Which light do you like to start with?

[andrewbuchanan]

Just curious, when lighting a scene, which light do people like to start with and why? I know the circumstances should dictate everything, but in general, if there is a choice of lights...

 

I usually do the key, but as I have worked with different people and DPs, I have seen people start with back, fill, etc. Is there any reason for this?

[Dan Salzmann]

For me it depends on how I pre-visualized the scene or shot in terms of atmosphere and the stop I want to shoot at and what feels like the most comfortable way of working for the given situation.

[Mitch Gross]

It is usually determined by the location or the look/effect we're going for in a scene. So if I have a window in shot that is going to show me something outside and I want a window light on the background coming from it, then I start there as this is going to determine my levels and general motivation of light. If I'm creating something from whole cloth with total control I'll usually start with the key and then work from there. Often it comes down to lighting a particular actor's face for beauty or best effect to the scene, and since this usually is the most important consideration I'll start there and work everything else around it. I could have a great window effect ad a funky practical in the background, but if the actress has bags under her eyes then I'm not coming back tomorrow!

-

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I agree with Mitch. Often the location, the daylight or built-in lights gives you a direction to go in.

If it's in a studio, then often the keylight is where I start. I am trying to force myself to start with the background more, since I'm in a phase where I don't think faces nescessary have to be lit at key or lit at all. Light the room, not the actor and all that. But it's hard to get away from the "establish keylight" way you've worked before.

[Matthew McDermott]

If it's a narrative situation I almost always try to light the location first and not neccesarily the actors, as such. I try to create an interesting space in which to stage the action. I figure out where the light should naturally be coming from, the windows, practicals, whatever, and work from there. Sometimes that means going with that and sometimes forgetting it entirely. If the location looks right then the action taking place in that will look right as well. That being said, I always have some lights available to bring in to supplement if a particular angle isn't working within the overall plan. This method works for my style but certainly isn't the only way to work.

 

If it's an interview I most always start with the key and build from there. However if that interview is a large area that has to be lit (someone's studio, for example...) I'll make sure the area is lit first and then add lights to separate the subject from the surroundings.

[Michael Nash]

I like to start with the one that's there -- the ambient light. I look at what the space is giving me and then figure out how I need to supplement that to shape the light and get the desired exposure. If there's a big window that's the obvious source for the brightest light.

 

But as noted if you're starting from scratch, then you need to design something yourself. In that case, I think about the "big picture" or the overall quality of light I want in the space, and then break that down into specific sources.

 

But I rarely think in terms of the traditional key/fill/back anyway. It's true that there's usually a "main" or brightest light, a darker area opposite that, and then other sources, but depending on the camera angle your brightest light may not be the one hitting the person's face, or the brightest light on the face may be considered the "fill" in the wide shot. So it's all relative.

 

Besides, I also try to work with the "source quality" of the light, whether I've determined it to be sourcey, indirect, or ambient in quality. I often like to apply a naturalistic, indirect/ambient quality by giving a soft sidelight and soft opposing edgelight for a little modeling, then save the "sourcey" light as a hot accent for the space.

 

These days I'm much more focused on layering light, dark, and contrast within the frame for depth and composition. So I'm often more concerned with the light in the background and the shadows in the foreground first, and then fill in the faces last!

[David Mullen ASC]

I try and start with the key or "main" light, the one that gives the image its character and tone, especially if shooting in HD and lighting using the monitor as a guide -- I want to see what works and doesn't work as soon as possible. Sometimes, you can STOP lighting at some point because you realize it isn't necessary. It can sort of drive me nuts to see every light turned on EXCEPT the key light because it all just looks like clutter. Even if the fill is set up first, I'll leave it off until the key light is on.

 

Sometimes you have an idea, like lighting with one strong, hot spotlight hitting the floor or tabletop and exposing for the bounce, but the effect is so interactive with the surroundings that you can't tell what the problems are (to be fixed with flagging, netting, additional lights, etc.) until you see that spotlight come on. I mean, you can GUESS what will happen and be prepared (like having a white card to catch the bounce, having a lenser flag standing by to cut the flare, etc.) but you can never be exactly sure until you see the effect, especially when compounding it with smoke or diffusion.

[Jayson Crothers]

Allen Daviau was recently at AFI telling us to always start with your backgrounds first and work your way forward to the talent - if the production sees a key light pop up on your lead, they might get itchy to start shooting - if there's no light there, you have a little leeway still.

[andrewbuchanan]

Thanks everyone. That's very useful info. As someone said above, I'm trying to move away from way I was "taught" to light and think of it in some different ways.

[Michael Nash]

Good move. Man, I'll tell you, that's when I started to get good at lighting -- when I stopped constraining myself to the way people told me I "should" light, and started doing what I knew looked right. That's how you "find your voice" and learn. By experimenting, making mistakes, and then trying new things.

[J Costantini]

do you guys use those photometric tables of the lights to know what exposure you will get based on the footcandles ?

[Greg Gross]

As I'm just starting I'm not as experienced as you guys who are used

to many different kinds of sets and locations. I guess maybe I would

call myself traditional in that I would start with the key light after dec-

iding on hard or soft. Sometimes I almost get the impression that hard

light is out these days but I personally do not feel that way. I want to

create some shadows with the key and then pump some fill light in to

touch those shadows,to see what happens,I like to watch this happen,

the fill meeting,mating up with the shadows. After that I start thinking

about background light,practical,accent light. Mentor taught me early on

in still photography portraiture, to turn off all the lights that I set,chose

and then turn them on one byone(one at a time) and observe their effect

on the scene,subject. Sometimes a hair light(snoot) would be subtracted

and taken away. Even before all this though I would have chosen my film.

I think one of the things I like most is mixed light(I'm trying to understand

it)mixed to the extent of ambient light(beautiful light) with artificial light.

I really get excited when I can actually see separation,see things sort of

take shape. I like to think of light in terms of quality,quanity,direction. I

like how light from different directions will effect the look of the subject.

I hope some day that I will understand film stocks better.

Greg

[J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR]

I try to start with the location and ad in what the mood is. Once I know that, I decide where the Key location is. Sometimes you have a Key direction rather than an individual light.

 

I recently shot some people at a breakfast table and started with a 2K outside a window to the left diffused only by a sheer white curtain to light the main character facing the camera. I was going to let that light plus some camera side fill take care of the people on the right side of the table but I decided to put up two Tweenies above the window inside the room to key those people. We put toppers on them to carry the same shadow line as the 2K was throwing on the right side wall and you couldn't tell it was more than one light. With the extra Tweenies I just used a piece of foamcore on the right of the camera to bounce a little back. I didn't need to set a fill light. So I guess I pretty much start with the Key direction.

[Guest fstop]

Source/key. Always.

 

I doubt there's a DP on the planet who starts off by the fill and doesn't change it after setting the key.

[DavidSloan]

Interesting thread. I find that as a non technical person I tend to just do things intuitively. When I began DPing projects I started lighting the set first and worried about the actors, last. I had no idea that that's not the way it usually works. For me modeling a face/setting a key light on an actor is the most boring thing, and the least satisfying...creating a tone/mood for the film by "painting" the room is where I get my satisfaction.

[Guest fstop]

Bang on David- that's exactly how I feel too- I think yourself, Ignacio Aguilar, Carlos and myself must have very very similar tastes for the types of lighting and exposure we admire judging by what can be read on the forum! At least neither one of us is lost when looking for a second unit DP ;)

[David Mullen ASC]

Different types of projects require different lighting styles and strategies and have different problems to solve and different priorities.

 

Roger Deakins is a master of lighting spaces for atmosphere (look at "Secret Garden" or "Barton Fink"), but when dealing with the director's wife as the star, as with Susan Sarandon in "Dead Man Walking", obviously he had to place a little more emphasis on how he was going to light her.

 

You really have to learn to do BOTH, light faces and light spaces.

[DavidSloan]

But of course, David. But hey, a DP can dream :D

[Greg Gross]

David,

If your actors are going to rehearse you could use stand ins to set lights.

Then after rehearsal you can do it all over again(with stand-ins),and change

lights. You know,make changes in lighting after observing rehearsal. I don't

know why but I always error with too much fill and then have to decrease it.

My real excitement comes when I actually get what I want,when I see it! It

just pleases me and thats about the best way I can say it.

 

Greg

[Carlos M. Icaza]

Hello

 

Been a while since my last post. Been very busy :-) which is good. Not as a DP but on my real day job :ph34r:

 

I like to start with what natural light I have available to me, for me, then the key then my fill and then my background lights.

 

What I also mean by natural light sunlight and practicals. What is there first, then supplement.

 

Some exceptions, are night shots like a beach scene. There, I had to create the natural light by setting a bonfire and some tiki torches.... I then had a moonlight fake background light. Fake = 1.2k HMI Par with 1/4 CTB.

 

As always, my $0.02

 

C.-

[Guest fstop]

You really have to learn to do BOTH, light faces and light spaces.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't agree that lighting faces and lighting spaces are two seperate artforms and entities that have to be learned independently- you can light a scene for an actor and have them both look moody/dramatic/beautiful/whatever. I come from portrait stills where everything is controlled with bright lights close up to the subject, flash, softboxes, you name it and a LOT of direct fill- coming into working with DVCAM I've found the David Watkin/Sven Nykvist big lights far away philosophy to produce some of the best portraiture I've ever done- when I was doing still portraits to get subtle soft rim lighting round a subject I'd literally have to have some low powered tungsten or a lightning fast strobe or a flash bounced off polystyerene a few feet off the subject with blinding eyelights and a ton of diffusion- I then started reading about David Watkin's rule breaking on Yentyl and learned I could just bounce the fill where ever I want it and get the rim off of bright parts of the set and key the actors with one big light, albeit with my taste as a portrait stills guy (and anyone from portraiture knows that low fill and high key/backlight can make anyone look good). I can now light with one or two bigger key lights from further away and get the glamorous results that most DPs get from sticking lots of little Streisand ego lights in front of one actor to light one person.

 

I guess technically speaking I do light actors because I'm always concious of a photographic padding and even if I do light spaces I'm always doing modelling on the actors and the set. I just don't agree that you NEED to see portrait photography as sticking a forest of complex flags, diffusion and Streisand ego keylights while lighting spaces is simply making a set look good. Watkin certainly dated that theory.

 

Whatever suits your tastes, so long as the results are good and you understand how to make people and sets look good, who cares?

[David Mullen ASC]

Oh, I think you do have to take both into consideration when lighting. What looks great for a set may or may not look great on the actors faces. Of course, you could always change the lighting on the face when you get closer, but you might not have to do to much if you lit the wide shots thinking about what will happen when you eventually go in tighter. That's all I'm saying -- when you light a wide shot, you have to be thinking about how it will look in tighter angles as well. You may have a beautiful light effect that falls into the center of a room, with softer, murky lighting to the sides, a great wide shot, but if all of the actor's actions are staged to the sides, you've now established this murky look for their faces, and if the scene ends up playing in editing mostly in tighter shots on their faces, your interesting lighting effect in the room may end up off-camera!

 

Besides, large soft sources from far back may NOT always be the best way to light a room even though it may look great on the faces in close-up. For example, if you have a white location that you're trying to make look darker and moodier, you may have to use a hard-light approach to be able to cut a lot of light off of the walls. But when you move into close-ups, you have to decide whether to continue this look or cheat a softer key light in.

 

It seems to me that lighting architecture and furniture IS a different set of aesthetic skills than lighting the human face, although there will be overlaps in techniques used, and sometimes, the same technique will work for both. A building, for example, may benefit from very harsh directional sculptural lighting that may look awful on the actor's face. I remember this discussion with a director, who after trying to arrange to shoot in backlight for the actors outdoors, was surprised when I said that the backlight would look awful for an establishing shot of a building. "I thought backlight always looked better?" he said. "No," I replied, "some buildings do not look interesting in backlight other than having a hot sky behind them and flat skylight hitting them from the front."

 

If both your actors' faces look great and your sets look great, either you've learned to light both well, or you are really lucky, that's all I'm saying.

 

I never said that good portrait lighting required a forest of stands, flags, etc. I'm just saying that a human face can have different lighting needs than a flat wall and a couch or a window. The key is to figure out an approach that works for both in the wide shot so that the lighting in the close-ups doesn't have to be changed radically, just tweaked because you are now closer.

Edited October 28, 2004 by David Mullen

[DavidSloan]

I guess for me personally, I never started lighting actors first because it just intuitively didn't make sense to me to start with something relatively small and then work around it. :unsure: I see the actor as being a part of that room, almost like another prop that I have to light, and eventually I get to it. I guess everyone has their own approach. Of course this does not mean that I skim on the actors! When it's time for the closeup I'll take my time to model, like the next guy :D At the end of the day, though, it's always the situation, script, and space that tell you how to light.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, if you think a little about the upcoming coverage for the scene, you may NOT need to take much time to light the close-up after lighting the wide shot... just depends.

 

Sure, when lighting a wide shot, obviously the problems are mostly about the wide shot, the space, but you need to keep aware of how this room and the actor will look once you start going in tighter. It may determine, for example, where that hot slash of sunlight may fall into the space. "If it is HERE, then when I shoot her close-up, it will be behind her head and look nice... but if it's THERE, the moment we cut in tighter, it will always be off-camera."

 

Or, for example, another attached room barely seen on-camera in the wide shot may become a major background when you go to a 90 degree angle for shooting a tighter shot, so you may want to establish what sort of light is in that other room so that when you move over, you aren't turning on a light back there that was clearly off in the wide master.

 

I had a dining room scene in "Dot" like that; one person, sitting profile in the master, had her back to the kitchen, which did not have to have its lights on, but I figured when I moved over to her close-up, now the kitchen would be her background, and a little Cool White fluorescent glow on her hair would be nice so I made sure that some flos under the cabinets were on even though it was barely seen in the wide master. I wanted to set in motion the idea that she could be backlit slightly from the kitchen.

Edited October 28, 2004 by David Mullen

[Greg Gross]

There is a need to light spaces and faces. Basic techniques used in portraiture.

Say an enviromental portrait(you're shooting a welder at work). Imagine in your

mind the image of a welder at work. Are you just going to photograph his face?

Of course not, spaces, his environment. When you use fill you're touching the

shadows,dark areas. You have to imagine the look you want in those darker

areas. More detail less detail etc.,meanwhile say your actor is facing his key, you

are lighting him also. I really like the use of the back lighting as described by

Mr. Mullen,shooting the women in the kitchen.

 

Greg