When did old fashioned hard light finish?

[Michael Nash]

It's interesting how "realism" often means faux documentary techniques and photographic artifacts, not the same thing as naturalism.

 

This is an essential distinction as far as I'm concerned. Whenever someone says "realisitic" I have to ask "realstic what?" ;)

 

I too use the word "naturalism" to describe making things look on film they way they do to the naked eye. Sometimes I'll use the term "photographic realism" to describe a cinema verite approach. The distinction there is that "photographic realism" captures the reality as it is, but distorts it through it's own technical limits (highlights may clip, grain may be apparent, or whatwever). As we all know we often have to create quite a bit of artifice with our lighting to make something appear natural, and reality captured as-is can look very unnatural on screen.

 

Of course that's only talking about the image quality. When it comes to shooting style, coverage, etc. I think there's no such thing as realism. Unless completely accidental (like a dropped camera that continues to roll), every shot is filtered through someone's brain at some point. At that point it the perception of "realism" is based on a lot of other cultural influences like current styles, technologies and so forth.

 

If you want to examine the hard light/soft light mix even further, you only need to look at paintings done before photography became prevalent. Then painters who attempted any kind of "naturalism" in their work based their lighting on what the human eye could see -- but then again it could be modified to suit the composition and the viewing experience, much in the way that photographers/cinematographers do now. In any case, I think you'll see a mix of hard and soft light, over- and under-"exposed" areas, and a careful distribution of values throughout the frame to guide the eye.

[David Mullen ASC]

Most pre-electricity portrait painting has a fairly soft key light because there were no sharp sources that would stay the same all day long, so generally northern window light was used as a key.

 

This is one reason why so many Italian Renaissance religious paintings seem to have soft-lit subjects "pasted" over exterior backgrounds in a somewhat different daylight, almost like an Annie Liebowitz photo where the foreground is lit by flash from a softbank.

[David Mullen ASC]

Storaro is an interesting study in terms of his attitudes towards soft vs. hard light (or what he calls a broad vs. a point source). Although he occasionally used harder light from a distance to accomodate Bertolucci's snakey camera moves throughout the movie, in general in the earlier childhood scenes in "The Last Emperor" he used a softer, warmer light; for the prison sequences, a mix of harsh and soft in a grey-green tone; and in the Japanese occupation sequence, primarily hard tungsten light mixed with hard blue moonlight for a somewhat film noir quality.

 

The hard-lit sequences have a certain cruel glamour to them, and certainly work well with anamorphic lenses. (Unfortunately the DVD version of this movie is somewhat poor technically.)

 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Nash]

Most pre-electricity portrait painting has a fairly soft key light because there were no sharp sources that would stay the same all day long, so generally northern window light was used as a key.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of some early 17th century painters who sometimes used a strong single light source like a candle (De La Tour), or shaft of light through a window or opening of some sort (Rembrandt and Vermeer). They would explore the way that light goes from hard to medium to soft, as it drops from direct to indirect to ambient. And then of course arange those differing areas of value and contrast into shapes and layers within the composition.

 

This echos the combination approach by some modern cinematographers, drawing from the natural behavior of light but controlled or sculpted into a composition.

 

Which then of course begs the question -- when did old fashioned hard light start? It seems an invention of cinematography for practical reasons. Soft light was certainly around in still photography prior to movies (often using long exposure times).

[David Mullen ASC]

Which then of course begs the question -- when did old fashioned hard light start? It seems an invention of cinematography for practical reasons. Soft light was certainly around in still photography prior to movies (often using long exposure times).

 

Even though painters had replicated harder light sources like candles or direct sunlight, it wasn't until electrical lighting was commonplace that harder lighting was possible.

 

The technology for movie lighting probably migrated from stage lighting at the end of the 19th century, early 20th. Early silent movies using lighting mainly had pretty harsh carbon arcs to work with. Plus since the film stocks were not only slow, but mainly just blue-sensitive, they favored daylight arcs combined later with the soft Cooper-Hewitts, which had that blue-green mercury-vapor look.

 

It really wasn't until the late 1930's when the romantically diffused and soft-lit look was ending in popularity that you saw the rise of sculptural crisp key lighting as a deliberate style (versus just needing enough light on a subject.) By the 1940's, a certain amount of clarity was desired in b&w and color work (except for the occasional romantic close-up where diffusion was still the norm.)

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I recently revisited The Last Emperor and as you said David, the DVD left something to be desired. But much more chocking to me was the fact that I didn't find it as beautifully lit as I used to. And I think that has got something to do with the fact that it's lit much harder than I remember it. Make no mistake - the film is still gorgeous - but I just remember it as that soft, strong primary colored epic when in fact it's rather a mixture of all sources and colours.

 

I might add that when I revisit other same-era films like 9,5 Weeks and such, I think they look even more modern today (Biziou's work is always rock solid), so maybe I'm stuck in the past or I'm just not a huge fan of hard lights.

[Fredrik Backar FSF]

I recently revisited The Last Emperor and as you said David, the DVD left something to be desired. But much more chocking to me was the fact that I didn't find it as beautifully lit as I used to. And I think that has got something to do with the fact that it's lit much harder than I remember it. Make no mistake - the film is still gorgeous - but I just remember it as that soft, strong primary colored epic when in fact it's rather a mixture of all sources and colours.

 

I might add that when I revisit other same-era films like 9,5 Weeks and such, I think they look even more modern today (Biziou's work is always rock solid), so maybe I'm stuck in the past or I'm just not a huge fan of hard lights.

 

I have to praise the early Dean Cundey work with John Carpenter, hard sources and natural light in a beautiful blend.

 

And I would like to add another depth to the hard light approach... It feels to me like the filmstocks back in the day gave more texture and feel to even the most harsh lighting setups.

Just finished seeing an old horror B-classic "the Boogeyman" by Ulli Lommel. It is certainly not well lit in any way, super hard sources all over...., but there´s still this feeling of painterlyness(call me weird!) in the shots. Nowadays the new filmstocks from kodak and fuji have ventured so far towards the analytical pasted feel that it somehow allways feels flat and "too reel". Take the way the HD developing is going for instance; it´s working so hard to be as realistic as possible and in the midsts forgetting that film shold be an un-real experiense in most cases. So, could it be that hard light was "easier" to use before??

 

 

By the way, was not Ingmar Bergman and Nykvist sparkers of a new era of softlight when thay started using cellofane paper infront of their lights?

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Which then of course begs the question -- when did old fashioned hard light start? It seems an invention of cinematography for practical reasons. Soft light was certainly around in still photography prior to movies (often using long exposure times).

 

---Since you're talking about painters, don't exclude engravers. Dore in particular.

He was using hard light in a very theaatrical rather than naturalistic manner.

He had an influence on B/W cinematography. The jungle in 'King Kong' and 'The Most Dangerous Game'

have a strong Dore influence.

 

A picture of his would typically be in darkness with a shaft of intensely bright light as the main source of light.

& where are those shafts of light coming from?

 

---LV

[Michael Nash]

---Since you're talking about painters, don't exclude engravers. Dore in particular.

A picture of his would typically be in darkness with a shaft of intensely bright light as the main source of light.

& where are those shafts of light coming from?

 

---LV

 

I don't doubt that Dore had an influence on hard-light photography or cinematography, but artificial-looking or unnatural light has been around in art long before that. And besides, Dore's work was was more concurrent with early photography (daguerreotypes). But you're probably right that the style of hard lighting was influenced by or copied from artwork that like that. I think it was probably more a case of cinematographers trying to find an visual reference or model for the hard lighting they had to use for technical reasons.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I have to praise the early Dean Cundey work with John Carpenter, hard sources and natural light in a beautiful blend.

 

And I would like to add another depth to the hard light approach... It feels to me like the filmstocks back in the day gave more texture and feel to even the most harsh lighting setups.

Just finished seeing an old horror B-classic "the Boogeyman" by Ulli Lommel. It is certainly not well lit in any way, super hard sources all over...., but there´s still this feeling of painterlyness(call me weird!) in the shots. Nowadays the new filmstocks from kodak and fuji have ventured so far towards the analytical pasted feel that it somehow allways feels flat and "too reel". Take the way the HD developing is going for instance; it´s working so hard to be as realistic as possible and in the midsts forgetting that film shold be an un-real experiense in most cases. So, could it be that hard light was "easier" to use before??

By the way, was not Ingmar Bergman and Nykvist sparkers of a new era of softlight when thay started using cellofane paper infront of their lights?

 

That's also because then they transfered low con prints to video, rather than the neg. Think that has a lot to do with the look.

[Michael Nash]

I'm about to start gaffing another feature with Jack Conroy, who used a lot of hard light on the last show I did with him. I'll see if I can take some pics and keep a blog in the "in production" conference.

 

This will be a the third "hard light" feature I've gaffed, and I have learned quite a bit about this approach, even if I don't care for the style myself in my own shooting. I think the technique of lighting this way vs. soft lighting would be an interesting discussion.

[Fredrik Backar FSF]

That's also because then they transfered low con prints to video, rather than the neg. Think that has a lot to do with the look.

 

So true! thinking of it have done this so far with all my shortfilms and it looks better on the screen.

I was though also thinking of actual cinema prints. Saw for instance an old print of the fog in london when i lived there. Fantastic look. Allt bra annars? :)

Edited June 29, 2006 by Fredrik Backar FSF

[Guest Tim Partridge]

---Since you're talking about painters, don't exclude engravers. Dore in particular.

He was using hard light in a very theaatrical rather than naturalistic manner.

He had an influence on B/W cinematography. The jungle in 'King Kong' and 'The Most Dangerous Game'

have a strong Dore influence.

 

That's a really intelligent observation- I never put the two together before. Thanks for that!

 

This has been a great discussion- it seems hard light has always been there in visual art (look at anything from Rembrandt to De Lempicka) as far as bold keys go, but as David and Michael pointed out, the ideas of hard fill (and inherent multiple shadows) are really something derived from theatrical lighting. I dare say these factors AND the slower stocks of the day being easier with harder light added up to the seemingly long dated aesthetic.

 

Technology and fashion work together in tandem, and dare I say the soft transition proliferation came when it was easiest to create the long popular new look. Well, that's my take.

 

Thanks guys!

[Michael Nash]

Technology and fashion work together in tandem, and dare I say the soft transition proliferation came when it was easiest to create the long popular new look. Well, that's my take.

 

I'm inclined to agree with that. Film history is full of examples of stylistic developments growing from the technology available.

 

What's exciting to me now is that there are so many choices with the technology, that it's possible to create almost any style you want, without so much limitation form the technology. Of course there are still limits (as our recent duscussion about 65mm demonstrates), but the last 10 years or so have given us so many new options we're at a unique point in film history of being able to finally make stylistic choices first instead of last, at least much more so than we have in the past.

[Sandy Tworkowski]

Very interesting quest. We could start digging around and we might find a good approximation. I'll bet that it evolved with the faster film and faster lenses. Guys like Vilmos Sigmond and Vittorio Storaro kind of were maybe on the forefront, i think. I think some of this work got a little out of hand, like using a candle w/ three wicks and shooting in existing light. I think it was Nestor Almendros that did that in Days of Heaven. I'm new to this site and i would be interested in following your progress, if you don't mind. I've had some small success w/ multi camera on sound stages, only know what i know. The whole subject is a black art, and i can't find anyone interested in it. Thanks for you kind attention.

[Satsuki Murashige]

What a blast from the past! Great thread.