Exposure in Robert Eggers Nosferatu

[silvan schnelli]

I was really happy when I saw that in the recent ASC issue (January 2025), that cinematographer @Jarin Blaschke specifically talked about his lighting and exposure ratios on his latest film Nosferatu.

If I understood correctly, for the exterior night scenes he mentions underexposing the fill light by 4 stops and the key by 2 stops, with respect to his ‘comet’ type lighting. On the other hand for night interiors he underexposed the key and fill by 1/2 less. 

He then talked about his exposures for daytime interiors, where he underexposed the fill by 1 stop and overexposed the key by 4 stops. (I think everything is referring to incident readings).

I think he also mentioned that he rates his stock one stop slower to get the shadows out of the toe. This makes me wonder if that means, that theoretically, the key for the interior scenes were 5 stops over (and everything else is also a stop higher) or if his explanation already included his slower rating of the stock?

I have not yet extensively shot with film, so I was very surprised to read the sheer latitude and of having keys that were 5 stops overexposed and also the strong ratio of 5 stops between key and fill.
 

I always thought this overexposure was just to increase the shadow information and that it’s then corrected back down in post for correct exposure. But now I am wondering if people overexpose film and then just leave it overexposed.

[silvan schnelli]

I also don’t think I quite understand what is meant by the comet lighting strategy.

Jarin Blaschke said that “In terms of fill light, my philosophy is that it's always an extension of the key light; in this situation, the additional light we used to augment the fireplace is almost like the tail of a 'comet' with the source at its head. The key from the fireplace is the brightest source in the frame, and then the light gradually diminishes as you arc around to the actual fill, which you would never place directly opposite the key.”

Initially I was thinking of a key light coming more from the back almost like a kicker and then a fill that wraps from that direction more towards the shadow side. I think I saw this a lot in Nosferatu.

However I also started wondering if this would risk the shadow side to go very dark compared to having a traditional fill that is practically on the opposite side. Or another scenario where the a fill light can become very frontal if the key is at a traditional Rembrandt angle. 

 

[Stephen Perera]

go the to thread I started Jarin himself comes in to comment.....

 

[silvan schnelli]

@Stephen Perera Yes I am actively reading that forum, it’s got so many great replies from Jarin. I was considering if I should put the question on the forum but due to the length and so others can get exposed to it more easily and reply their thoughts and knowledge too, I decided to post it separately. 

[Tyler Purcell]

To clarify from my reading and this is a bit confusing so bare with me. 

The entire film was shot with 500T 5219. 

The stock was rated differently for different scenes, but apparently it was all pushed half a stop. 

The night scene mentioned above, he shot at 200ISO because he was using a custom filter to get rid of the yellow and red light. This created more of a black and white image and allowed it to look more like moonlight. So you should take that into account when referencing which scene is which based on the workflow differences in each scenario. 

According to the article I read, the rest of the film was shot at 320 iso, which means he over exposing by just a tiny bit and then adding another half stop to bring it closer to box rating. He didn't like the full stop push, which actually isn't exactly a full stop anyway. 

Leaving negative in the soup longer adds density, but also higher contrast.  Most of the time when film is pushed just a stop or less, it's to add a bit of contrast to the finished image, not to extend the ISO range. 

So in the case of the explanation above, if he was rating for F2.8, in reality those negative exposure numbers (under the F2.8), are over a stop less then what they seem. If you program this math into your head, then you can probably shoot this way normally all the time, with the understanding you're always going to push back to the box ISO. 

So why not just shoot the box ISO if in the end you're darn close anyway? Well, over exposing does push up the toe a bit, but then push processing a bit, gives a nice contrast kick to the negative. You will see more detail in the blacks, but also have more contrast over-all. 

[David Mullen ASC]

15 hours ago, silvan schnelli said:

I also don’t think I quite understand what is meant by the comet lighting strategy.

Jarin Blaschke said that “In terms of fill light, my philosophy is that it's always an extension of the key light; in this situation, the additional light we used to augment the fireplace is almost like the tail of a 'comet' with the source at its head. The key from the fireplace is the brightest source in the frame, and then the light gradually diminishes as you arc around to the actual fill, which you would never place directly opposite the key.”

Fill coming from the key side was a practice of Jordan Cronenweth, like on "Blade Runner" -- it created the effect of wrapping the side key further around the face but still leaving the last quarter of the face falling off to black. Imagine the face lit in half by the key and the fill lighting 3/4 of the face from the same side.

[M Joel W]

I’ve heard that Robert Richardson does something similar but with backlights, combing a hard backlight with a soft source nearby but more to the side to carry it and wrap it around a bit while maintaining the shape and direction.

[Albion Hockney]

also reminds me the deakins cove light