relight of close ups

[skot_blank]

Hello-

I have been thinking about the process of relighting for close ups. I guess my question really is why and when. So when you do relight the close up are you matching your stop and lighting ratio from the wide shot? What typically do you change in the relight of the close up to make it ?better?? Could anyone share any common relighting set ups? Also could you share common relighting mistakes? Thanks.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's called "cheating" and it's a real artform to do it well (i.e. get away with it.) Probably the number one lighting trick a DP spends his lifetime learning: how to light a wide shot well and then how to make adjustments to the close-up that still match the wide shot.

 

Generally you want to maintain contrast, directionality of the source, color, depth-of-field, etc. The trouble with increasing the brightness of the key on the face is that it changes the relative brightness of the background, making it look darker.

 

You cheat because you feel that the face needs some help when you are tighter, or because the lighting in the wide shot was a bit of a compromise. Often you are making the light on the face softer and sometimes lower if you were getting eye socket shadows you didn't like. But you try and maintain the feeling of the wider shot and not change the contrast, etc. But if the close-up angle or size is more radically different than the wide-shot angle and size, you can get away with more cheating. But if you are just jumping in from medium to close in the same direction, you can hardly get away with any cheating at all.

 

Now when doing reverse angles, you can get away with a lot of cheating. The classic one is shooting outdoors in backlight in both directions, either in sunlight or in artificial moonlight, because even though shooting back-lit in one direction and front-lit in the reverse is logical, it sometimes feels like a mismatch when cutting between them.

[Michael Nash]

A quick, down-and-dirty technique for tweaking the light in a closeup is to simply walk in a 4x frame of Hampshire Frost or Opal in front of the key, relatively close to the actor. Depending on the key source used in the wide shot, this is often enough to soften the quality of light without changing the stop too much. If the key or fill doesn't naturally throw a little glint in the eye, you may add something special to pick up the eyes. Usually the less the better.

 

But there's also the approach that wants the closeup lit a very specific way, so usually the change in lighting is disguised or hidden by a major change in camera angle and shot size. CSI: Miami is one of my favorite shows to watch for this, as they shoot the wide on something like an 18mm and then go for the singles on a 200mm! If you look closely the lighting doesn't at all match, but it's well hidden by the change in angle. They usually keep the direction and contrast ratio generally the same, but that's about it (BTW, I love the look they get with the edge & soft key from one side and negative fill on the other. I watch for reflections of the bounce boards and diffusion frames in Caruso's sunglasses!).

 

I think the first thing the eye notices is changes in contrast, so I try to be as conservative as possible when adjusting the fill light for the CU. Next obvious would be color, but that's rarely an issue when tweaking between wide and tight. The eye is actually fairly forgiving of differences in the softness of light between wide and tight, within reason.

[Guest dbledwn11]

An old post but a very interesting one that I felt deserved more discussion since, as David says, it concerns "Probably the number one lighting trick a DP spends his lifetime learning."

 

please please please could more people give some examples of how they deal with relighting for close-ups (maybe even some stills with corresponding floor plans???)

 

I had read somewhere that quite often one can use a higher lighting ratio in the close-up than the long shot because the further you move back the fewer details you start to see. (This idea tends to work better when the subject is against a dark background). The closer you are the bigger the image becomes and the more detail you start to see - I assume that to compensate for the increase in detail, (the fill side appearing to be relatively closer in f-stop to the key side) increasing the brightness (i.e. creating a higher lighting ratio) of the key light will make the detail appear less in the close-up (therefore restoring the general appearance as established in the wider shots).

 

Now David says to "maintain contrast" - I?m curious to know whether he means maintaining the exact lighting ratio or, as I have described above, merely maintaining the appearance of the already established ratio. Bearing in mind that David mentions increasing brightness on the key I'm inclined to think the latter. (I suppose if this is the case the alternative is to decrease the brightness of the fill) any thoughts??

 

If I haven't confused you already there's more. And this is where it starts to confuse me!

 

Michael goes on to say: "quick, down-and-dirty technique for tweaking the light in a close-up is to simply walk in a 4x frame of Hampshire Frost or Opal in front of the key, relatively close to the actor. Depending on the key source used in the wide shot, this is often enough to soften the quality of light without changing the stop too much."

 

now surely to do this would decrease the brightness of the key light (any type of diffusion will affect the amount of light passing through it) which, as described earlier in the post, would bring the f-stop difference between key and fill closer together and therefore not "maintain contrast" (if of course we are using this term in the manner I have already described).

 

I hope that makes sense. I'm pretty confident the logic of it works. All help greatly appreciated.

[Dickson Sorensen]

Below are two illustrations of "cheeting"

In the first the fill for the wide shot, 12x12 butterfly with a couple of openface mighty moles was replaced for the close up with a 4x4 frame with 1000H tracing paper. and one of the mighty moles.

 

 

In the second illustration soft front fill was again brought in in a similar manner. In addition the window pattern on the wall was moved over to keep it within the frame. The audience will generally not notice props or in this case the light on the wall moving between shots as long as the relative placement is the same from wide to tight and it still makes sense.

[David Mullen ASC]

It comes down to a couple of things -- one, don't get too boringly technical about such things. A lot of this is about what "feels" like it will cut OK so use your eyes. Two, generally you DON'T want to increase the brightness of the key or change the fill ratio, but if you did change the intensity of the key and the exposure as well, you'd want to chaneg the fill as well to maintain the contrast ratio. That's why I said "the TROUBLE with increasing the brightness of the key..." as in, you should avoid it. Usually you are trying to cheat the softness and angle of the key for a close-up, but not the intensity nor the key-to-fill ratio.

 

Now of course there is wiggle room here. If your key becomes much softer in the close-up, it will wrap around the face more, therefore even if you now use less fill, the face will not necessarily look more contrasty because of the softness of the key. Hence why it is often an eyeball thing.

 

Personally I think one should attempt to maintain the same contrast feeling when relighting a close-up.

 

First of all, you TRY and light the wide shot so you don't have to relight the close-up, which is more of an old-fashioned concept. The point is to only IMPROVE the lighting in the close-up but not make it obvious that you changed anything, hence why getting it close to right in the wider shot is a good idea (plus it saves you time.) There's no rule that you HAVE to change the lighting when you get closer. It's something you have to make a judgement call on, for time reasons and really, you can make something worse or cut less well if you change the lighting too much.

 

An example of a cheat is where in a wider shot, you key someone with a 2K Zip with an eggcrate on the ceiling, suggesting an overhead practical. When you go in tighter, maybe you swap the 2K Zip for a Chinese Lantern, flagging it so that it doesn't spill around anymore than the 2K Zip did. Perhaps you couldn't have used the Chinese Lantern in the first place because there was not enough space off-screen to flag the Chinese Lantern off of the walls. But you probably wouldn't swap the 2K Zip key for a light through a 12'x12' frame of diffusion because that would be too extreme a change from a harder to a super-soft key.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

But when you look at older movies, not only are the eyelines often off in the close-ups, but they're also heavily relit. This can be jarring for a modern viewer, but I find that you accept more than you'd think you would if it's done consistently. I myself only tweak close-ups at best, but one doesn't have to be overly cautious - the viewer wil accept more than you think.

[Guest dbledwn11]

Thank you David for such a comprehensive response. I completely agree with you on going by feeling, but it can be daunting for an amateur. I tend to find that when just beginning something new (particularly when it is on one level very technical) you often start looking for rational explainations so you can justify your decisions to others and more importantly to yourself.

 

The only analogy I can think of is playing poker - they often say the best way to start learning the game is by betting real money straight away and not just learning the 'rules' because the biggest element of poker is the betting - in effect how you bet is the first rule of poker.

 

anyway i've gone off track. i thought i'd post some stills from the very first film i ever dop'd to give an example of how I dealt with (if "dealt with" can be construed as not knowing what to do:-) a cut from long shot to close-up involving no changes in the lighting what so ever.

 

Now I know in itself the lighting is not all that good, but i'm more curious to know what people think of the lighting continuity, what others would do to improve it etc. i've also included a lighting plan to make it clearer what lights are where. any suggestions for improvements would be much appreciated. it was shot on vision2 7217 (tungsten) by the way.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2005 by dbledwn11

[David Mullen ASC]

It looks it bit cluttered -- I'm not sure the mood you were trying to go for, or even if this is a day scene.

 

In the close-up, you seem to have two key lights coming from the right side, judging from the shadow his hair makes - one high (slightly behind) and one at eye level. Then a fairly direct hard fill it seems. Maybe the high, behind light was supposed to be more of a backlight or kicker, but it lights too much of the face (about a quarter), then your "key" lights about 3/4's of the face (judging by the triangular nose shadow). I know it doesn't help when you have a hair style that shadows most of the face -- I have that problem when lighting women with that "big-bangs" hair style.

 

But honestly, if this is a night interior, it should have a feeling of the source light for the table, whether overhead or from a side lamp. If it is a day scene, then what is motivating two hard keys from the right of nearly the same intensity to hit his face? In the daytime, only direct sun would be hard and then it would be very hot as well except at sunset maybe.

 

You could have made the one-quarter back/side light incredibly intense, as if from a high window, and let that bounce back up and fill in the face, and just used that one light. Or you could have had a strong light from the side that was topped halfway with a flag or diffusion frame to create a hot slash of light on his lower half, and then soft side light on his face. Or just had a single soft side light. Or a hard, low, orange side light as if from the setting sun.

 

When lighting a set, try and create the feeling of a single dominant source that all other lights become secondary to (unless shooting a scene where multiple keys are motivated, like in a nightclub). So that someone looking at the image instantly thinks "window light" or "overhead lamp" or "the sun is setting", "there's a skylight", whatever. If you want a pattern on the wall to be the dominant element, then fine -- make that stronger and let most of the room play in near silhouette against that. It's like that line in "Amadeus" about the opera having too many notes. Two lights are weaker than one light, so think about the main light in the scene or room and then play other lights and sources in subservient roles.

Edited November 5, 2005 by David Mullen

[Guest dbledwn11]

"Maybe the high, behind light was supposed to be more of a backlight or kicker, but it lights too much of the face (about a quarter)"

 

yeh i think it was meant to be some kind of back light, however, when you go on to suggest

 

"You could have made the one-quarter back/side light incredibly intense, as if from a high window"

 

are you only allowing it to remain one-quarter since in this new scenario it now represents the key motivating source?

 

this then got me thinking about something else you said

 

"your "key" lights about 3/4's of the face (judging by the triangular nose shadow)"

 

I often hear of lighting 3/4's back or something like that, I thought this referred to distance of the key light, but now I suspect it has something to do with how much of the subject is lit - is this right?

 

either way I also couldn't work out whether you were implying that 3/4's was too much (or maybe too little) since it immediately followed the criticism about the 1/4 back light being too much.

 

again hope that makes sense. I am finding all of this advice invaluable and really do appreciate the time and effort being taken to help me on this.

[Chris Keth]

"your "key" lights about 3/4's of the face (judging by the triangular nose shadow)"

 

I often hear of lighting 3/4's back or something like that, I thought this referred to distance of the key light, but now I suspect it has something to do with how much of the subject is lit - is this right?

 

 

There's nothing that says your key light has to be the one lighting the face like you say. Your key could be a hot 3/4 kicker and the face information could be filled in.

[David Mullen ASC]

Well, it's OK to have a key light that lights three-quarters of the face, but then why have an additional light of nearly the same intensity lighting one-quarter of the same side that the other light is lighting? It just looks like he's being keyed with two equal lights only coming from slightly different directions.

 

Now if the one-quarter light was stronger and more dominant, obviously the "key" even though it only lit one-quarter of the face, then you could add a SOFT side light (or three-quarters frontal) that was underexposed to bring out both eyes but look like fill or something. Since it would be soft and underexposed, it would serve to both light the eyes and fill in somewhat, so you could eliminate the frontal fill. OR just have the frontal fill and the one-quarter back/key.

 

It's the fact that the two lights are both hard and both of nearly the same brightness and both lighting the same side of the face that makes it look cluttered, like you should just turn off one or the other.

 

Again, you have to ask yourself what the dominant source is in the frame and make every other light subservient to it.

 

What is the high one-quarter back-key supposed to be anyway? Weak sunlight from a high window in the background? It's one thing to make up an off-camera source like by creating a soft windowlight effect, but I question two lights coming from off-camera that I'm not clear as to what is creating the effect.

 

Now if you're going for a more theatrical old-fashioned three-point lighting set-up less grounded in reality, I'd still say that the balance & placement of the three lights on the face is wrong because the key is not obvious & strong, the fill is too strong, weakening the key, and the backlight is not coming from the back enough.

 

For starters, always try using the least amount of fill you think you can get away with.

 

Personally, I tend to define "key" is the dominant light source in the scene, whether or not it is hitting the face. But it is a vague term since if a strong backlight is the "key" and dominates the scene, the weak soft fill you add to see the face, especially if it comes more from the side, may also be described as "keying the face" even though it is really fill. Or you could say that there is no fill since it's not from the front.

 

But the trouble with the example is that what is the "key" is not clear because it's competing with too many other lights of near equal value.

 

Truth is to just light an attractive or dramatic shot and don't worry about the labels. You've got to think (and light) in bolder strokes. If you can get away with lighting a scene with only one light, there's nothing wrong with that -- in fact, it often looks better that way. If you use one dominant light and see some problems, THEN maybe some smaller, dimmer additional lights can help fix those.

Edited November 6, 2005 by David Mullen

[Guest dbledwn11]

For starters, always try using the least amount of fill you think you can get away with.

 

How does this work if you need to bring the key and fill closer together in terms of brightness ratio (i.e. 1:2 as opposed to say 1:6)?

 

If you wanted the key side to be much brighter i could understand not needing to worry so much about fill, but if you wanted something more even like 1:2 then surely you'd want to be increasing fill rather than messing around with your key light? (especially if its intensity has already been established in a wider shot)

 

I hope I haven't gone too technical again!

[David Mullen ASC]

Why would you ever want such a low key-to-fill ratio, except to compensate when shooting a really high-contrast process like cross-processed color reversal or bleach-bypass neg/pos? Are you trying to replicate the look of a 1950's color musical? It would have to be an unusual lighting situation to justify having the fill be only one stop darker than the key.

 

Generally when shooting negative, shadows that are four stops under will go black or near black in a transfer off of the negative; for a print, generally you don't want the fill to be less than three stops under IF you want detail in the shadows. Two stops under on the fill (is that 4:1? Or 3:1? I don't use lighting ratios...) would be sort of an average contrast where there is a lot of shadow detail. One stop under for the fill would look very flat.

 

But honestly, fill light is one of those things you have to judge by eye. It really depends on what you feel you need to see in the shadows and the reflectivity of the object in the shadow. It also depends on what percentage of the face or frame is in the shadows. And if the key light is soft enough, it wrapsaround enough to roll off gently to black on the shadow side, so it feels like you don't need or want as much fill compared to a harder key light.

 

Fill light is one of those lights that is generally unmotivated; it's there for technical reasons. So it helps to not make it too obvious, like by keeping it soft and shadowless.

 

You have to exercise your visual taste here. Honestly, what type of light and lighting appeals to you? What do you find compelling or attractive? What would be a compelling way to light a man sitting at a kitchen table? What would be evocative? Try to avoid thinking technically FIRST. Technique is something you apply to support your main creative idea; you don't start with technique, you follow up with it. You don't start lighting a scene by aiming a key, fill, and backlight at someone. You start by imagining the finished image, by thinking about the feeling of light in the scene.

Edited November 6, 2005 by David Mullen