Jump to content

Smoke


Alvin Pingol

Recommended Posts

In a lot of Janusz Kaminski's work, one finds smoked sets and beams of light. Hall used smoked sets very effectively in Road to Perdition, as seen in this frame. Mr. Mullen uses it in Northfork for atmosphere and as another way of lowering the overall contrast of the image.

 

Personally, I love the way smoked or fogged sets look on film (or video), specifically the beams of light they create. My question deals with motivation. While I am fully aware of unmotivated light sources, what's the real deal with motivation for a smoked set? While there have been many times I've considered smoking a set to attain those wonderful beams, I always fear that those who view the final product will concentrate on why there is smoke in the area and nothing more.

 

Must there first be a shot of a cigar burning in an ashtray? A shot of character lighting sticks of insence? The set an old, creepy mansion? A dusty basement? Unfortunately, these are usually the thoughts that run through my mind when I plan on using smoke (be it a uniform fog or wisps of haze) during a production, and my subject matter doesn't fall into those categories. It seems to me I always need a strict REASON to have smoke on set, and I hope there doesn't truly need to be one, for I'd love to more work with smoked sets in the future.

 

Thoughts?

Edited by Alvin Pingol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to literal smoke (from tobacco, cars, etc.), I would say that anywhere particulates of some form or another - dirt, dust, moisture - could be floating around in the air might justify a shaft of light. Look at Zsigmond's work in Heaven's Gate. There are some amazing shafts of light in that film, but you don't need a shot of some horse kicking up dirt. It's the Old West...I think the audience unconsciously knows that there's dirt everywhere, and so accepts the beams of light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

personally, I dont think I would create a smoky atmosphere if someone is just smoking in a room. I would for sequences that I feel need to be viewed in a more surreal manner. It depends on the story really, and the particular scene. I feel that smoking a room is just a nice way to show seperation from reality in the film. but I could be COMPLETELY wrong, it is jsut how I would use it. But I have got plenty of time to figure out what im doing as far as my DP work is concerned

 

best of luck man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If you can get a very even haze that does not drift around, then it looks more like a dusty room than smoke. But sometimes it's hard not to get some drifting clouds. I notice that Ridley and Tony Scott often has a character smoking a cigar or something, or even has incense sticks burning in the room, to motivate the drifting wisps of smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had the same thought the first time I smoked a room, but I think it's one of those things that audiences are so used to, it doesn't need to be motivated.

It's like HMI lit blue night scenes, it just looks cool and it works, and has been used so much, so the audience doesn't really think "hey, is that house on fire or something?"

 

I wish it weren't such a pain in the butt to use it, because I'd do it more often.

It really slows things down. That's why I'm so interested in trying these fog filters I've recently bought, although I'm sure it's not gonna be as impressive as the real thing.

 

 

Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I wish it weren't such a pain in the butt to use it, because I'd do it more often.

It really slows things down. That's why I'm so interested in trying these fog filters I've recently bought, although I'm sure it's not gonna be as impressive as the real thing.

 

 

 

Unfortunately fog filters won't give you visible beams or shafts of light, although they will make bright highlights glow or halate a little.

 

Regarding the motivation of smoke, I basically consider it as either smoke, moisture, or dust. Just as with any light source, I consider what the motivation of the "atmosphere" might be before I'll use it. Like someone already said, you don't always have to specifically motivate the existence of atmosphere, as long as it's plausiblbe that there could be atmosphere at that location.

 

Just as important as the motivation is the amount you use -- a little tends to go a long way. Often times you can get away with using very little, just enough to make light beams show up, without having to logically motivate it. But as soon as the room looks "smoky," then you kind of have to motivate it somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.

 

Just as important as the motivation is the amount you use -- a little tends to go a long way. Often times you can get away with using very little, just enough to make light beams show up, without having to logically motivate it. But as soon as the room looks "smoky," then you kind of have to motivate it somehow.

 

Yes, this is what I've been thinking about recently; Many times have I seen images where one is just barely able to make out shafts of light coming through, and it does not look "forced" or cheesy at all. I guess I would need to do some tests in the location I'd plan on shooting in to determine that perfect amount. Sure as hell wouldn't want to make it appear as if the room is on fire, or even worse, spend all that time fogging only to realize it wasn't enough to create any visible beams of light on camera.

 

Would love to play around with fog, diffusion filters, and hard backlights. Beautiful! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

One thing you discover is that the brighter the beam is, the more is shows up in the smoke, same with the more the light comes in as a straight backlight -- so if you had a very light smoke, a very intense spot light will still create a visible shaft in the smoke, whereas if the smoke were heavier, even a less intense light will create a beam.

 

So if you want to use less smoke yet still see shafts of light, have very intense, spotted beams of light coming in as a backlight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little while ago, a beam of sunlight was coming through a window in my house. The window has Venetian blinds and I sensed a great opportunity to try out smoke. As David says, the location of the source and/or camera makes quite a difference in how well the beams show up. When the camera is positioned such as that the axis (180 deg) line is parallel to the shaft of light, this is where it is least visible, as the beam can't "stack up" on itself.

 

I also noticed that the color and brightness of whatever background is behind the beams of light also make a considerable difference. When the background is a room with white walls, what can one do to increase contrast between the BGl and the beams of light? So far all I can think of is use a higher-power light source for the beams, use more fog, and... umm... avoid front-lighting the subject, to avoid lighting the wall behind it? (And of course flag off any spill onto the BG from other sources)

Edited by Alvin Pingol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, never had the yellow thing happen, but I haven't used fog that much either.

What kind of juice are you using?

 

OK, so we've heard all these comments about fog/smoke regarding shafts of light, but what about when you don't backlight it?

 

A good friend of mine worked on A.I., and he said every single set was very heavily fogged, including all the normal interior house shots.

 

I assume this is to enhance the depth of the staging - objects close to the camera are sharp, objects far away lose definition and contrast.

Anybody use this technique much?

Any tips?

 

Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's also hard to maintain a consistent level of smoke throughout a scene, take after take and from angle to angle. There are ways to do it of course, but it's just one more variable that can slow things down.

 

There have been a couple threads recently about the different types of foggers available and ways to use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good friend of mine worked on A.I., and he said every single set was very heavily fogged, including all the normal interior house shots.

 

 

 

I was wondering why Kaminski would do this? I know he likes to use smoke, filters and nets alot, as does Richardson. I've heard he also likes to work fast and smoke is very time consuming. David, I was wondering if you knew of any other reasons for fogging almost every set since you have a lot of experience with smoke. Also what type of smoke did you use on Northfork and can you get the same effect using regular foggers. I watched the bonus features of A.I. and every set does look heavily fogged. But on film you don't notice it as much unless you look for it, I think mainly because it fits with the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's also hard to maintain a consistent level of smoke throughout a scene, take after take and from angle to angle. There are ways to do it of course, but it's just one more variable that can slow things down.

 

Michael,

 

What methods do you use to keep the smoke level consistent? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>OK, so we've heard all these comments about fog/smoke regarding shafts of

>>light, but what about when you don't backlight it?

 

This is something I've been meaning to try as well, as I'm sure it adds a great deal of atmosphere that is just enough to consider it as just that (atmospheric), and not a "special effect." However, what can one do about lighting the scene without making it seem heavily fogged? Even if you don't backlight it, every hard light source is going to create some sort of beam, and every soft source will create a "glow" of fog around it that may be large enough to appear in the frame (and thereby reveal the location of the source). Plus, placing the sources farther back may not be a solution where space is tight, or when the kit is not powerful enough. On top of that, every practical in the frame will glow (but this isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless you're absolutely trying to avoid that for whatever reason). Use less fog? Well, then, if it's not backlit, it may not even show up at all!

 

 

>>It's also hard to maintain a consistent level of smoke throughout a scene, take

>>after take and from angle to angle. There are ways to do it of course, but it's

>>just one more variable that can slow things down.

 

I'm sure it would be a hassle to keep smoke levels consistent - I imagine the longer one spends on a smoked set, the more he or she adapts to the smoke, thereby causing one to believe more smoke needs to be added to make it show up more, when in reality it is enough. I guess it's just a matter of experience and a really good eye.

 

Vilmos Zsigmond's work in Heaven's Gate was mentioned, any other film recommendations that show off exceptional use of smoke and fog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Michael,

 

What methods do you use to keep the smoke level consistent? :blink:

 

It's pretty much just done by eye. Keep all the doors and windows shut to keep as much of the atmosphere in as possible.

 

"Hazers" like the DF-50 put out a good haze that never gets too dense and has good hang time. With that device it's a little easier to give the atmosphere a quick burst of fog right before you roll camera and not have to wait for it to settle or disperse. For larger rooms you can even keep the machine running (if the shot is MOS) and the fog will kind of level off at a certain density and stay there.

 

"Party foggers" are more common (and cheaper) and put out a more dense, smoke-like fog. You can get a good steamy atmosphere with these as well, but you have to really overdo it at first to fill up the room, then "waft" the smoke around with flags and let it settle into a more dispersed haze. When it looks about right, roll camera. If you roll too soon or don't have enough fog, you end up with visble swirls of smoke in the shot.

 

Party foggers really aren't the best for keeping a consistent haze, but they're so cheap you often end up using that instead of a hazer. I've got an American DJ 1000W model I picked up on sale for about $50, normally they're a litlle over $100 for that wattage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
This is something I've been meaning to try as well, as I'm sure it adds a great deal of atmosphere that is just enough to consider it as just that (atmospheric), and not a "special effect." However, what can one do about lighting the scene without making it seem heavily fogged? ...On top of that, every practical in the frame will glow (but this isn't necessarily a bad thing, unless you're absolutely trying to avoid that for whatever reason). Use less fog? Well, then, if it's not backlit, it may not even show up at all!

 

 

If you don't want the fog to show up in backlights or glow, then why do want to use it? It is a legitmate concern that the fog may reveal the location of off-screen light sources, but if you're putting it in the scene it's so that you can see it -- and you see it by backlighting it, against a darker background. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

 

any other film recommendations that show off exceptional use of smoke and fog?

 

Pretty much anything by Ridley or and Tony Scott, the latter especially with Jeffrey Kimball behind the camera. Blade Runner, Top Gun...

 

For large-scale fog effects check out the DVD for Insomnia (the one with Pacino, shot by Wally Pfister). There's a good behind-the-scenes of how the did the fog effects for the accidental shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hi,

 

What do we know about the opening sequence of Top Gun?

 

Lots of steam coming out of the flight deck catapaults, but it's very dark, almost certainly filtered, and possibly shot under very sharp, warm, early morning sunlight (presumably they were shooting around the military's timekeeping.)

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Use of smoke on sets goes back to the Silent Era, usually to recreate foggy conditions. You start to see it used in more ordinary situations, although motivated slightly by the fact that it's a screening room with people smoking, in "Citizen Kane", which Ridley Scott has cited as an influence in "Blade Runner":

 

SMOKED1.JPG

 

"Moulin Rouge" (1952), shot by Ozzie Morris, is one of the earliest examples of smoke being used for a large section of a movie, to soften the look, still motivated by the bar setting:

 

SMOKED2.JPG

 

Geoffrey Unsworth took that idea and ran with it in "Cabaret" but after that, started using smoke liberally in movies like "Bridge Too Far" (for this early dawn scene below), "Superman", "Zardoz", etc. to soften color and contrast. By the late 1970's, you had people like Ridley Scott using smoke without necessarily motivating it.

 

SMOKED3.JPG

 

SMOKED4.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For large-scale fog effects check out the DVD for Insomnia (the one with Pacino, shot by Wally Pfister). There's a good behind-the-scenes of how the did the fog effects for the accidental shooting.

I remember they also used Igeba smoke machine on the lake exterior. It's a fun machine capable of doubling as a flame-thrower sometimes :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies and examples.

 

If you don't want the fog to show up in backlights or glow, then why do want to use it?

 

To increase contrast between the subject and the background. I figure if a thin enough level of fog were used, and the background "deep" enough, the fog will wash out colors that may be too saturated, and maybe lift shadows, as well. This frame that Mr. Mullen posted is a great example, showing how contrast is reduced as distance from the camera increases, almost making the people and objects in the BG look like a giant painting. It seems the glow from the practicals isn't as intense as I'd thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
To increase contrast between the subject and the background. I figure if a thin enough level of fog were used, and the background "deep" enough, the fog will wash out colors that may be too saturated, and maybe lift shadows, as well.... almost making the people and objects in the BG look like a giant painting.

 

 

In this case you're talking about using smoke like a large theatrical scrim, to sort of "flatten out" the background dimensionally by reducing contrast and a small amount of detail. This is a visual trick that painters started using in the late Renaissance to create a sense of depth with atmospheric haze and planes of depth with diminishing modeling and contrast.

 

Today in photography we tend to see smoke used more "dimensionally," kind of giving the air and light a sculptural form and volume, although even in that application it's still used to separate planes of depth via value and contrast.

 

Backlighting a "scrim" of smoke will add white to the backgound, lifting the shadows and maintaining highlights. But not backlighting smoke that's in the middleground can tend to dim or gray-out the highlights, since the smoke is essentially then just a grayish scrim. Think of it like mixing a faint layer of gray on top of an image, compared to mixing a faint layer of white on top of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not thinking 3-dimensionally.

 

Picture the set smoked.

The objects close to the camera have little or no smoke between the lens and the objects.

The further away from the lens, the more "diffusion" there is, so it's an incremental increase in contrast control, thereby increasing apparent depth.

In this case, you actually wouldn't want to see shafts of light, and it's not like just throwing a huge scrim between the foreground and the background.

 

Matt Pacini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Oh I get it, and what I said still holds true. I was just using an example of one layer of smoke between foreground and background for simplicity (and relating it to the picture you cited as an example). With more layers of depth, the smoke compounds like multiple "scrims," giving the effect you just described.

 

What I was trying to point out is that this technique has been used to deliberately flatten out the apparent dimension of the background, making it "like a painting" as Alvin pointed out. I was just distinguishing this use of smoke as opposed to the dimensional use you see more often in contemporary photography. Especially where light rays in the air create linear perspective, such as in this shot.

 

You can also create the illusion of "layers" of depth by manipulating value and contrast without the use of smoke. A common technique is to create planes of focus that lose contrast and get slightly brighter as they recede (the darker, more modeled foreground "pops" against the brighter, more washed out background). It's just that smoke does this for you automatically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...