Post one of your setups

[DavidSloan]

Hey I'd thought we'd do one of our own little Reflection books...why don't we each post a favorite lighting setup that we love to use over and over again.

 

For lighting faces:

 

Setup a 4' 4 bank Kinoflo, directly underneath the camera, pointed up towards subject's face. Behind the camera and about 4' above get a tweenie going through a 4' by of 216, hitting a white b-board which is filling the subject. To either side of the subject's face are two 8' by solids creating nice modeling by subtley shading the temples and jaw line. the result is a clean, and sweetly modeled CU that can make most anyone look good.

 

Now your turn..can be any kind of setup-night ext, high key int, CU, etc...

 

"Film is light"-Fellini

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm generally happier if I can get away with lighting a face from one side with a big soft light and no fill... Few things are as beautiful as a face lit by a window, ala Vermeer. I think a lot of us would love to just use one light coming from the perfect angle for a scene.

 

One type of light I wish were easier to replicate is dappled sunlight, where the sun comes through high leafy tree branches becoming a pattern of out-of-focus circles dancing about. I love light that is moving in some way, or changing.

[DavidSloan]

One type of light I wish were easier to replicate is dappled sunlight, where the sun comes through high leafy tree branches becoming a pattern of out-of-focus circles dancing about. I love light that is moving in some way, or changing.

 

You have a very poetic lighting style, David...I love it. When appropriate a rain shaodw pattern is always gorgeous, too.

 

Are you a fan of the book light?

[Kevin Zanit]

I personally like book lights. They are just hard to get away with on most locations, as the size they require is huge.

 

For me, I love a large, soft source really far away (I mean REALLY far) through a window. The light becomes hard again at these distances, but retains a beautiful soft quality, with very little fall off. I then cut this was several branches at different distances, slightly moving as David describes. I then take a very hard source (a xenon into a mirror being my favorite) and allow a "chunk" of this light to edge things out a bit, or just add some "excitement" to the set.

 

A setup I have been using recently involves taking a flathead 80 and walking it WAY back. I am talking like 30- 50 feet and letting that play in a side-y position. It wraps beautifully. Surprisingly I get a workable stop at these distances (especially with light skinned actors). The only thing as great as the light itself, is watching the electric's face when we tell him to walk the Kino back about 30 feet.

 

A great trick my gaffer (Chris Hughes) showed me is for filling with really soft sources. Rather than adding a unit, we will take a large mirror and bounce back the soft light into the actor. I love it, and so do the electrics, one or two large sources set, and they head back to crafty/ hit on the makeup chic.

 

 

Kevin Zanit

[Walter Graff]

One of my favorite scenes is from the movie Fandango (1985, K. Reynolds). It's golden hour in Texas and the talent is in this little patch of old trees, the wind is blowing and the light so much alive form the leaves of the trees. It's a great looking shot in a low budget film and one of my favorite of all time.

[Don Bachmeier]

Dappled sunlight?

 

I use a Source 4 (50 degree barrel) with two gobos in a rotator on a dimmer to make it go really slow. It requires some experimentation with patterns but usually there is a breakup in there and often something strange to rotate against it.

 

I've occasionaly added a Rosco glass color breakup filter in the regular pattern holder for some really stylized looks.

 

The appearance can change very subltly but everytime you look at it it is a little different and doesn't appear as a repeditive pattern. It really helps on those blank backgrounds that show up other techniques as 'effects'.

 

All the best,

[Elhanan Matos]

Few things are as beautiful as a face lit by a window, ala Vermeer.

One type of light I wish were easier to replicate is dappled sunlight, where the sun comes through high leafy tree branches becoming a pattern of out-of-focus circles dancing about.

 

Ala Renoir?

Le Moulin de la Galette

[Chris Keth]

I'm generally happier if I can get away with lighting a face from one side with a big soft light and no fill...  Few things are as beautiful as a face lit by a window, ala Vermeer.  I think a lot of us would love to just use one light coming from the perfect angle for a scene.

 

One type of light I wish were easier to replicate is dappled sunlight, where the sun comes through high leafy tree branches becoming a pattern of out-of-focus circles dancing about.  I love light that is moving in some way, or changing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Absolutely, one light can be really beautiful.

 

The thing I've done that I like best was a closeup I lit with two lights and a reflector. I had a doubled sheet of unbleached muslin hung over a c-stand arm (about the size of a 4x frame) about 3 feet from the actor, about 50 to 55 degrees right of straight on to her face. Then I found the place where I had to put a 600 watt fresnel and a reflector to get a very slight, soft rim on the left side. I used a little maglight (one of the ones that takes one AAA) taped to the front of the lens so it'd reflect in both eyes but not show up as a source of light. I was pretty happy with that.

 

I like this topic a lot. I'm still very inexperienced, so I like to hear what other more experienced people have done successfully.

Edited December 24, 2004 by Mr. Bunnies

[Michael Nash]

I love the way a single soft source flatters a face, but more and more I look for ways to bring even more dimension and depth to lighting faces. Sometimes a soft source from the side leaves the key side looking too "flat," compared to the fill side (where I often use a soft edgelight). So when I can get away with it, I try to give a soft 3/4 backlight on the same side of the face as the key, and then bring the key light down about 1/2 stop. The light then really wraps around the person's head but still retains all the flattering quality of a soft key.

 

But for talking head interviews I try to go as gentle as possible -- that means only two lights! I key with a small soft source (roughly 24"x36") like a chimera or beadboard, from a 3/4 angle, just frontal enough to fill both eyes (at eye level or slightly above). Then I use another soft source as a 3/4 backlight from the opposite side, about 180 opposite the key, and knock it way down. This source is also eye level -- I can't stand the traditional "TV hairlight!" What I'm looking for there is just a gentle sheen on the cheek for dimension and slight separation from the background, and leaving a good "core shadow" or gap between the two sources. I'll only add some bounce fill if I need it for "cosmetic" reasons like to fill in some wrinkles or add an extra glint in the eye. Otherwise I like to use the ambient level for fill.

 

I should add that for talking heads (subject looking off camera) I always key from the side the subject is looking, so that the fill side of the face is toward camera. You end up with an ugly nose shadow if you try to key from the other side! In a dramatic context where the motivated light is on the "wrong" side, I try to fudge the blocking so that that source is slightly behind the subject, becoming a soft 3/4 backlight instead, and fill the front separately.

 

In any case I almost always try to use two sources -- one edge and one "key." Sometimes they can be from the same side, letting the fill side go dark and naturally separating from a lighter background. Other times it's the opposing sources I described. But I feel I always need that soft edgelight, even if very low, for dimension.

[Chris Keth]

In any case I almost always try to use two sources -- one edge and one "key." Sometimes they can be from the same side, letting the fill side go dark and naturally separating from a lighter background. Other times it's the opposing sources I described. But I feel I always need that soft edgelight, even if very low, for dimension.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That sounds really nice. You wouldn't happen to have a still where you used this, would you?

[Michael Nash]

For lighting faces:

 

Setup a 4' 4 bank Kinoflo, directly underneath the camera, ...  the result is a clean, and sweetly modeled CU that can make most anyone look good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This sounds like you're describing a portrait where the subject is looking straight into the camera. Do you use this technique when the subject is looking off-camera, as in a dramatic context?

 

I'm also a little confused about what you mean with the tweenie, diff and bounce board. Where is the bounce board in relation to the face?

[Michael Nash]

That sounds really nice. You wouldn't happen to have a still where you used this, would you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wish I did. I'll try to scrounge up some images to help illustrate. It would be helpful if others would post images too!

[DavidSloan]

This sounds like you're describing a portrait where the subject is looking straight into the camera. Do you use this technique when the subject is looking off-camera, as in a dramatic context?

 

I'm also a little confused about what you mean with the tweenie, diff and bounce board. Where is the bounce board in relation to the face?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey:

 

Sure I use it when people look off camera...when do people look right into the camera on a CU?

 

The B-Board is elevated behind the camera with a C-stand and the tweenie is going through a 4'by of 216 and hitting the b-board which is bouncing that light back into the subject's face. The tweenie is aimed AWAY from the subject! I wish I could draw a diagram...but it's so simple!

[Alvin Pingol]

In any case I almost always try to use two sources -- one edge and one "key." Sometimes they can be from the same side, letting the fill side go dark and naturally separating from a lighter background. Other times it's the opposing sources I described.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I lit a talking-head interview with a setup similar to this. While I was originally going for a soft key with a hard edge, pretty basic, the limitations of the room I had to shoot in forced the edge light to become more of a fill, as I was unable to place the light far enough behind the subjects. Thus, I ended up with a soft key and hard fill (and no edge), which seems backwards to me. However, I had the key bounced off of a pretty large frame, and then lowered the output of the was-to-be-edgelight so I wouldn't get any nasty cross shadows (all lights being tungsten, the power reduction of the edge/fill lowered its CT significantly - fortunately, it added a slight warmth to the image, which I found attractive).

 

The only post manipulation of these shots is crop and compress as JPG:

Man

Young lady

[F Bulgarelli]

I created this shot with a small kino flo as the motivating light from the monitor. Also there was another small kino behind the computer briging up the curtains. Also a 150W tungsten flooded and with diffusion bringing up the shoulder in the acctres.

Used 5279/T2.4

 

Francisco

 

(I'm hopping the attachment worked)

[F Bulgarelli]

I forgot to say that the Kinos were daylight balanced. (I'm sure most of you knew that)

[Michael Nash]

I lit a talking-head interview with a setup similar to this.

 

Man

Young lady

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The lighting in these examples looks nice in its own right, but it's not really the same thing I was talking about. Here it's a nice soft side-ish key light with minimal fill. The light-colored backdrop helps create the depth and separation from the darker fill side of the subject. In the setup I described there would be a more discernible edge light on the right side.

 

I'll keep looking for a pic to post as an example of what I was talking about...

 

But this looks nice, keep the pics coming!

[Ram Shani]

hi

 

one of the things i like is to mix to diffrent sourcess from the same side like for a C.U. take a baby with 252 inside and right next to him as close as possibel a buonce or kino for fill the shadow.

 

or the other way aruond use the soft as key and add a small hard source.

 

i like very much to fill from the top as much as i can,becuse i think fill from the camera is flat even the small amount.

 

in the last year i fell in love with chris doyle willd cinematography for wkw.

 

i like very much nan goldin photography

 

its semes every one us large soft suorce for key make things look the same

i think.

ram

[Michael Nash]

Sure I use it when people look off camera...when do people look right into the camera on a CU?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Commercials, music videos, host segments, fashion... lots of times. The "frontal" quality of the light you described, along with the modeling on the temples (plural), made me envision a straight-on shot.

 

If you like the kino-under-the-lens look, you might also like the work of Elliot Davis. His "trademark" lighting is a hot edgelight and a soft fill from below, usually a kino of some kind, just off to the side.

[DavidSloan]

Commercials, music videos, host segments, fashion... lots of times. The "frontal" quality of the light you described, along with the modeling on the temples (plural), made me envision a straight-on shot.

 

If you like the kino-under-the-lens look, you might also like the work of Elliot Davis. His "trademark" lighting is a hot edgelight and a soft fill from below, usually a kino of some kind, just off to the side.

 

Yup..you're right. People do look into the camera quite a bit. I was thinking about narrative features.

 

The only thing I've seen from Elliot Davis was Thirteen, which I thought was extraordinary. Perhaps some of the color temperature schemes were a bit annoying but overall his work was amazing. I'm off to IMDB to see what else he shot, and then it's off to the video store. :)

[Michael Nash]

The only thing I've seen from Elliot Davis was Thirteen, which I thought was extraordinary.  Perhaps some of the color temperature schemes were a bit annoying but overall his work was amazing.  I'm off to IMDB to see what else he shot, and then it's off to the video store.  :)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thirteen and I am Sam were pretty colorful and had a lot of hand-held, a sort of newer look for Davis that's not really representative of the rest of his work. White Oleander was a little more reserved.

 

Personally my favorites of his are The Underneath, King of the Hill (both for Steven Soderbergh), and Things to Do In Denver When You're Dead.

 

He's been pretty prolific so there are the inevitable stinkers in his portfolio. 40 Days and 40 Nights was painfully sophomoric, Forces of Nature wasn't much better but looked good, and avoid Mother's Boys at all costs.

 

His look is a bit contrived but really pays off when it works right. It's interesting to watch how he sort of forces the lighting of the set to deliver the right look for the closeups. There are a couple shots in Next Best Thing where it looks like he put the edge light a mile away and through several windows and doors just to have it land in the right spot.

[Josh Bass]

Well, it ain't the greatest thing ever, but I like this one:

 

 

I was going for the sunny morning look, but of course shot in the dark of night. The background is a 650 fresnel with a .3 ND gel on it, barn doored to what it is in the shot, don't remember how much spot/flood it was. Out of the frame by. . .3-5 feet, maybe? The key light is a 300 watt fresnel through a 42" photoflex 5 in 1 (the "root" of the 5 in 1 is a piece of diffusion--that's what I pounded the light through), maybe 6ish feet away. Fill is acheived through a 500 watt tota bounced off the ceiling in such a way as to leave no extra shadows. Wide angle lens, open all the way. I guess this is somewhat of a cheat, 'cause this is color corrected. It's not as "sunny", and there's a little less contrast in the original.

[Michael Nash]

Okay, here's a rather crappy still of a lighting setup I did about a year ago. The original still was overexposed so the rim lights here are clipped more than they were in the actual footage. And the whole thing here is out of focus, so my apologies, but at least it helps illustrate some lighting concepts.

 

In the scene it's more-or-less established that there are two windows in this workshop, to the right of camera. The edge light on the right (subject's left side) is motivated by indirect light coming through the far window, and the softer "key" light from the right is indirect light from the other window closer to camera. Hard sunlight spills through the far window onto the back wall (over the subject's shoulder), and the bounce from the wall kicks back as a rim light on the subject's right cheek.

 

The setup:

The edge light on the right was a 650W Omni bounced into a piece of silvered bead-board (similar to roscoflex), about 6 feet away (all lighting had to be inside the room). The soft key from the right is another Omni bounced into 24"x36" white beadboard about eight feet away. The "sunlight" on the back wall is a 750W Source 4, with the blades cutting a parallelogram shape to look like sunlight coming down through a square window. The edge-light on the left side is a Tota with an umbrella, placed low on the floor below frame, near the back wall. There may have been a bounce card for fill from the left, but that changed from shot to shot. All units were on dimmers to control the levels, and there was copious flagging to control contrast and spill in the tight shooting location.

 

Again, the edge lights look quite a bit hotter and more "edgy" in this still than I normally go for. But I still love that glancing, "skip angle" kind of edge light on the left.

[Michael Nash]

Here are a couple examples of my 2-light talking head interview setup (stills taken off a monitor).

 

 

Key was a 2' x 3' white bounce about 5' away (650W Omni into beadboard), just high enough above eye level to put a shadow under the chin and get rid of the worst of the eyeglass reflections. The edgelight was another bounce about 5' behind subject. Fill was a soft-silvered beadboard catching the key light.

 

Note the sheen on the cheek of the more chubby-faced guy -- that's the kind of soft edgelight that I love. What makes it work is the core shadow between the edgelight and the key light -- the falloff between the two light sources reveals contour and shape to the face.The challenge with this type of edgelight is when you're shooting women, who typically have hairdos that block the edgelight from hitting the cheek. In those cases I'll either bring the edgelight around a little more to the side, as long as I don't lose the core shadow. Or sometimes if they have dark hair I'll just make it brighter and let the edge just kick off their hair instead.

 

These setups were shot against green screen, but I use the same setup with "real world" backgrounds as well. One of the things I like about a soft backlight is that it can appear as realistic and generically motivated as a soft key light in most environments.

[DavidSloan]

Sorry I don't have any examples of my work to show you guys. I'm in the works of compiling a reel, I promise to post it asap.

 

This is just an example I found online of what I think is a very flattering and classic way to light a face...something that I would aim for.

 

 

Alure