Problem with using hard light for night shots is the source of the light...
Sure it's great if it's outdoors where there are cars or something to represent the source of light, but what if you don't have the luxury of having a scene where a hard light source is present? Then it just looks weird...
Besides, bounced light can still be pretty harsh... depends how close you place the reflector to the light. I just find reflected light looks like it doesn't come from a singular source so much.
Well, I dunno, I think that the trick is to simulate a reason for there being a harsh light. I'm not meaning you want a noticeable source, but accenting the important details in a night shot are IMHO more effective than seeing everything. You could use a blue gel, for example, in front of the hard source, position it farther away from the subject, and have it appear to be moonlight, for example.
yes. ive shifted towards the fully lit methods, as well as day for night. imho , making a night scene is more a process of making the viewer associate what they are seeing with night, rather than showing a realistic night scene.. cause it not about the scene, as much as the story. the audience wants to know whats happening with the charachters, and that it happend at night. hopefully they can see the charachter(so you have to light them..unlike true night), and they are paying attention to your story rather than how real it looks. if you watch about any big film, and pay attention to the night scenes, it almost never actually looks like real night. as to hard or soft light... well thats up to you..what do you think looks good..? what do you want it to look like? hopefully were not all the same ...right? .. otheriwse we should all go work for disney..
I would say that it would depend mostly on what sort of look you're going for...Really, I'd adjust the settings accordingly depending on whether or not youre doing hard light, soft light, etc; basically decide what looks good.
The "traditional" night, i suppose, would have the colour temperature rather cool, making for a more blue look, and the master ped. levels would be lower, crushing out the blacks. But again, it entirely depends on what you're going for. Treat it as you would any other sequence; if it looks good, use it!
I would not nec worry about settings as much as I would worry about the lighting and exposure for the night shot. Settings wont alter too much in that respect. Concentrate on HOW you are going to light the scene!
Someone once justified using blue for night shots by pointing out that night illumination is provided by the moon, which is actually reflecting sunlight. So if you think about it, the blue tint makes sense.
When I did a night shoot, I kept my color temp floating around 4900K and I slightly underexposed, giving everything a desaturated look. It was an experiment, but I was pretty pleased with the results--the blue tint was there and colors were a bit muted, much like the way we actually see things outdoors at night.
The thing is, also, regardless of whether or not blue is *actually* what you'd be seeing at night, film is all about making people see things the way YOU want them to be seen. If dimly lit footage with blue highlights gives you the illusion of night, then it's done it's job. It doesn't matter what it *actually* would look like.
By that rationale, however, technically if people BELIEVED red highlights made it look like night, then having them would be more believed anyways. I'm not saying that we should all go out with red gels at night, but I'm just meaning that whatever people accept as looking convincing is what we all want in the long run.
Let's also not forget that the scene itself is not the only illusion. Set up the establishing shots (moon, stars, clock, whatever). TELL the audience it's night -- and they're more apt to believe you when they see the scene.
I have been watching and studying SCREAM lately and their night shots are not night at all. They must have like a million HMI's going off and it's a scary movie.