Motivating from above

R

Ronald Gerald Smith

Active member
I am seeing a lot of motivated sources hanging above, much higher than where they actually should be. For example, many people know that its common to correctly expose a window with curtains, without it blowing out or losing detail, and placing one or two Kinos or softboxes above the window.

Sometimes in bedroom setups, where a person is sitting on a bed, for example, there are lights (seemingly motivated) that are coming from a direction that is much higher than it should be. Look at the provided picture, especially at the shadow being cast by the light hitting the man's face:

4884462817_ed077d65df_b.jpg

Taken from I Am Love Trailer.

This kind of lighting (faking the angles), can sometimes takes the naturalism out of the shot. I am wondering if you know some clever techniques of motivating the light. For example, what are some elegant looking ways to make the light look like it is actually coming from the lamp? I know that rule #1 is to never have a lit lamp cast a shadow of itself---this being a clear indication that there is another light source hitting it. I am sure that this is accomplished by careful placement and/or flagging. I know that china balls with regular household bulbs are used often to create a soft, motivated looking source. Any other ideas?


Also, leading back to my first observation, of lights being placed higher than it would be. For example, look at this behind-the-scenes still of the great David Mullen, ASC in action:

UST40.jpg

Taken from woodylight.com


Two out of three lights are coming from above, and most of the lights are supposed to be motivating lights that are on table tops or are low-level.

Take a look at this shot from Lost in Translation:

4885096540_7059e68bce_b.jpg


This is lit by a moderately soft overhead source, controlled well so that only the bed is lit. However, we know that most likely there is no skylight in a hotel room. It seems almost impossible for the light to be coming from that angle. However, it looks nice. The frame looks good, and everything looks natural. What is it about the magic of soft overhead lighting that allows it to be used in situations where it "shouldn't" be used, especially when thinking of it in a totally naturalistic perspective?

Why is this done so often? I am sure it is because of flexibility of shot coverage. And when does this kind of placement become unnatural, and unacceptable? And how does this kind of lighting pass as naturalistic? A light could be coming from above where it should be and I wouldn't even blink twice. It looks very natural to me. Maybe it is because it is more difficult for me to figure out where the light is coming from when it is a soft source lit from above. It is easier for me to find out where the light is coming from when the soft source is coming from the subject's eye level. What do you think?
 
Roger Deakins wrote in his website:

"For the dolly shot in 'A Beautiful Mind' I used a low bounce over the transparency. Very simple really. The trick is to make it look as if the light is coming from where it should be coming from without it being an obvious trick. But it is always a trick of some sort. It is interesting how easily, in fact, the viewer can be tricked."
 
There are VERY few ways to effectively light a set (not an actor) which provide:

Adequate exposure
Remain out of frame even during camera and actor moves
Preserve proper angles of motivation.


Nearly the ONLY way to do this is to either light with nothing but practicals (which I've done), or to shoot tight all the time which is incredibly boring to watch.
 
PerroneFord said:
There are VERY few ways to effectively light a set (not an actor) which provide:

Adequate exposure
Remain out of frame even during camera and actor moves
Preserve proper angles of motivation.


Nearly the ONLY way to do this is to either light with nothing but practicals (which I've done), or to shoot tight all the time which is incredibly boring to watch.
Click to expand...

Hey Perrone,

Why did you write "light a set (not an actor)", I thought you might have been referring to something; just don't want to be missing out on anything important you wrote.

And by "proper angles of motivation", you mean the exact angle, not slightly above or below, right?

And I guess this is the reason why so many lights are hung up above, because of those three reasons you mentioned:

"Adequate exposure
Remain out of frame even during camera and actor moves
Preserve proper angles of motivation."

And I am now starting to understand that the "proper angles of motivation" sometimes need to be sacrificed in order to "provide adequate exposure and remain out of frame even during camera and actor moves"
 
I am thinking that perhaps a good way to motivate a light (especially a lamp) is to place a light directly above the lamp, perhaps a couple of feet above the lamp, and then direct that source to where you want the light to land, and modify intensity and color temperature.

I have tried to place a "motivating movie light" around the same height as the lamp that it was trying to modify: This can create unrealstic shadows and also makes it harder to block out the camera and actors. Many times, however, I see this being done, where the "motivating movie light" is placed at the same height as the lamp that it was trying to modify. The lamp is flagged off of course, so as not to have the lamp cast a shadow onto itself. Usually, in these situations, the camera is locked off or with minimal movement.

For example, take a look at these stills taken from The Burning Plain:

4887375862_03359ded65_z.jpg


4886772191_9450d5aa7a_z.jpg


If taking this from a ultra-realistic perspective, there is no way that that lamp, with the angle of the lampshade, can be creating that kind of intensity and exposure on the female in the second picture. Also, it is impossible, because of the placement of the lamp and the lampshade, among other factors, that the male in the first picture could be lit that way, at at that intensity. When does tricking the viewer go too far? When does the DP push the boundaries too far? As Perrone said, shooting with only practicals seem to be the only way to get true ultra-realistic light.

The question is: Can you all share some great ways to motivate light to get it as close to the real thing as it possibly can be?
 
You are asking all the right questions. Questions I started asking 5 or more years ago when I really got the itch to learn more about cinematography. I got a lot of my answers to the questions you are asking by reading American Cinematographer Magazine, and by looking at other sources.

When I wrote, "light a set (not an actor)" my intent was to separate the ideas. Those who come from the world of stills are quite used to lighting people in the frame. However, in cinema, those people get up and move. Sometimes quite a lot. And the camera may move with them. And they must remain lit, and preferably nicely so. So in cinematography, we create pools of light. Or areas of light on a set, that are roughly staged where the actor's marks are. So that when they give their dialog, or hit a "beat" in the script, they are well lit.

This is also the motivation for the master and the closeup cinema language. Those wide pools of light are not often the most flattering. So when we start doing MCUs and CU's we cheat the light to make sure the actor looks good. The light is still coming from the aame general direction, but we may diffuse it more, or adjust the angles to make sure the actor looks very good in that light. The tighter we are to the actor, the more we can play with the light outside the frame. The wider we are, the less choices we have. Thus the terminology, light the set, not the actor.

When does it go too far? It goes to far when it takes you out of the story. Years ago (even back into the 1960s) very little attention was paid to "motivation" except in the most general of terms. I remember looking at a still from the movie "Goldfinger" today where the principal actor was standing outside of a golf course on an overcast day, and the light hitting them had to be a 10k with no diffusion at all. The shadows were razor sharp! Over the years, we've come to expect a bit more realism in our lighting, and those of us who look for these things notice them quite often. The most liberties seem to get taken with night shoots and fire/campsite settings. Those two things are just super hard to fake.

In general, something HAS to give. And so what we often see is that we have very soft, diffuse light from above that is used to create our base light level. Whether we tent the ceiling indoors, or float a balloon outdoors, or use some other means. And then we create our motivated sources. If you have money, you can bounce strong lights off of ultrabounce or something similar in through the windows. If you don't have money, you do the same from inside but with smaller fixtures, and you set your blocking so that you never see that side of the room.

One of the reasons that small, independent film cannot be as dynamic as large features, is because you just don't have the budget to place your lights outside. They have to be on the floor. You aren't going to get "daylight sun" in a room bouncing 2 1k fresnels off a piece of foamcore. But bouncing a couple of 18ks through the windows might do it! Of course, renting those 18ks with grip gear for 2 days might just be the budget for your entire week of shooting if you're playing with the kind of money we often see talked about here.

Everyone has to make compromises. And some of the toughest ones are in lighting. Where the lack of lighting forces changes in the camera. Like when you want to shoot at F8 indoors so you can see the bandit coming from outside the window. But you can't get the light levels inside you need so you need to shoot at F2.8 or F2.0 so the windows is a blown out, fuzzy mess, and then you have to revisit the storyboard or script to see how to introduce the villain. An experienced DP can see these problems in pre-pro if he's on board at that stage.
 
Hey Perrone,

I am glad that I asked you to clarify the previous post, because not only do I understand more, I have enough food for thought to last me a while! I never thought about it like that... pools of light. I have been lighting the "person" until now and I have realized how much it negatively affected everything.

And I believe your answer to my previous question about "How far is too far", when you replied, "It goes to far when it takes you out of the story", was the most appropriate answer and couldn't have been said any better.
 
If you have the chance, go to a couple of restaurants, bookstores, and other public places at night. Chains are better because things tend to be well thought out and rather standard. Notice where the lights are placed. Notice their height over the tables. Notice how the lights play on the faces of people seated at those tables. You'll see the pools of light in all kinds of places as you begin to study light and shadow.

Buldings with large windows are an ideal place for this. Skyscrapers, city buildings, large post offices, etc. A CLASSIC example is the old Post Office in Chicago where the bank heist scene from the Dark Knight was filmed. The large windows in that place were terrific. But Wally Pfister (the DP) had to push BIG lights into the space from each end to get the exposure necessary. That scene was shot in IMAX, and they really needed some light.

I laugh no end when I read about how things are lit on features to get that "Hollywood" look and then hear people shooting on T2is and 7Ds are trying for that "film-like" look with 1/50th the light. Try lighting a 100ft x 50ft space to 150 foot candles. That's how the big boys do it when they want to see all of that 100ft space they paid for.

I've got a long post coming tomorrow about lighting, lensing, and that "cinematic" look. You'll love it.
 
there's another lamp ... it's in the picture ... producing that shadow ... (it's OK. it's in the picture)
 
vic777 said:
there's another lamp ... it's in the picture ... producing that shadow ... (it's OK. it's in the picture)
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I think that the cinematography in this movie is brilliant, and seeing it in theaters was a giant treat for the eyes and the ears. Despite all of that, I think that it would be impossible for the lamp (right at the edge of the frame) to produce that kind of shadow and intensity. It is, however, a closer motivating source (in terms of angle at least).
 
PerroneFord said:
If you have the chance, go to a couple of restaurants, bookstores, and other public places at night. Chains are better because things tend to be well thought out and rather standard. Notice where the lights are placed. Notice their height over the tables. Notice how the lights play on the faces of people seated at those tables. You'll see the pools of light in all kinds of places as you begin to study light and shadow.
Click to expand...

I will do this. This is where the fun begins!

PerroneFord said:
I've got a long post coming tomorrow about lighting, lensing, and that "cinematic" look. You'll love it.
Click to expand...

Greatly looking forward to it. I appreciate your thorough and informative posts. Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top