Larger Sources Larger Spaces

Mark Hutto · January 18, 2005

I'd like to hear some comments and experiences from DP's as you've grown in your craft from lighting small spaces with a few small sources to lighting large rooms and sets with a full complement of instruments. I realize the principals should translate but maybe you could share some practical tips you've come to fall back on about controling light or developing your own particular look, ones you tend to use over and over again. Perhaps some ah ha moments when things clicked into place and brought your thinking to a new level or some mistakes that have served you well.

Thanks

Kevin Zanit · January 18, 2005

Something I have found myself doing lately is using large soft sources really far away.

I will take a 12k fresnel about 30 feet from a window. I will then place something like an 8x8 frame of 1/2 china silk about 10 to 15 feet from the source.

This creates a very nice soft source that regains some directionality with the distance. There is virtually no fall off.

Of course this is a stupidly wasteful way to light - The amount of space it occupies, and what the output of the unit is reduced to is fairly substantial. Thus, I can?t always take this approach.

Another element I have been adding to this setup is the use of 8x8 soft egg crates over the frames to give the light even more directionality.

Lately it just seems I am into putting soft lights far away. I love using a flathead 80 about 15 feet away as a soft edge, or even side key light.

My crew must think I have gone insane. To my gaffer: "Put the Kino like 20 feet back, and bring in a 5k skypan for an eye light [this is a whole other trick . . . ]".

But it is fun when you have the right tools that will let you play with extremes in distance and softness.

Kevin "I am still sane" Zanit

Adam Frisch FSF · January 18, 2005

My preferences change all the time. I used to be very central in my composition, now I try to avoid that (in an effort to mimic Willis more, I suppose). I'm also seriously reluctant to use backlight on actors - I think it looks fake. And if I do, I try to make it soft and on the same side as the key, just barely kissing their cheeks. I'm also into underexposing and lighting rooms, not actors (which is the hardest one to adhere to). But ask me tomorrow and all will have changed.

Bob Hayes · January 18, 2005

I tend to try to light the set as if there are no actors in it. Just make the set look the way you want it too. Then and a few units hard or soft to pick up the cast. That way I?m lit almost anyway I look and it doesn?t look over lit. I hope

Glenn Hanns · January 19, 2005

Something I have found myself doing lately is using large soft sources really far away.

I will take a 12k fresnel about 30 feet from a window. I will then place something like an 8x8 frame of 1/2 china silk about 10 to 15 feet from the source.

This creates a very nice soft source that regains some directionality with the distance. There is virtually no fall off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I also like to light like this but one time on set I was told that placing a light far away from the diffussed frame was the same as having the lamp close to the frame as far as drop off (not exposure) was concered. When the light passes through the silk/diffusion it now becomes the source so any gain (as far as less fall off) with the inverse sq law theory prior to the light hitting the frame is lost.

Any thoughts?

Kevin Zanit · January 19, 2005

I like it far for a few reasons. One, it obviously completely fills the frame. And two, it makes the "hot spot" bigger, thus the frame seems to be lit with a more even intensity.

Kevin Zanit

Chris Keth · January 19, 2005

I like it far for a few reasons. One, it obviously completely fills the frame. And two, it makes the "hot spot" bigger, thus the frame seems to be lit with a more even intensity.
Kevin Zanit

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also, filling the frame will result in a softer look to the light, it will wrap more and make softer shadows than if you amke one small hot spot in the middle of the frame.

Patrick Neary · January 20, 2005

I dunno if this counts, but several years ago I had a small "Aha!" moment (maybe more of a "dope slap" moment!) once confronted with an enormous warehouse interior- and not so enormous lighting package- Looking through the camera I realized I just needed a small bit of light on a background wall in the distance, and a small bit of light on the actor near the camera. I didn't need to light the whole space, just the little bits in the viewfinder. So it was lighting a large space with small-space technique- an efficiency forced by a lousy lighting kit!

DavidSloan · January 24, 2005

Well this may seem kind of silly but I recently became a FILL LIGHT FANANTIC! I absolutely abhor any kind of deep shadows, especially the bib kind! And top lighting is also a big no no for me...sorry Gordon Willis fans :o I take my que from fashion mags, Sven Nykvist, and the recent work of Savides. Soft, large and far, baby! :lol:

David Mullen ASC · January 24, 2005

Well this may seem kind of silly but I recently became a FILL LIGHT FANANTIC! I absolutely abhor any kind of deep shadows, especially the bib kind! And top lighting is also a big no no for me...sorry Gordon Willis fans :o I take my que from fashion mags, Sven Nykvist, and the recent work of Savides. Soft, large and far, baby! :lol:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure what you're saying since Savides often lights a scene with a soft top light ala Willis. "The Yards" and "Finding Forrester" have a lot of obvious Willis inspirations. Nykvist sometimes lit a scene with soft overhead light too.

Shouldn't style be based on content? Whether the shadows are dark or not would depend on the mood you are trying to create for the scene. And what's a "bib" kind of shadow? If you got a script that called for deep shadows or a scene lit only by an overhead light bulb, you'd turn it down because you no longer shoot movies with deep shadows or overhead lights?

Rik Andino · January 24, 2005

I agree with David...

Lighting isn't just motivated by the space

But also by the style.

Sometimes you need hard light and hash shadows

And sometimes you don't.

KARMA bums

DavidSloan · January 24, 2005

I'm not sure what you're saying since Savides often lights a scene with a soft top light ala Willis. "The Yards" and "Finding Forrester" have a lot of obvious Willis inspirations. Nykvist sometimes lit a scene with soft overhead light too.

Shouldn't style be based on content? Whether the shadows are dark or not would depend on the mood you are trying to create for the scene. And what's a "bib" kind of shadow? If you got a script that called for deep shadows or a scene lit only by an overhead light bulb, you'd turn it down because you no longer shoot movies with deep shadows or overhead lights?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My purpose as a DP is to always serve the material as best as I can, but doing so using my creative and aesthetic judgement. I think that any type of lighting can work for any type of film IF the DP knows how to sculpt the lighting to fit with the material. I see no reason why crime films are always shot in noir lighting and comedies are always flat. I don't think there should be any standard way of lighting anything. I'm not interested in lighting as a genre, I'm interested in developing my own unique visual interpretation of the material. It just so happens that I visualize things in a softly lit style, and I'm usually always able to serve the material with my lighting/framing. Of course I would never turn down a script if it specifically called for hard shadows, but I would be happier if it called for wrap around noon bounce :lol:

It's true that Savides has echos of G.Willis in some of his work. I should have been specific and mentioned Birth, and Elephant to be the work of Savides that I'm interested in.

As for what a bib shadaw is: it's the shadow you get underneath the chin/neck area, that comes from a top light and looks like a bib.

DavidSloan · January 24, 2005

My crew must think I have gone insane. To my gaffer: "Put the Kino like 20 feet back, and bring in a 5k skypan for an eye light [this is a whole other trick . . . ]".

Tell us more, Kevin :D

Kevin Zanit · January 25, 2005

Okay, you asked for it :blink:

Sometimes I find myself wanting a "blazing" eyelight that essentially fills the entire dark area of an eye with a bright highlight.

Now I am sure many people have their own approach to this, but for me I found that I have to have a pretty large source for the eye to reflect in order to have this effect.

A lot of people will use a large frame of diffusion or something to get this effect. My thing is, I don?t always like a square eyelight.

So, a 5k skypan is a fairly large, round source (in size). So I will take this unit, usually with 216 or something similarly heavy over the unit, and plug it into a Variac.

The trick is, obviously, not to flatten the scene out with this "eyelight". In reality, one does not need a very bright light; they just need something for the eye to reflect.

So I will just dial the skypan in accordingly. I place the unit so it is as close to the lens, so the light hitting the eye is on the optical axis.

The unit throws very little light, but if you were to spot meter the unit, it is in fact giving a decent stop. Since you?re just seeing the reflection of this source, it comes out just right.

Looks funny, sounds funnier, but works.

Kevin Zanit