Teaching myself lighting

J.R. Hudson said:
I'd like to get a flag up to control the spill particularly in the background.
Click to expand...
Buying a c-stand and flags is not a step in the right direction. With modern LED lights there is seldom a need for screens flags, etc. I can count the number of times I've used flags in the last 20 years on one hand with no fingers. You need to learn to use the correct instruments and other simple tools and techniques to shape the light how you want it to look, rather than just blasting it all over the place and then trying to block some of it. That's not lighting and will always look like crap. Don't waste money on c-stands and flags. Put your money into some smaller lights, some soft boxes, and cheap diffusion. Think soft light without harsh shadows and highlights.

Your choice of lighting instruments is a lot like a surgeon trying to remove a kidney with a hatchet.

As a last resort, just aim one of your lights up into a corner of the room away from the scene and let the ambient light fill the room. I assure you just that one little thing would look better than the image you posted above.
 
Last edited:
I'm no expert but generally how I've controlled spill (interview situation) is using a light modifier called a grid, barn doors to a lesser extent. Also how the scene is setup plays a big role too. It's not to say flags are bad but generally they're for advance setups like movie sets or professional broadcasts where they have a crew. If you're a solo operator playing around...
 
Last edited:
Here in the UK, I am involved with a historic lighting collection - mostly theatre but unexpectedly quite a lot of film/TV, and every new donation brings unexpected things. In one section we have a large projection screen which in essence, we use unscientifically - hanging each item, powering it up and pointing it at the screen. Two things are very obvious - comparative brightness and the spread, but some just look horrible - and then putting a person in the beam reveals the startled headlight look, while other immediately look 'nice', and flatter the person. It very clearly is nothing to do with brand, or cost (or even age), but the optics. The first carbon arc we fired up was a surprise. The light quality was really good - I actually expected it to be crude - lots of output but not pleasant, but that huge Fresnel lens gave the beam a very pleasant to the eye look.

Not video, but the theatre people have a way of working that is different from TV/Film. They light the people first. You then light the set to get rid of dark areas. Your image appears the other way around - you lit the kitchen, and not the person. I have never done film, but have done a fair bit of TV here - and getting faces lit seems to be vital.

Since we dumped tungsten, and light levels dropped, it has been popular to use very small lensed light sources, and our museum experiences suggest lens size is very important - the smaller, the more hard the shadows become, and the quicker the drop off you get as the subject moves around. No nice fade out at the edges, a more vicious drop off. I used to consider 650W Arri Fresnels, a small light source. Now, with LED, that size is deemed 'big'. We used to consider things that work like current LED panels as floods, and uncontrolled, unflattering things. Now we blast sets with them.

Have we abandoned Key, fill and back light totally now?
 
Last edited:
paulears said:
Not video, but the theatre people have a way of working that is different from TV/Film. They light the people first. You then light the set to get rid of dark areas. Your image appears the other way around - you lit the kitchen, and not the person. I have never done film, but have done a fair bit of TV here - and getting faces lit seems to be vital.
Click to expand...

I agree - your characters are generally your narrative focal point; you want to light the people, particularly the face, first, then light their environment.
 
David Jimerson said:
I agree - your characters are generally your narrative focal point; you want to light the people, particularly the face, first, then light their environment.
Click to expand...
I get really torn on this concept because oftentimes I hear DPs (Bradford Young for example) referring to lighting spaces, not faces
 
Aaron Marshall said:
That's a different kind of shot. Portraiture is different from environmental photography.

Look at Christopher Walken in Pulp Fiction or Sleepy Hollow is probably more apt
Click to expand...

Granted, but it's still cinematic, which was more the point.

Pulp Fiction was flatly lit mostly throughout. For the most part, I wouldn't hold it up as an example of great cinematic lighting, even if the camera work is excellent. A shot or two, sure.
 
David Jimerson said:
Granted, but it's still cinematic, which was more the point.

Pulp Fiction was flatly lit mostly throughout. For the most part, I wouldn't hold it up as an example of great cinematic lighting, even if the camera work is excellent. A shot or two, sure.
Click to expand...

I'd argue it's really not cinematic. It's a portrait photo. It's set up for a headshot with wildly different equipment. Strobes, a shutter that is faster, different world. Cinema would be dragging and slower. His avatar photo is a portrait. Unless you go back to 40's and 50's film where you have to light all the ladies with beauty lighting, I don't think it's "cinematic".

I'd take one look at that shot and think it's either a specialty shot, or not well lit for a motion picture film. Generally speaking. Films are extrapersonal. "Extrapersonal" meaning "outside of a person" or "beyond what is personal". It's often used to describe spaces, communications, or experiences that extend beyond an individual's immediate body and immediate interactions. It's about the world the characters exist within.

Portraits and Betty Davis shots in cinema are a personal or hyper egotistical captures where the focus is all on the person.

It also depends on who is shooting it and what their theory is to some extent. You could shoot a film that's super contrasty and B&W. Maybe Sin City comes to mind and it could be really cool with the right story. Not typical for "cinema" though.

If you had a great script of a great story with John's shooting, even now, it would be amazing cinematography. If it looks over the top beautiful, but there's no freaking story, it's trash. I'm sick of movies that look great and suck.

What's not "cinematic" about John's stuff? I think especially since he's a big fan of the 70's era where it was more run and gun. What is everyone talking about? It has to be Kubrick, or Deakins?
 
In every technical or artistic area there will be people who are good enough to break rules and conventions. I have always been wary about following these things when reported. Originally in magazines and later online. I remember a quite famous now, but upcoming lighting designer turning up unexpectedly where I was doing a relight for the production company. Let’s have a look what you’ve got up already. Nothing like his supplied plan. He asked if we had anything to fill in some quite dark shadows, but we had nothing left. He said it was fine, we ran with it. In a magazine a few years later I spotted one of the pics he took. He said it was important to sometimes leave things dark to engage the audience’s imagination, encourage them to try to see what is in the darkness. When I became a teacher in college, I used that quote to show the students how easy it was to explain away a problem as art. I must admit I became rather good at using these excuses myself. Personally, lighting set but not the people is very risky.
 
Interesting conversation.

In no particular order: "light faces not spaces" is a philosophy for one style of shooting that philosophy has resulted in some pretty ugly looking work (not Bradford's specifically, but those who may follow it). LIghting goes through trends, and having been around enough decades now to experience the cycle, it is amusing for me to note the newer folks "discovering" techniques that have been around forever, if less popular at different times. One example being an influencer posting a video showing how a projection lens (what we used to know as a Leko) can be used in X and Y fashion and the comments were making it sound like he invented it (I've had Leko's on my standard lighting package for two decades, they are incredibly useful instruments in so many ways).

I think one of the most helpful excercises is to find a frame grab of a lighting setup that one likes and set out to duplicate it as closely as possible. It forces one to learn about hard vs soft light, modifiers, color and ratios. Some of my favorite days on set involved reverse-engineering lighting setups either to pay homage/parody, or to match pre-existing lighting, especially from iconic work from the past that I came up on. Very satisfying when you get it right!
 
Paul F said:
"Light faces not spaces" .....That's not a saying I would hang my hat on.
Click to expand...

Well, of course noir came to mind for me also. And there are other styles and looks that call for this. I think the point is that there is generally not a one-size-fits-all approach to lighting creatively, which is what makes it interesting. Some years back I started pushing myself to try different approaches when I was finding myself falling back on the same-old every time, which led to some fun discoveries. Like the series where I decided to do a lot of near side lighting instead of far side. The results were mixed, but it ultimately gave me more of a toolbox so now I feel more confident to make that choice and have it work out. There are many newer DP's who would rather quit a job than light someone from the near side, which is to their detriment, I feel.
 
CharlesPapert said:
Well, of course noir came to mind for me also. And there are other styles and looks that call for this. I think the point is that there is generally not a one-size-fits-all approach to lighting creatively, which is what makes it interesting. Some years back I started pushing myself to try different approaches when I was finding myself falling back on the same-old every time, which led to some fun discoveries. Like the series where I decided to do a lot of near side lighting instead of far side. The results were mixed, but it ultimately gave me more of a toolbox so now I feel more confident to make that choice and have it work out. There are many newer DP's who would rather quit a job than light someone from the near side, which is to their detriment, I feel.
Click to expand...

What would you say the prospects of lighting for character are in a "light spaces not faces" philosophy?
 
Popping in. after reading the first post...

I dont like a light merter. or flase colour.. but I think you need to investigate a light metter and or false colour.

Simply for the kitchens shot

The key side of the face should be maybe 4 and the kitchen wall at 2.8 and the dark side of the face 2

exposed at 4.

And the light too hard and the shiny fridge is death and the cupboard shadows.

--

Composition .. you have eaten the lookspace and why is he looking into the edge of the room not out into it.

That would not be conventional.. but could be led by story.

Lack of look space and looking away from where the second character logically is.. is shifty.

--

Id probably clip a white sheet camera right and pong my light into that. If there is a wall on the right clip to that wall

Boucing from white walls or white/bleached muz sheets is pro, softboxes are for youtubers.

Become king of clipping a sheet (2autopoles 2 kclamps and an extendy crossbar and some pony clamps)

Pong is a verb - to aim the fixture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top