Stylized Lightings in different eras
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
JPNola
Veteran
There are many DP's working today who have never executed hard-lighting and would struggle at it. It's an entirely different thing, in a way. You often have to choose one part of a shot to light for best. That is, the lighting is only going to be perfect on the actor at one head position and will quickly go to crap as soon at they turn their head during the scene. You have to choose when in the shot you want that best-lighting to be. When the actor looks at the other actor in the shot? Or when the actor more looks out of the window? Where do I place the good lighting? With use of large source soft-lighting it is more possible to have 'good' lighting throughout the entire shot. Because soft is more forgiving and less dependent upon precision.
If Wells turns his head left or right even a little bit in the shot below, the place and fall of the shadows goes to crap quickly. The hard-light is really only optimal for one exact head position.
With lighting for tv where subjects look at the camera, it's relatively simple because you light for that head position. Things get tricky with multiple cameras and multiple subjects altering the direction they are looking. Especially the "round-table" type of setup. It's not always possible to light someone well for two camera angles concurrently. One camera angle is going to suffer, so you choose which angle that will be.
If Wells turns his head left or right even a little bit in the shot below, the place and fall of the shadows goes to crap quickly. The hard-light is really only optimal for one exact head position.
With lighting for tv where subjects look at the camera, it's relatively simple because you light for that head position. Things get tricky with multiple cameras and multiple subjects altering the direction they are looking. Especially the "round-table" type of setup. It's not always possible to light someone well for two camera angles concurrently. One camera angle is going to suffer, so you choose which angle that will be.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Interesting choice, it's exact opposite of the classic slash of light illuminating the eyes look, this is more like a big shadow covering the right eye and the left eye in full illumination.
It probably looked better in context with movement but this still doesn't look very flattering to the alien, almost looks like a mistake although I know it wasn't.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
The alien is the borg queen, so - total archvillain. They also do a nice thing with giving her glassy black irises.
For context, here is the queen lowering her organic bits into her machine body:
And here is the actress irl:
So yeah they're trying to make her look terrifying.
Brilliant character imo. And was the villain in the excellent feature film star trek: first contact (but a different actress and incarnation of the queen)
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Cool character but I still don't like the lighting on that frame at least. The other shot looks cool. Pretty lady too playing her.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Why not? You think it should be more flattering?
puredrifting
Major Contributor
No, not flattering just less distracting. I could sell ominous or significant a lot better with some other face lighting tricks.
Not having seen the episode and not knowing the character, I might try something noir looking to have her face more hidden
in shadows, then revealed, it seems really bright around the shadow for a makeup SFX character to me.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
It worked pretty well for me when I was watching it. The highlight on the side of her face is a bit too bright for my taste and looks kind of ugly. But I think that's the point and contribute to a lo-fi grungy vibe. The slash of shadow on the face is obviously very carefully placed if you are paying close attention to the lighting. But I think the pattern of light and shadow is beautiful and that laymen won't give it a second thought.
Re:revealing a makeup SFx character- the artificiality and rubberiness is intentional I think
Different scene from same episode below - at 1:30 you can see the same lighting design in motion:
Re:revealing a makeup SFx character- the artificiality and rubberiness is intentional I think
Different scene from same episode below - at 1:30 you can see the same lighting design in motion:
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Well, nothing much to add about the lighting but my girlfriend back in the day played a Vulcan on Voyager so that's...something
https://www.dropbox.com/s/55mil3wunnk84ss/Amystartrek.mov?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/55mil3wunnk84ss/Amystartrek.mov?dl=0
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I saw some Angus McBean prints once (stage B+W photographer) and was suprised at some of the shadows and clean skin tones.
Seeing the original prints up close one could see heavy hand retouching - it wasnt all lighting or good skin!
Seeing the original prints up close one could see heavy hand retouching - it wasnt all lighting or good skin!
ahalpert
Major Contributor
well, that's probably true of hard lighting in general, no? At least from a close distance?
But yes I totally agree - my original post in the thread was regarding star trek the original series, and I noticed even as a kid that the actors stood stock still in the close-ups. it's because they're lit like statues
paulears
Veteran
Totally OT, but I was staying with my cousin in a tiny hamlet in France and we went to the market, and I heard a voice which I recognised and came face to face with Commander Torreth, The Romulan from Star Trek - and without thinking I said Hello Commander - and her face froze, and she asked how on earth I knew it was her, without the ears, from 30 years ago, in a foreign country. Just the voice I said, just the voice. Lovely lady.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Not exactly the same, but I remember on certain things, there was sometimes a full day given to light important interviews. And until recently(the last few years), two hours always seemed to be the accepted minimal allowance of time(of course I mean usually the entire set-up of un-packing, camera, lighting, etc.). Then it dwindled to 1 1/2 hrs. There are also times when you’re lucky to be budgeted an hour. And of course, there are some who expect you to be able to set-up without setting up. “All you have to do is turn the camera on, right?”.