When to rely on natural light?

[Wax1Wax0]

I recently watched a project by a friend of a friend (who is now currently working as a professional cinematographer) and it left me all the more convinced that, for certain types of projects, relying almost exclusively on natural light can be very effective (I'll include the link to the project below).

I get that it's not always useful or appropriate but I'm of the opinion that when the project is character-based, deals with real-world issues and themes, a reliance on natural light can do a lot to help sell the story and circumstances.

Just wanted to know others' thoughts on the subject. Does a strong reliance on natural light help an audience to better connect with the images on screen? Often I find myself feeling genuinely detached from Hollywood movies where the lighting is overly-stylised and I'm convinced that's at least part of the reason for feeling that way.

 

[Bern Caughey]

Natural Light is provided by the Sun. Moonlight is just bounced Sunlight, so also Natural. Some argue illumination provided by other natural sources, such as Lightning, or Aurora, falls into this category too.

In your example there are interior, & night, scenes which are lit artificially, which by definition is not Natural. Since the filmmaker didn't supply these sources they are known as Available (or Ambient) Light. Natural Light is a type of Available Light, but not all Available Light is Natural.

 

[Cryogenic Filmworks]

I like to help the light if needed.

BTW. Just caught the meaning of your screename Wax1Wax0. Nice :beer:

 

[Tolin]

When to rely on natural light?

When you get proper exposure and continuity over time isn't a problem.


Caughey explained it well. Natural light is just a source. Even big Hollywood blockbusters will use natural light when possible. But that doesn't mean they stop paying any attention to how things Look in that light. You'll still use flags, diffusion, scrims etc to modify the light when needed (sometimes it just looks Right and that's OK too). The big reason why you'd light the outdoors is Continuity. The Sun moves - An 18k HMI does not.

 

[CharlesPapert]

The linked clip is what I would call a tone piece, where visual continuity from shot to shot or sequence to sequence is not a concern. In a "Hollywood" situation, there is a need to match shots that may possibly be taken at different times of day, different days or even entirely different circumstances (re-shoots months later on a stage recreating a shot originally made on location that need to cut seamlessly). Relying on available light especially when the sun is concerned is a very dodgy affair. I've started scenes under beautiful available light (because I requested that the schedule be built to accommodate that) and for one reason or another they go long, and we end up having to recreate it artificially.

Ironically, the notion of coming back on multiple days to complete a scene under comparable time of day is limited to both very low-budget and very high budget filmmaking. Those of us in the middle are forced to make do, hence the reliance on lighting.

Stylistically, there are indeed looks that can appear like natural/available light but are actually the result of careful and calculated lighting choices. I have a great deal of respect for this approach and have been working towards that approach, in fact the show I'm starting next week will incorporate as much of that as I can deliver, and I'm excited at the stretch.

 

[cyclone]

Academy Award-winning Caleb Deschanel would agree (re: relying on natural light). He loves exteriors, backlit by the sun. Check out "The Natural." Granted, he often helps things with an HMI , but isn't afraid to track with a subject with only the sun lighting things from behind...even actresses.

 

[combatentropy]

One of the reasons Hollywood has used artificial light is because film wasn't sensitive enough. Now that we're surrounded by cameras like the C300 and A7S, some astonishing shots have popped up on Vimeo of what was supposed to be darkness. Certainly we don't need the wattage we once did.

Another reason, as Tolin and CharlesPapert have pointed out, is consistency. But if the scene is just half a page and to be covered in one or two angles, maybe this won't be much of a problem either.

Especially on a microbudget short film, you wouldn't be faulted for relying heavily on ambient light. Artificial light poorly done can be much worse than ambient light. To do it right, time after time, Hollywood employs a large crew --- so large that to a newb it seems ridiculous (a group of people whose only job is to set up the lights, another group of people whose only job is to set up the flags, etc.). But if you want to reliably do it day after day, week after week, without burning out or blowing something up, you too would employ more than one person.

However, even with ultrasensitive cameras these days, I still would get a good DP and a reasonably sized lighting crew if I had the money. The reason is reinforced when I watch, for example, the trailer for Wild, that movie with Reese Witherspoone that was shot without artificial light. Judging by the trailer, the lighting is bland. Even the shot at sunset is missing something. I don't like the video you posted as an example either. The lighting is interesting, but when I imagine that a story is being told, the same deficiencies become more pronounced. One of the problems with ambient lighting is that the actors' faces, especially their eyes, are too dim. The other common problem is that the shot overall just looks weak. There's too little accentuation, punctuation, of any one part. The light is too scattered, too noisy.

Nowadays I am thinking that controlling your light is just an integral part of the moviemaking process. Using ambient light is like using an omnidirectional microphone mounted on the camera, instead of treating the room for sound and using a shotgun on a fishpole. Using ambient light is like walking around and just transcribing everything that happens, instead of crafting a screenplay. Okay, so using ambient light can still involve some effort, but again it's like editing from one particular card, instead of using the better take on a different card because that's too much effort. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that using ambient light is lazy. Making a movie is one of the hardest things you'll ever do, lighting or not. But I think a part of the moviemaking process is sort of left incomplete when you only use ambient light throughout.

Again, don't get me wrong, I would rather have ambient light or mildly augmented ambient light than the artificial light in many TV shows from the '70s, for instance. But when it's done well, it doesn't have to look artificial, just as a well-written screenplay or a nice, clean audio track doesn't jump out at you as unnatural.

 

[Run&Gun]

...But when it's done well, it doesn't have to look artificial, just as a well-written screenplay or a nice, clean audio track doesn't jump out at you as unnatural.

It shouldn't draw attention to itself. Kind of like special effects, the best ones are the ones you don't notice.

 

[Noel Evans]

The linked clip is what I would call a tone piece, where visual continuity from shot to shot or sequence to sequence is not a concern.

This plus being a music video allow it to work here. Then re read the rest of Charles' post.

I'll add, natural is one thing, but there's still need to shape it. Bounce, flags, diffusion etc. but, location recce is key. The light has to be able to work in a motivated way for the shot i.e. Sun / moon position is critical, weather on the day required for the shot, ambient lights and positions.

 

[DLD]

... Ironically, the notion of coming back on multiple days to complete a scene under comparable time of day is limited to both very low-budget and very high budget filmmaking...

I was waiting for that Roger Deakins story.

In any case, that video has that milky-bland look, which can be found in some locales on a consistent basic. Others would just smother you with an overhead sun. Both are technically "natural".

As was this. I mean, if you can make a woman look this good, you deserve to marry her.

 

[Grug]

Unless you have 12/18k HMIs on the truck, or you're working on stage, odds are you're (at the very least) working with and around natural and available light.

It's a large part of the reason I consider my strongest tool as a DoP, is my 1st AD. Scheduling carefully around time-of-day and the angle of the sun in particular locations, is generally the single strongest lighting choice you can make most of the time.

 

[morgan_moore]

Read Charles Papert 10 times.

Simply this should not really be a question to ask, it is one that you will answer yourself as you develop as a DOP.

DOPing is a job of making the project work and that may or may not need a full tookit.

Certainly I am of the belief that if you have enough time to hunt the light/location it is possible to shoot scenes without adding light.

I use ideally nothing, then reflectors, then affordable lights that I own, then for tricky situations have to move to rented HMI.

Each job is different.. schedule, continuity, location, desired look et al.

One thing I would however say is that my personal 'look' is for the audience not to know that the scene was lit.

S

 

[rsbush]

Just wanted to know others' thoughts on the subject. Does a strong reliance on natural light help an audience to better connect with the images on screen? Often I find myself feeling genuinely detached from Hollywood movies where the lighting is overly-stylised and I'm convinced that's at least part of the reason for feeling that way.

You might want to take a look at Bertol Brecht's Verfremdungseffekt. This has been translated as Alienation or Distancing or Estrangement Effect. And while Brecht employed the concept in theater, I'm of the opinion that it is present to some degree in all forms of art. I didn't find it an easy concept to grasp, but very simply put, the idea is that artificiality allows an audience's experience to take place on a "conscious plane" rather than a "subconscious plane."
The Distancing effect entry on Wikipedia is a good place to start if you're so inclined.

 

[rayortiz313]

you could argue that 9 times out of 10, unless your going for an expressionist style, you're trying to make the light look natural, even when using fixtures. Naturalism has little to do with using the sun. You could also create a super stylized look with backlighting from the sun.

some of the shots in the music video or way flat, the image quality and grading are doing alot of the work to make the image "cinematic" so to speak (sick of that word). The blue tone creates a sort of "overcast sky" concept for alot of the flat shots which fits the depressed mood of the vid. Im not saying its bad, Im just saying that its not like, super-high-level sunlit cinematography thats all. at least not in most places.

My project we shot under the BQE which was a carefuly chosen and scouted location. We got a "softbox" effect from the sunlight bouncing off the earth and buildings, coming at the actors from the side. Basically the world was our softbox. The brighter background also creates a silho effect and some depth. I overexposed a bit but plan on adding some post-camera diffussion

Not saying my thing looks better than your pals or anything, but there are some lessons in using natural light/the sun. Its all about direction and choice of location/time of day etc. We didnt have any refelectors or anything, just me and a camera!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nATuuy6Xg-U&feature=youtu.be

 

[puredrifting]

Some great wisdom and observations in this thread by some very talented filmmakers. To me, all that a great DP does is conceive, shape and mold light to tell a visual story. Really doesn't matter what the source is, to a point. I love shooting outside using nothing but either natural key and fill sources or supplying/modifying them, there is something gratifying about taming the sun and using it in the way you want to. For interiors, most of the shows I worked on that I loved the look of, in particular, NYPD Blue and Homeland, were often lit by large sources outside windows, totally emulating naturalistic sunlight. I tend to favor brighter, contrastier looks, I very much dislike the current look that is in vogue of milky, low contrast pastel mush or the Orange/Cyan grade, it's hideous looking.

The best DPs are able to do exactly what many have said in this discussion, recreate a very subtle, natural and organic look whenever and wherever they want. That is much more challenging than you would think, it typically requires both an ability to read what a particular scene would look like if it were lit naturally and the ability to have and work those same kinds of sources, which frankly are out of reach for the typical low budget or indie filmmaker. Most indies can't afford 12k/18k/22k sources, a trailer or truck mounted generator and all of the 8x8, 12x12 and 20x20 light shaping tools and accompanying grip gear and crew needed to rig it all. You can do smaller versions of these looks with 4x4 and 6x6 sources for smaller shots with fewer talent in them but you expand just a little past that and it becomes much more difficult.

Unfortunately, I work a lot in promo, marketing and corporate material where the clients want the opposite of these looks, they seem stuck on flat soft lighting with heavy rim/hair lights. I shoot a lot of middle aged actresses where I must please not only my client, but their entire client team from the studio. They don't want anything to look natural because natural light more readily reveals wrinkles, skin imperfections and age. Luckily I am able to have more fun and be more creative with my lighting in some documentary scenarios I shoot and we are in the middle of developing looks for shows we are pitching right now, which is a blast, but most of the show concepts are pseudo reality like a Duck Dynasty sort of family, enahancd reality ensemble cast, so we can't really go too naturalistic with that project either as the subject matter revolves around a car lifestyle that is flashy and colorful so doing naturalistic lighting wouldn't really work for the concept, we shoot in a lot of inner city locations that if presented as they really look, might be a bit depressing so we choose our BGs, lighting and angles carefully as we are "creating the world" through our main character's eyes.

Based upon the cameras we use these days, I would say that almost any look can be obtained with some ingenuity and knowledge but recreating those looks is not easy or practical. The ever changing quality of natural lighting makes it only useful for very specific scenarios that can be shot quickly before the look changes. Very challenging for most types of production where talent hitting marks, nailing dialogue and or physical movement is paramount, that requires lots of takes usually and your look you started with quickly changes.

 

[charliemcdanger]

I recently shot stills on a set in Kentucky and was impressed by what they did with natural light. Largely sidelit windows with diffusion/bounce as necessary. I'd like to link a whole folder here but they'd come stab me. Anyway here are a couple.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Nice stills, Charlie. But what if you don't want shallow depth-of-focus? What do you do for the master shot, where you need the smaller lens aperture so that everything is in focus?

 

[David W. Richardson]

I'm preparing to shoot a scene which takes place outside on a park bench at dusk. There are 5 characters in that scene, having a 5-minute conversation -- which means to get adequate coverage, I'm going to have to shoot a lot of takes, even if no one flubs a line or makes any kind of mistake. (And even shooting with 2 cameras.)

As we know, "dusk" only lasts a few precious minutes. So what I'm going to have to do is wait until dark, then light the scene artificially to create the impression of "dusk".

That's one of the problems with using sunny daylight -- it changes constantly. Shadows get longer or shorter from one take to the next. Direction changes. A "partly cloudy" day can be a real hassle. Even if you're shooting indoors and using more diffuse daylight from windows, it still fluctuates.

I prefer to do what a lot of Hollywood movies do -- use a lot of controllable light, in such a way as to create the impression of natural or ambient light. With a lot of light on a scene, I have control over not only direction and mood, but also depth-of-focus, adding neutral density where needed to get wider lens apertures. To me, it's much easier to build from "bright" down to what I want, than to start with ambient and work my way up.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Nice stills, Charlie. But what if you don't want shallow depth-of-focus? What do you do for the master shot, where you need the smaller lens aperture so that everything is in focus?

That's not a standard conceit, David...I myself usually shoot the master/wider shoots at a more open aperture, to get the background to fall out somewhat. (i.e. 24mm at T2.8, 75 or 100mm at T4, although as seen in those stills I'd guess more like a T2 or a full frame camera).

 

[charliemcdanger]

Nice stills, Charlie. But what if you don't want shallow depth-of-focus? What do you do for the master shot, where you need the smaller lens aperture so that everything is in focus?

I can't speak for the DP because I am not him, but of course when you switch from 85mm 2.0 to 14mm 2.0, for example, that would largely solve your DoF issue.

EDIT: Good eye, Charles. Was probably about 1.8 on 85mm.