Now that we don't need lights... How are you lighting?

good point. nicely put. i guess it's my background in drawing i spose. i hit brick walls when it comes to controlling key/fill ratio using one light and boards so yeah, but i have to try i guess. but really well put gonzo_entertainment :)
 
I guess what I meant by illumination was 'sufficiently to expose' as stocks were slow. So yeah, what you said. 2000 becomes 650. I guess that makes lighting with one point a whole other topic. Your comment sent my head reeling kinda... Trying to think why the hell I even tried the one-light thing. I guess it is those still life classes.
 
That background in drawing is going to serve you really well when it comes to composition, just like a background in painting helps with composition and color theory. It's all the same principals. When you draw you probably aren't always trying to perfectly represent reality, that gets pretty boring. As Bob Ross would have said "This is YOUR tree!". Films are the same I think. First you have an aesthetic, then you try to learn how to execute it.
 
David G. Smith said:
Ok, sorry for the ten cent thread title! I don't want to get into the discussion about the new crop of light sensitive cameras means that filmmakers no longer need to use lights to make their films. I am definitely of the camp that believes that lighting is still the essence of cinematography. However, the new light sensitive cameras have opened up opportunities for new WAYs of using light. I was just wondering what changes, or new ways of lighting, people using the new crop of large sensor, light sensitive cameras have made? If possible, please post pictures or links that show the way people are starting to exploit these cameras. For starters, here is the link to an article by Shane Hurlbut about his take on lighting with the new cameras.

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/11/05/lighting-basics-going-with-what-is-available/
Click to expand...

david-

as an owner of a super35 chip camera (sony fs100), i very much appreciate the conversation this thread has created.

ymmv.

be well.

rob
smalltalk productions
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Illumination isn't needed as long as you don't mind your images looking flat and boring.
Click to expand...

While perhaps not the exact same situation, the Wife pretty much used her studio for 'wedding/couple' portraiture about 2 times a year... if that... to the point where we could not justify paying for 'storage' in such a place, because that's what the 'studio' ended up being... all of her worked converged into 'location' using 'available light', and given the various awards and the satisfaction of the customers, I'd not call it boring (well people not in the 'wedding' biz... I personally find most weddings boring... but then I'm jaded/oversaturated...).

I do agree that control of light, via bounce and screening, and using the location to best effect, is the 'goal', in using 'natural' light.

I don't mind a bit not having to think about a 1 ton 'grip' truck, and as it is, I'm now thinking about a minimal set of stuff to put in my 'grip Honda'...
 
Patryk_Rebisz said:
David, what are you talking about?

This kind of naturalistic lighting was going on for god knows how long... Like since the 70s?
Click to expand...

Sure, and there was grain the size of golfballs in the images that were done with 'minimal/no' lighting, because the film had to be pushed to get a reasonable image on the screen.

I think the 800 ISO setting on my GH-1 gives a 'better' image, than 'double-X' pushed 2 stops... and given that the high end digital cameras seem to have a 'natural' 800 ISO value... even cleaner...

On the other hand, perhaps that's why some set of plugins are used to 'get the grain back' because we have associated 'massive film grain' with 'gritty reality'...
 
I am not aware of any technological development that changes anything about shooting in either artificial or natural light. I use them both.

If I buy a new car I'll still drive to work the same way I always did.
 
IMO:
In film natural light is usually the enemy because you can't control it. You can't control a cloud moving in front of the sun, you can't control the sun moving across the sky, and I need take 5 of the 4th setup for this scene to look basically just like take 3 of the 1st setup. That's why at a commercial shoot I was on recently that had FIVE 12K HMIs blasting a barn and 25' silks flying everywhere at 2:00 in the afternoon on a sunny day. Because they needed it to look the same at 2:00 as it had looked at 11:00 and it would at 4:00. It's not like a still where you have nice light, you take a shot, and you're done. You can capture great natural light moments in film, but it requires a lot of luck and/or a lot of budget to pay people to sit around until the light is just what you want.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Though I have to admit, every time I see the title of this thread it makes me want to punch somebody because it's about the most retarded statement I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Ha, Ha, Ha... sorry about that! However, that was kind of the point. When I went for that title, I did have one of RPO's posts, about the lunacy of folks talking about, "Now we don't need lights", in the back of my mind. I also have come across quit a few folks lately who have bought a 7D, or other DSLR, and are out to make their Zombie Apocalypse Magnum Opus say that also. It grates me to hear it too.

Patryk_Rebisz said:
There is "artistic" approach and "Artistic" approach. And we have to be careful that what we do try to go at least two steps ahead (into the big A territory). My beef is that just artistic ("let's shoot film with available light") is not enough. As a matter of fact it's a heap cop-out as there are DPs who went for reality style and withing that style they managed to push boundaries (i keep on thinking about the night scene lighting of The Insider that looked anything but realistic and yet gave you doc-style vibe).

Now, look at "Night on Earth" (1991) - whole film set at night inside of moving cars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7wa9kSI5Ew

You will be blown away with how "realistic" it looks even though it's anything but as they used complicated rigging for the lights on the trailer to give you that vibe. In comparison the scene from "Getaway" looks almost primitive despite much higher capabilities for seeing into the light. In other words the capabilities were there for very LOOOONG time and only particular DP's talent and ambition was limiting factor.
Click to expand...

I love "Night on Earth".

Going back to the 1970's "Renaissance" in cinematography; looking back we see the limitations of the technology they were using, yet what they had at the time was almost revolutionary, compared to what was previously available. Faster film stocks and lenses, smaller lighting gear, along with smaller, lighter self blimped cameras (The Arriflex 35BL was introduced in 1972 and the first Panaflex was introduced in 1972. Its first use on a feature was for Steven Spielberg's "Sugarland Express") changed the way that films were shot, and, thus, changed the way that they looked. Knowing this history, I just can't help but think that, with the tools we have available now, that there are people trying new ways to use them. I am not saying that the new cameras have changed EVERYTHING. I just find it hard to believe that the new tools have not changed ANYTHING.

gonzo_entertainment said:
That background in drawing is going to serve you really well when it comes to composition, just like a background in painting helps with composition and color theory. It's all the same principals. When you draw you probably aren't always trying to perfectly represent reality, that gets pretty boring. As Bob Ross would have said "This is YOUR tree!". Films are the same I think. First you have an aesthetic, then you try to learn how to execute it.
Click to expand...

I have to second that. I don't have much of an ability to draw, but I am still fascinated by art and try to get as much exposure to it as possible. One great thing about living in Detroit is that we do have a world class art museum; the Detroit Institute of Art. While I don't get down there as much as i would like, every time that I do, I learn so much that I can apply to filmmaking. I am not an art scholar or anything, but I can hang in most cocktail party art discussions and try to learn more all of the time. I am amazed at how many filmmakers don't have any clue about art. Oh well, that is a discussion for another thread perhaps, but it is sad.

gonzo_entertainment said:
IMO:
In film natural light is usually the enemy because you can't control it. You can't control a cloud moving in front of the sun, you can't control the sun moving across the sky, and I need take 5 of the 4th setup for this scene to look basically just like take 3 of the 1st setup. That's why at a commercial shoot I was on recently that had FIVE 12K HMIs blasting a barn and 25' silks flying everywhere at 2:00 in the afternoon on a sunny day. Because they needed it to look the same at 2:00 as it had looked at 11:00 and it would at 4:00. It's not like a still where you have nice light, you take a shot, and you're done. You can capture great natural light moments in film, but it requires a lot of luck and/or a lot of budget to pay people to sit around until the light is just what you want.
Click to expand...

DAYLIGHT EXTERIORS SUCK!!

Especially with digital capture. I have always thought that they way that you shoot night exteriors shows your style, and the consistency of your daylight exteriors shows your technical proficiency. I do have to say that the new cameras do make daylight exteriors a little less painful to shoot (Compared to previous VIDEO cameras), but it is still tough. When selecting locations for daylight exteriors, I still try to pick places that are shaded from the southern sky with a large north sky exposure. Those are the only places that have any consistent light during the day. This is, of course, subject to a lot of variables. For the most part, shooting daylight exteriors means paying for lots of rigging and big lights (and the manpower), paying for the time waiting for the light, or accepting the the possibility (probability) of compromised images. ....

I appreciate all of the response in this thread. Thank you. I do have to say, I think that I may have... well, tainted the perceptions of what I was asking by this thread's ten cent title. Like I have said, I absolutely do not think that the capabilities of the new cameras mean that, "We do not need to light". Like I said above, I am not saying that the new cameras have changed EVERYTHING. I just find it hard to believe that the new tools have not changed ANYTHING. Gonzo_entertainment said above, "Nothing about lighting theory has changed much since people were painting in the 1600's and probably never will". Well, yes, I agree, BUT... changes in technology did change painting. In the mid 19th century the rise of photography changed the need for the artist to be the only way that pictures of the world could be presented. This, along with the advancement in color chemistry, directly lead to massive changes in the art world and gave birth to Modern Art, first with the rise of the Impressionist art movement and, the rest, as they say, is history. As I noted above, advancements in technology in filmmaking, during the late 1960's and early 1970's did lead to what is generally regarded as watershed changes in the art of cinematography. Now, in the second decade of the 21st century, we have some very impressive tools for motion imaging, with very impressive capabilities, that are available to many, many people. Silly me, I was kind of hoping that there might be more people that would recognize the capabilities of the new tools, and would be experimenting with new ways to use them. Well, that is not fair. There are folks experimenting with the capabilities of the new cameras. I noted above cinematographer Bobby Bukowski and I just re-read the AC article about the making of "Drive", shot by Newton Thomas Sigel, ASC.

http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/October2011/Drive/page1.php

I am very impressed by the description of how they powered the lights in and around the car in the opening sequence: "To power all the lights in and around the car, the crew placed a 12-volt 150AH MF Truck battery in the Impala’s trunk. “They put a bigger alternator in the motor, so the battery was being charged by the engine of the car as we drove,”.

So, "Now that we don't need lights... How are you lighting?"... Well, Newton Thomas Sigel, ASC has lit a night time car interior sequence off of a 12 volt truck battery! ... I ask again, "Now that we don't need lights... How are YOU lighting?"
 
Last edited:
No doubt. I avoid daylight exteriors unless they are really critical to the story. I write my own screenplays for the most part, so I have the luxury of putting VERY few day light exteriors in any of them.
 
Rear Window is also about sound. I realize that is unpopular sentiment in a time when the prevailing belief is that anyone can do sound.
 
greymog said:
Ok it's the 4th page, but to answer the title, since sensitivity is up, and if i have the chance to play with a high iso machine, I'd light with one point and bounceboards. Lighting was primarily for illumination and mood. RPO put it like that in an awesome thread. I think now illumination is no longer needed, so it's just mood. I'm lighting like I did when drawing still life in class. One point. There is only one sun right?
Click to expand...
................... There's only one sun!?!?
 
lillet said:
Rear Window is also about sound. I realize that is unpopular sentiment in a time when the prevailing belief is that anyone can do sound.
Click to expand...

I learned very quickly on my very first production how untrue that misconception really is...
 
David G. Smith said:
I have to second that. I don't have much of an ability to draw, but I am still fascinated by art and try to get as much exposure to it as possible. One great thing about living in Detroit is that we do have a world class art museum; the Detroit Institute of Art. While I don't get down there as much as i would like, every time that I do, I learn so much that I can apply to filmmaking. I am not an art scholar or anything, but I can hang in most cocktail party art discussions and try to learn more all of the time. I am amazed at how many filmmakers don't have any clue about art. Oh well, that is a discussion for another thread perhaps, but it is sad.
Click to expand...

The Wife and I when she does seminars for Photography, always include a number of art works, to use as examples for lighting, composition, color, etc. We have found that, at least for still photographers, most come to photography outside of 'traditional school art' programs... The Wife attended a local junior college for photography, then went on to The New School in New York. I entered the local state college as an art major... then I had to get a real education... for a real job... but I digress...

And needless to say, we chose many types of art that are not reduced down to 'Rembrandt'... we were showing Vermeer before "Girl With the Pearl Earring"(2003). (As a note, I was pretty disappointed with Peter Greenway's "Nightwatching"(2007))...
 
That's so professional!I don't know a lot about it.Maybe I should learn more.:Drogar-BlackEye(DBG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top