Lighting in fiction darker than in reality

F

Fillum

New member
Why is any footage that is fictitious different (in terms of lighting, exposure) from anything in reality? E.g. drama shows, sitcoms, movies vs reality TV, lifestyle TV, news etc? And I mean from both film and digital cameras... Like in fictitious stuff, the scene is always darker than reality, has this sort of darker tint, duller colours, to the point that you can instantly tell whether a show/film is fictitious or reality!! Not only why, but what is this "effect" or style called? Examples here:
Reality-
http://www.fodors.com/wire/Airplane-seats.jpg

http://timeentertainment.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/103474_d0224b.jpg?w=480&h=320&crop=1

http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-Set-Photo-Battle-6.jpg
Fiction-
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa216/skjerva/gsfirstairplane.png

http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/ODmXpIPAcGE/maxresdefault.jpg
Thanks for helping out a newbie :)
 
It's not always darker than reality, but it's often far more stylized than reality. That's artistry. That's telling a story by painting a picture with light. That's one of the chief tasks of cinematography.

(And, interestingly enough, night scenes are most often much brighter than reality. :) )
 
Using light and shadow to create an artistic scene.

On the contrast: scenes that would be normally completely dark, actually have quite a bit of light in them. Look at any horror film, and most settings you see would be, in normal conditions, completely black.
 
You walk into a dark room with a small bulb in the corner - how will you feel? You walk in the same room but this time brightly lit... Will your emotions change? Of course. It's another tool that lets the makers manipulate the viewers' emotions (framing, lighting, lensing, colors, art direction, camera moves, casting, acting, editing, sound design, music... all do as well).

The question could be posed, why is that necessary? Why can't we deal with simple stories rooted in reality? Why do we have to deal with the "framing, lighting, lensing, colors..."? Well, we don't - if it's a conscious decision then in context of experience the "reality" produces interesting effects, incidentally not in "oh, it's so realistic" way but rather in "wow, this experienced person on purpose rejects qualities that let him manipulate the viewers, why is that?"
 
It's several things:

1. Artistic - Cinema, tv drama, and non-live comedy want to look that way. Live TV shows don't. [edit - gross generalization]
2. Budget - Cinema, tv drama, and non-live comedy have a budget to look that way.
3. Time - Cinema, tv drama, and non-live comedy have time to look that way.
4. Technical - Live 3 camera shoots and run and gun reality shows can't have special lighting for each camera angle. They need to have it look good from all three cameras simultaneously.

Reality shows have to use available light with, in some cases, very portable supplement such as bounce and LED lights.

An excellent example of live tv/reality vs 'filmed' tv is two episodes of '30 Rock'. Take a look at these two clips. You will see that distinct difference in how much more modeling is done with the light in the filmed show and how plain the lighting is for the live show. It's very informative because it is the same show with the same sets done live vs 'taped'.

Here is the live show - Opening scene is Jack's office - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmXaPJMFM0U
Here is that same set 'filmed' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgCycEgyZ-k
[edit] another example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csxwCPh7yik

Also notice the difference in audio.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top