Key light on which side

[Josh Bass]

Aren't most interviews, in fact, lit that way, though (smart side lighting)? That's how I do it (provided they're looking slightly to one side of the lens and not right in via Errol Morris interview style). I've seen guys do it the other way, but in my experience it's not the norm.

[Mike Williamson]

Another set of terms that I use for this would be "on key" and "off key" lighting. "On key" is the same as smart side, "off key" would be dumb side.

[Walter Graff]

Here is what I tell folks in my seminars and in my videos.

 

One night when the moon is full, go out and look at it. Look in awe at this huge sphere in the sky. It's majestic. Just don't look at it to long because very son after looking at it, you will notice it starts to look less like a sphere and more like a flat disk. And once you see it as such, youactually have trouble appreciating it as anythign more than aflat disk in the sky. Now go out and look at a three quarter moon. Notice the definition of the spherical shape is clear as day. And the more you stare at it the more it looks even better. After a while your eye starts really seeing how the shades wrap the moon into darkness.

 

TV and movies theaters screens are flat. The idea behind lighting has always been to create a three dimensional world on a two dimensional medium. When you light as the same side as the person looks, you are extenuating a three dimensional world on a two dimensional screen. In effect you are creating that three-quarter moon. When you light on the side opposite the direction your talent looks you are enhancing the flat two dimensionality of a face and making a full moon effect. After a while with nothing to delineate the spherical shape of a face, it looks pretty boring.

 

Of course there is no right or wrong, just templates to work from. Then of course there are methods passed down from my mentors who lit the films of the late fourties and fifties who taught me that women are generally more appreciated flatter than with shadow but that is for another topic as are the many variables that determine what one finds acceptable.

 

Here are a few articles I use to explain it all that may inspire you:

 

 

 

http://www.bluesky-web.com/broadcastvideoe...omplextion.html

http://www.bluesky-web.com/broadcastvideoexamples3point.html

http://www.bluesky-web.com/broadcastvideoe...hiaroscuro.html

http://www.bluesky-web.com/soft.html

http://www.bluesky-web.com/skin.htm

[Robin R Probyn]

No, I'm not. In an interview I shouldn't give a person such an intense significance. The spoken word is most important there. The original question comes from the fictitional standpoint where a face, a CU, rather bares a single message like: FEAR or ANGER or DISAPPOINTMENT or CARE, and so on. Lighting a movie is setting the coherence.

 

 

How do you mean you wouldnt give a person such an intense significance in an interview... but I agree what they say is more important than the lighting at the end of the day.. but my job is make it look good/interesting/try to make someone not switch over to the simple life.. :P

[Tom Lowe]

I guess this still shot below would technically be dumb? I've always liked the light on this still. A lot of still photogs lit Bergman from an angle almost directly overhead.

 

 

In terms of cinema:

 

Smart?....

 

Dumb?...

 

This exterior shot might have had some kind of motivation. I'd have to go back and look at the movie.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sometimes when two actors are standing nose-to-nose, like in a kissing scene, it's hard to light from the "smart" side without the foreground actor shadowing the other actor heavily.

 

In classic Hollywood films, sometimes the direction of the key light was based on what looked best for the actress' face, particularly the shape of the nose, if it had more of a bump on one side. But in these keys, we're talking about a fairly frontal key, whether from the "smart" or "dumb" side.

 

Like I said, my main reason for lighting from the "smart" side is that it is in the direction of the actor's gaze, so the eye catches the light better. Plus in a half-lit face situation, at a three-quarter camera direction, you have a nice mood where you are looking more at the dark side of the face than the lit side. Plus it's a "reflective" angle to the source, you are getting a mild kick or sheen off of the skin from the key light.

 

But just the other day, I had a scene in a small foyer with an actor standing right next to a wall on his "smart" side to camera and a window off to the "dumb" side, so I keyed from the window direction rather than the wall direction, which would have been hard to key from (though sometimes if the wall is white or light-toned, a strong backlight raking across the wall will bounce into the face and provide a light source from the wall direction.)

 

Funny thing is that I learned about lighting from the "smart" side by watching a lot of Ridley Scott movies back in college, particularly "Alien", and also a lot of Storaro-lit movies, like "Reds" and "Apocalypse Now". I noticed that often the face was half-lit but with the key wrapping around enough to catch the other eye, but the camera was favoring the shadow side of the face. I remember starting to light my Super-8 movies like this and liking the results. Here are some Storaro-lit screengrabs I have already:

 

 

 

[Tom Lowe]

David, if you ever get the chance, I would love to see some screengrabs of other particular shots that you really like or admire in terms of lighting setups. Maybe you already have a thread or images like that?

 

I might make a thread at reduser one of these days. "Best-Lit Cinema Shots" or something like that.

[Simon Wyss]

I mean it in the sense that there is an overall concept to which lighting adapts as well as everything else. The concept of an interview is very simple. Two people, in most cases, talk with each other (in most cases, but again I'm ironic). There is no further meaning around. (Now I'm serious.) With fiction the actors are manipulated. Everything can be manipulated. I'd never speak of dumb and smart face sides and the like in general terms. That would be mere technical dexterity. No, a technician contributes even more profoundly to the concept of a production than a prop manager. The cinematographer is probably the most important technician.

[Robin R Probyn]

I mean it in the sense that there is an overall concept to which lighting adapts as well as everything else. The concept of an interview is very simple. Two people, in most cases, talk with each other (in most cases, but again I'm ironic). There is no further meaning around. (Now I'm serious.) With fiction the actors are manipulated. Everything can be manipulated. I'd never speak of dumb and smart face sides and the like in general terms. That would be mere technical dexterity. No, a technician contributes even more profoundly to the concept of a production than a prop manager. The cinematographer is probably the most important technician.

 

 

Ok yes see what you mean... Iam pretty much always doing doc,s with alot of interviews... only the subject on camera... where lighting from the dumb side is just done by beginners.. unless physically impossible.. or wanting an unorthodox look or framing for the subject matter..but IMHO.. purposely lighting from the dumb side and or having the empty frame space going the wrong way is not very clever.. just because its ..(edgy) ? or the latest vogue in music vids.. or the DP had too much Gin at lunch.... speaking of which even Chris Doyle doesnt do it :lol: