient, you can't evenly light your green screen. it is a shame on the room you pictured, that room could look super cool on camera at the right time of day.

 

[JPNola]

Thanks for all the feedback.
I just got a picture from the location. So Im not sure if the windows have blinders on it. Everything does seem white and pretty small. I could just place the interviewee on that small table and chair. Move it a bit in the center of the room and place a giant diffuser in front of the windows, and just use the natural light coming in as a keylight. and maybe just use negative fill on the left side. Probably it is possible to put a grey blackdrop on the white wall. Any suggestions?

Given that space to work in...and if I could be relatively sure that the interview would start and conclude in a time frame during midday, I would probably just "go with the room" rather than fight the room. That is, I'd go with "high-key lighting", as defined below:

"High-key lighting is a style of lighting for film, television, or photography that aims to reduce the lighting ratio present in the scene. This was originally done partly for technological reasons, since early film and television did not deal well with high contrast ratios, but now is used to suggest an upbeat mood."

In other words, let the interview be flat. Or flattish. Don't try to accomplish moody Rembrandt lighting in that space with all that spilling daylight. Everything in that room is counter to Chiaroscuro lighting.

The "trick" if you go high-key and flat is to position the subject so that they are being keyed from a flattering direction. I'd position the subject so that the large window on the right in the photo acts as the keylight. I'd position the subject so that they are facing the edge of that large window. And maybe I'd use some negative fill. But I wouldn't use any hair-light or edge-light at all. And I'd make effort to get some color or at least some object(s) in the background. I might do what I could to flag the second-floor window light from hitting the top of the subject's head ( and from causing flaring in the lens ). A 4x4 black placed over the head of the subject between their head and that second-floor light source. But let the room be flat and the lighting on the subject be relatively flat as well.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Since you have white walls everywhere, I would agree that the use of negative fill may be very helpful to add some contrast. Your subject will separate from the background no matter what, so you can go as deep on the down side as you feel comfortable.

 

[Liam Hall]

You are being hard on yourself. You did quite well.

Others replied that the key was placed too far off to camera right but I disagree. If anything, the key is not far enough to the right and here is why: The nose shadow should connect to the cheek-shadow leaving only a triangle of light. Creating what is known as a "Rembrandt patch". ( as in, "patch" of light that is triangular-shaped. ). Note how in the example you provided, in the example without the backlight, the nose shadow does not quite join the cheek shadow. It comes up just short as a result of the light source not being place far enough to camera-right.



Here is are examples of successfully a executed "Rembrandt patch", first from examples of photography and then from the man himself:

View attachment 132263

View attachment 132264

View attachment 132265


You chose to make the attempt using a subject wearing eyeglasses and that makes things challenging because the shadow of the frame of the eyeglasses is "sent" sideways by a key-light placed laterally, the shadow of the eyeglass frame producing a shadow that projects into the eye of the subject in an "ugly" manner. Using a key-light that is larger in size would help to mitigate that ugliness because it would produce a less-defined shadow of the frame of the glasses.

So, in summary, you got really close. Good job. Place the key a bit more to camera right ( more lateral to the eyeline of the subject ), use a larger key, and also raise the height of the key-light slightly. You want to "send" the nose-shadow downward, at an angle, until it connects to the fill-shadow and the result is a triangle of key-light on the fill-side of the subject's face. That distinct triangle-shaped patch of light is what you are after. In your first example there isn't a distinct triangle because the nose-shadow is not connecting to the fill-shadow to create the triangular-shaped patch of light.

A couple things to keep in mind: In the second example you provided there is more of a Rembrant patch than in the first. Possibly because the subject's head is turned a bit more away from the key. Which brings me to my second note- achieving Rembrandt lighting is really more of a still photography thing than a thing in moving images. The reason being is that in still photography you can capture an image where the subject's head is positioned at just the right position. But in motion photography the subject isn't likely to keep their head at the required position necessary to produce the so-called "Rembrandt patch.". For an interview or a dialogue scene in a narrative film the subject is likely going to move their head around. The subject is going to turn their head in relation to the position of the key-light. As a result the position of the subject's nose-shadow is going to travel around. At times it will connect to the cheek-shadow ( or, to the "fill-side shadow" ), at other times it will separate from the cheek-shadow on the fill side. All that said, if you use a large key that produces a soft nose shadow the times that the nose-shadow fails to connect to the fill-side shadow are less noticeable or less "offensive".

Here is an example of video that demonstrates what I am talking about when I speak about the Rembrandt-patch coming and going as the subject moves their head:

At times, when the man's head is in the right position, a Rembrandt-patch results:

View attachment 132266

But when the man turns his head to the left or to the right of that position, there is no longer a Rembrandt-patch.

Here the face is turned too much towards the key-light for the nose-shadow to connect to the fill-shadow:

View attachment 132267

Here the face is turned too far away from the key-light and as a result there is no nose-shadow at all. Instead the lighting on the face is split. The lighting is "50/50". Each side of the face being either all key or all fill:

View attachment 132268


All of this is rather exacting and requires everything working in conjunction. Which is why in motion photography the Rembrandt-patch is attainable but not always sustainable. Because rarely does a subject keep their head in just the right position for there to be a Rembrandt-patch.

Often times the thing that should take precedence is making the subject look good. Don't just do Rembrandt-style lighting regardless of whether or not it is flattering for the shape of the subject's face. Don't do it if it is producing ugly shadows of the subject's eyeglasses. If it ain't working for that subject, abandon it and go with something that works better for the subject. You may have to balance the desire to maintain continuity of lighting style and a desire for dramatic lighting with making a person look good. Use good judgement. I'd rather have "boring" lighting that makes a person look good than dramatic lighting that isn't flattering on the subject. If you are lighting Jessica Lange for an interview and she hates the way you lit her it isn't going to be satisfactory to her to explain that you were going for a "Rembrandt" look with a lot of falloff and drama. Maybe for a scene in a film...but not when it is an interview setting. You'll end up being the goat and she may even demand that you never be hired again.

Lastly, is your interview that you have coming up going to be one where the subject looks at the camera lens and not at an interviewer? Because your practice setup has the subject looking at the lens. If your subject is going to be looking to the right or the left of the lens during the interview, your key will have to move further to the right or left accordingly.

On second look, you might be right. A lot depends on the size of the source and the power of the light as well as the shape of the face.