What type of lights used in this video by MSNBC
- Thread starter Ken1212
- Start date
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Looks like Astra: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb-eLf4W8AAIMkk.jpg
JPNola
Veteran
courtesy of Chris-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb-eLf4W8AAIMkk.jpg
One thing that stands out to me is the eye line for Melania. As well as this interview setup is executed overall, the eyeline for Melania is too far off the lens. That may be a tipoff to the lens used. When you are shooting an interview with a long focal length you often end up with the eye line of the subject being further off axis than normal. The reason being that you have to allow for movement on the interviewee in order to maintain a "clean" single. On the reverse angle, on Mika's shot, the eyeline is closer to the lens because they weren't using as long of a focal length and it is a dirty single. They didn't have to worry about keeping Melania out of Mika's shot. So...it suggests they were using a Canon 70-200mm on Melania. Likely at a focal length in the 100-120mm range. Wide open at f/2.8.
The fact that the background is some distance from the subject increases the soft focus of the background and makes for that "pretty" look. Also helps that the subject is a beautiful woman with flawless skin and no wrinkles whatsoever.
I would have used soft boxes on the Astra's. And I would have positioned both key lights lower so that there would be less of a chin shadow. I also would have turned off those chandeliers. Chandeliers can cause numerous nose / chin shadows. It appears that the key lights cancelled that effect out, but I would have turned the chandeliers off just to be safe. Oh, and I would have had a safety on those lights. From the photo it appears that there isn't any safety between the light unit and the boom arm. Imagine if that light fell and hit litigation-happy Donald Trump's wife in the head.
Note that they have both key lights for the two women positioned near dead center for that "beauty" look. Relatively flat and the chin shadow tucks up under the chin.
The CNN interview with Melania also uses 1 x 1 LED panels-
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb-eLf4W8AAIMkk.jpg
One thing that stands out to me is the eye line for Melania. As well as this interview setup is executed overall, the eyeline for Melania is too far off the lens. That may be a tipoff to the lens used. When you are shooting an interview with a long focal length you often end up with the eye line of the subject being further off axis than normal. The reason being that you have to allow for movement on the interviewee in order to maintain a "clean" single. On the reverse angle, on Mika's shot, the eyeline is closer to the lens because they weren't using as long of a focal length and it is a dirty single. They didn't have to worry about keeping Melania out of Mika's shot. So...it suggests they were using a Canon 70-200mm on Melania. Likely at a focal length in the 100-120mm range. Wide open at f/2.8.
The fact that the background is some distance from the subject increases the soft focus of the background and makes for that "pretty" look. Also helps that the subject is a beautiful woman with flawless skin and no wrinkles whatsoever.
I would have used soft boxes on the Astra's. And I would have positioned both key lights lower so that there would be less of a chin shadow. I also would have turned off those chandeliers. Chandeliers can cause numerous nose / chin shadows. It appears that the key lights cancelled that effect out, but I would have turned the chandeliers off just to be safe. Oh, and I would have had a safety on those lights. From the photo it appears that there isn't any safety between the light unit and the boom arm. Imagine if that light fell and hit litigation-happy Donald Trump's wife in the head.
Note that they have both key lights for the two women positioned near dead center for that "beauty" look. Relatively flat and the chin shadow tucks up under the chin.
The CNN interview with Melania also uses 1 x 1 LED panels-
Attachments
Chris Santucci
Veteran
I think 1X1 panels are pretty standard for this kind of thing. They probably had very little time to set up and shoot. It is interesting that they chose to have Melania framed with a more open eyeline as opposed to Mika in the dirty single with a closed eyeline. It could be for practical reasons or because they're deliberately trying to make Melania appear more distant and cold.
ozmorphasis
Well-known member
Interesting that you can see the bottom of the Astra above Malania's head in the wide shot. Not something I would expect from this level of a shoot.
On the other hand, I think I only noticed it because I was looking for the lights/lighting in this scenario. Also interesting.
Great point about the open/closed possibly intentional thing. I would assume that to be the case, but who knows.
On the other hand, I think I only noticed it because I was looking for the lights/lighting in this scenario. Also interesting.
Great point about the open/closed possibly intentional thing. I would assume that to be the case, but who knows.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I often have to light things like this and I hate it. Flat, boring lighting does not make women looks their best, but it is quick and often in these sorts of situations, they don't give you much time to light. No softboxes on the Astras is surprising.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Pardon my ignorance, when you guys mention "eyeline" are you speaking of the horizontal position as in she is off center to the right of the frame? Or something else? Thanks
Chris Santucci
Veteran
It's literally the line of sight of the subject relative to the off camera subject.
Last edited:
Bassman2003
Veteran
ok. So the camera's position being off axis creates a shot trending towards a profile shot as opposed to looking directly into the lens. Seems like these type of interview shots always have some sort of compromise involved. Maybe they were trying to avoid something in the background. Or as stated, just needing to avoid the interviewer's head. None of which speak to trying to influence the scene as being cold or detached...
I would have liked to have seen a hair light but those are often left out as well.
I would have liked to have seen a hair light but those are often left out as well.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Actually it does. That frontal style of lighting is essentially glamour lighting as seen on fashion magazine covers. It doesn't look great on people with large faces, but Mika and Melania have lovely bone structure which it accentuates.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
That seems to be a matter of opinion. It does flatten out wrinkles and skin imperfections, which is what a lot of talent and their agents are concerned with. In my work, I often light a lot of older Hollywood talent but on some occasions I have lit beautiful younger women, young Latina actresses and while I kept the lighting soft, I did provide some modeling and dimension to their faces and they ended up looking really great. I like soft, but flat is what makes it boring. No cheekbones revealed, etc. I agree with you about face size and shape as well. I have lit Drew Barrymore who has a longer face and I have lit Dakota Fanning who has a shorter, wider face and I lit each very differently. Different face shapes, sizes, skin tones and different requirements. I lit Lauren Graham a few months ago for some Gilmore Girls promos and there was a lot of disagreement on set about what made her look her best. We ended up with a modified clamshell lighting which ended up being pretty flat but at least still had some dimension of her face. I just dislike when they end up looking 2D, like they are pasted over the background rather than part of the scene and that's the look that flat, dimensionless lighting can give at times. Different strokes.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
The eyeline didn't bother me, but jumping the line for the two shot did.
ozmorphasis
Well-known member
What I don't quite understand:
If this is truly being lit by just those two Astras in terms of Key, how is the lighting so soft? I've used those Astras. Love em, but without modifying the light, wouldn't they typically have somewhat harsher highlights happening? Obviously makeup helps here, but still. The shadow on the chin would look worse than it does too, no?
I see other responses in this thread where people have said they would put softboxes on these, and I see people saying that they do or don't like flat lighting, but I don't see anyone saying that this looks harsh or any of the other things that one would expect to see when using panels with no extra softening up by expanding the size of the key.
Then again, there is a ton of ambient light going on in there, so maybe these suckers were on their very lowest setting?
O
If this is truly being lit by just those two Astras in terms of Key, how is the lighting so soft? I've used those Astras. Love em, but without modifying the light, wouldn't they typically have somewhat harsher highlights happening? Obviously makeup helps here, but still. The shadow on the chin would look worse than it does too, no?
I see other responses in this thread where people have said they would put softboxes on these, and I see people saying that they do or don't like flat lighting, but I don't see anyone saying that this looks harsh or any of the other things that one would expect to see when using panels with no extra softening up by expanding the size of the key.
Then again, there is a ton of ambient light going on in there, so maybe these suckers were on their very lowest setting?
O
Chris Santucci
Veteran
It's all about how close the heads are, the fill light, and exposure. Putting softboxes on those heads would create problems with the 2-shot (impinging on the 2-shot) and as you can see they were already hugging the top of the frame with the heads. With even hard light from a fresnel head for example, you can create a softish look if your ratios and exposure are correct. Not to mention it's a lot quicker and easier to use that frontal style of lighting because it's more forgiving in the sense that you're not having to screw around with angles to get shadows where you want them.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Yep. Dreadful. Not great lighting for me either. And who chose the location, Imelda Marcos?
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
You sleuths seem to have missed the other clues in that picture that Chris linked:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb-eLf4W8AAIMkk.jpg
That's an Arri Broadcaster LED unit provide a low fill for Melania (which you can see in her eyes). And the stand in the foreground suggests another unit, although it could be aimed at a background element (the thickness of the cable would indicate indicate AC, vs a boom mike etc).
The reverse 2S doesn't really bother me. We understand it's two people facing off and talking to each other. Matter of taste I guess.
I actually like that there wasn't an impulse to do a glowing hair light. Feels more natural without it.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cb-eLf4W8AAIMkk.jpg
That's an Arri Broadcaster LED unit provide a low fill for Melania (which you can see in her eyes). And the stand in the foreground suggests another unit, although it could be aimed at a background element (the thickness of the cable would indicate indicate AC, vs a boom mike etc).
The reverse 2S doesn't really bother me. We understand it's two people facing off and talking to each other. Matter of taste I guess.
I actually like that there wasn't an impulse to do a glowing hair light. Feels more natural without it.
Run&Gun
Veteran
What I saw:
Typical big three network flat lighting working with the natural environment. If the Astra's in the shots are the keys, they are keyed from the wrong side. BUT the "real" keys could be on the correct side out of frame of the still or there could be a big bank of windows and they're using it or the locaster/broadcaster is a key/uplight and the Astra's are "fill". The most egregious thing to me is crossing the axis for the wide two. It's jarring and amateur hour BS that shouldn't fly at that level. Now playing devils advocate, the wide two-shot may have been total crap if they shot it from the correct side because the background could have been a big bank of blown out windows or because of lights on that side(like the Arri), in which case FLY the lights to keep them out of the shot so that it can be shot from the correct side(presuming it's a background worth showing) OR nix the wide two(which wasn't gonna happen because the producer wanted to see the environment and give it some "production value", which btw goes out the window when you do something that stupid anyway). And let's face it, so often now, unless you have a wide two+ shot, you're not gonna see the environment because you're shooting WAO on s35.
I'm sick of producers always wanting a third camera wide shot no matter how much it compromises your main subject shot. The most common thing I see when there is a wide two like that is the subjects keyed from the wrong side because they didn't/couldn't fly the lights.
Also, I would have given her a little less headroom with graphics that damn big. Look like a floating head in a box. And the wide two cam doesn't match. Very green.
Typical big three network flat lighting working with the natural environment. If the Astra's in the shots are the keys, they are keyed from the wrong side. BUT the "real" keys could be on the correct side out of frame of the still or there could be a big bank of windows and they're using it or the locaster/broadcaster is a key/uplight and the Astra's are "fill". The most egregious thing to me is crossing the axis for the wide two. It's jarring and amateur hour BS that shouldn't fly at that level. Now playing devils advocate, the wide two-shot may have been total crap if they shot it from the correct side because the background could have been a big bank of blown out windows or because of lights on that side(like the Arri), in which case FLY the lights to keep them out of the shot so that it can be shot from the correct side(presuming it's a background worth showing) OR nix the wide two(which wasn't gonna happen because the producer wanted to see the environment and give it some "production value", which btw goes out the window when you do something that stupid anyway). And let's face it, so often now, unless you have a wide two+ shot, you're not gonna see the environment because you're shooting WAO on s35.
I'm sick of producers always wanting a third camera wide shot no matter how much it compromises your main subject shot. The most common thing I see when there is a wide two like that is the subjects keyed from the wrong side because they didn't/couldn't fly the lights.
Also, I would have given her a little less headroom with graphics that damn big. Look like a floating head in a box. And the wide two cam doesn't match. Very green.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Good observations.