practical lighting vs relighting

smelni

smelni

Veteran
As many of you I am sure, I find myself turning out practical lights and relighting interior scenes with prof lighting. Or supplementing very much the practical lighting.

Since video is more sensitive then film and can be instantly previewed to see the look - why not just use practicals exclusively and add a fill or kicker here and there where needed - this would cut down on setup time and make a shoot quicker.

any thoughts?
 
we have one each of 800W, 600W, & 300W lights for our new set and are finding that the 800W is toooooo HOT and has caused wash when placed inside of 20' of the subjet(s) and are planning on getting rid of the two bigger ones and opting for 6 of the 300's in order to control wash and shadowing (let alone the smaller ones use newer bulbs easy to find bulbs AND are a whole lot lighter :)
 
I hear many people say video is more sensative to light then film, but I'm not so sure about that. I guess it would be which film stock you compare it too. Any way I don't think your question is about video film comparision. Can a scene be lit with just practicles. Short answer yes.

Lighting is not mechanical it is an art, with that said there is a mechanical side to it. You have to have enough light for your exposure, if you can get that with prcticles then you can light the scene with it. So why do we go to the trouble of lighting with instruments, for me it two reasons.

First to control the light. Practicals are what they are, you have no control. The purpose of lighting a scene (beyond exposure) is to help establish the mood. So to that end I want to control where every photon lands, I want to direct the viewers eyes and feelings when the gaze upon the scene.

Secondly, I want to be able to recreate the scene. Much easier to de with instrumente then practicals.

Third I want to be sure of the color of lights I'm using. Practicals can very several hundred degrees.

So that is why I perfer to light.
 
Quicker - Cheaper - Better, pick two.

>Since video is more sensitive then film

I wouldn't go there...

>and can be instantly previewed to see the
>look - why not just use practicals exclusively and add a fill or kicker here and >there where needed - this would cut down on setup time and make a shoot >quicker.

Sure if you don't mind the wall right behind the practical being blown out, and everyone's faces being dark, no problem. The reason we spend an hour or two or three lighting a room is to make it appear to the CCD what our brain interprets from our human eyes. If only everyone lit their livingrooms with fresnells and barndoors and scrims and diffusion, not to mention a couple of kinos about 4' in front of where everyone sits...

I know I do, but it drives my wife crazy.

-j
 
I understand all that - my point was more about starting from practicals and supplementing instead of creating all "fake" lighting
 
>starting from practicals and supplementing instead of creating all "fake" lighting

Depends on what your are looking for, but yes starting from practicals, using them for lighting "motivation" and supplimenting from there is a good way to go about it. heck, you might even get lucky, flick on the switch and see that it works with no help at all.

-j
 
In some cases it works and other times not so much. It depends on the look you're trying to create and if the current conditions of the space get you half way there already or not. For instance I was lighting a kitchen set recently and there was a chandelier type light hanging from the cieling and it was giving me enough "room tone" to get an exposure. In this case the practicals worked for me so all I did was add a china ball by the actors to supplement it a little, added a motivated rim light from the stove light established in the wide shot and an eye light for each closeup.
 
smelni said:
I understand all that - my point was more about starting from practicals and supplementing instead of creating all "fake" lighting
Click to expand...

I do that almost exclusively. I find it makes things easier and very natural looking. Play around and see what looks good to you. That's the most important part.
 
My personal belief is this, whether I'm shooting film or video: If the director picked the location, it was for a reason. There was something to the quality of the light, the sun, the moon, whatever, that he or she fell in love with. I would rather find a creative way of getting that across, rather than walking in, blacking out all the windows, pulling all of the bulbs, hanging a grid in the room, and blowing 18ks through the windows, I would choose to work with the light that's already there. Otherwise, why not just shoot in a studio? Every space has a feeling that is determined by the light that flows through it. To completely remove all traces of this, is to pervert the space.
 
What do you all use for "eye" lights? Are they just to put a little catch light sparkle in the eye? I'm an amateur and I find that when I try that, I end up washing out the whole face and screwing up any cool motivated lighting I was attempting.

Joe
 
it doesnt take much to create a sparkle in the eye - a stronger light far away or a very small light close will do it - cause its the reflection you are looking for
 
For eyelight I've used anything from small practical 40watts bulbs or a maglite...a lot of times the lights you already have setup (or by moving it just a little bit) will give you your eye light.
 
profnoxin said:
If the director picked the location, it was for a reason. There was something to the quality of the light, the sun, the moon, whatever, that he or she fell in love with.
Click to expand...

Either that, or there was no time and/or money to find a decent location and they ended up having to shoot in the lead actor's living room to cut costs.

A recent on-set conversation:

ME: You want it to look like "The Man Who Wasn't There"? Why are we shooting during the day in a room with eight floor to ceiling windows?

DIRECTOR: This was the only location I could get.
 
smelni said:
Since video is more sensitive then film and can be instantly previewed to see the look - why not just use practicals exclusively and add a fill or kicker here and there where needed - this would cut down on setup time and make a shoot quicker.
Click to expand...
That's EXACTLY what I do 99% of the time. But I generally ALWAYS have to have hand-squeezers (dimmers) or Variacs on each practical to slow down the intensity of practicals. I then key and set all my specials with regular production instruments. For eyelights (which I never like to use), I use an Arri 150W Fresnel, typically with a hard Arri snoot and some "schmutz" (opal or 250).
 
kellyboy said:
What do you all use for "eye" lights? Are they just to put a little catch light sparkle in the eye? I'm an amateur and I find that when I try that, I end up washing out the whole face and screwing up any cool motivated lighting I was attempting.
Click to expand...
By the way, you don't necessarily need a separate light to create a catch light. If your key is placed on the same side as your camera (of course sometimes, you'll choose not to key from the camera side), anywhere from, say 10- to 45-degrees above camera (relative to optical axis), you'll typically achieve a catch light (depending on eyeline, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top