Stephen Selby

Yes for a rough guide I do that too but just wondered if there is a more accurate way to measure the hardness of light if I want to replicate something I see in nature.

People talk about soft and hard light but really it is just a gradation between them. How does one measure the hardness of light falling on the subject as opposed to the hardness of the source? Clearly hardness of the source would be measured by calculating the angle between the distance of the source and the size of the source. So the sun would be the Tan-1(Sun Height / Sun Distance) = 0.53 degrees i.e. extremely sharp. A blonde with reflectors 0.1m diameter positioned about 5 meters away from subject would be Tan^-1 (0.1/5) = 1.14 degrees i.e very sharp. A softbox 2m high and 2m from subject would be Tan^-1 (2/2) = 45 degrees i.e. soft However when there are obstacles or diffussion in the way the actual hardness of light falling on the subject is different - so how does one measure this? In some instances the diffuser or diffusion becomes the new source - e.g. a tweenie bounced off a muslin - the muslin is now the source if the muslin is 2 meters away from the subject and 2m high the light falling on the subject now has a hardness of 45 degrees (i.e. soft). But when the sun becomes diffused by haze, mist, fog, cloud covering, etc. the effective sharpness of the shadows surely changes - until it is overcast and then the angle of hardness is 180 degrees - totally diffused and no shadows. I was walking in the countryside on Sunday and the lighting was beautiful. Something I would like to replicate. It was overcast, not heavy overcast and a low sun was diffused through some more whispy clouds. So I took out my Lee swatchbook and observed the colours that surrounded me. I measured the angle at 10 degress, and the shadows to be about 4-5 shows darker than the highlights. But I had no idea how to measure the hardness of the shadows. The clouds were diffusing the sunlight and a rough guess would be 80% if 100% is a perfect sharp line. I presuming the sharpness of the sun is less in winter than in July due to travelling at a lower angle, and hence more diffusion through the atmosphere. Is there a tool for such a thing? Is there a known chart for the hardness of sunlight under various conditions - i.e. December vs July. Does the sharpness actually change between winter and summer due to a lower trajectory and more atmosphere to travel through or only intensities?

I've notice that in most movies the set designer and DOP seem to choose white shades for practical lamps - presumably to increase exposure and not mess with white balance. So for example, all white lamp shades and then dim down the practical lamp bulbs to create a nice warm tone. Is there any advantage to using a white shade with dimmed bulb to get an orange effect, as opposed to keeping the bulb at full power and using an orange shade (which I guess will give more a colour contrast between diffussed and direct light)? Both would presumably give a warm effect. What about coloured bulbs/globes in practicals. Effectively to create warm effect we have got 4 options: 1. Dimmed down tungsten 2. Use orange painted bulb 3. Gel inside of lampshade 4. Use colour lampshade Have you experimented with them and do you think any have certain advantages or disadvantages to creating the warm romantic look. Has anyone given much thought to the colour of lamp shades and have you had any eureka sublime moments, where you've thought I need to keep that up my sleeve for a romantic shot? Have you had any bad moments where you've thought, i really should not have used a lamp with a red lampshade etc. The only advice I can give here is make sure the lamp height is big enough to hold higher wattage bulbs - I tried to stick a dimmed 100w in a lamp and the bulb poked out the top so I reverted to a 40w at full blast. One film that baffles me is Amelie. A blue lamp in a very warm environment - I would have thought the colour spill from the lamp would create a really muddy colour in the immediate environment - or is it one of those post-production tricks where they've rotoscoped the light and changed the colour? Has anybody tried shooting a scene with a blue practical and overall warm feel - it sounds like asking for trouble? (I shall try and repost the images just in case they dissappear from thirdparty sites, if the images no longer exist on reading this post contact me!) Atypical White Lampshades: Red Practical (Nice!!!) Amelie Blue Light

Can you think of any colour movies with an upright piano in, grand pianos are much easier to film because you can shoot the face over the top of the piano. The ones that immediately spring to mind are: Shine The pianist The legend of 1900 Can you think of anymore?

You can always greenscreen with the windows down then add a little glass reflection in later. In fact even if recording live it sometimes looks better with the windows down and hardly anyone notices, especially if shooting in evening light the sun will just show up any smears on the windows. Clean your glass thoroughly. Projection might give you a better look but never tried it. I tend to avoid greenscreen. There is normally a live solution for everything. Leds in cars can work to give extra fill. Wrap it with some 216 diffusion or tracing paper so that it is soft fill. If it is a one shot lower the passenger seat so more light can get to the driver

Let's start by looking at some pictures by Nykvist So in Malewisz book Richard Aguelir says that Nykvist normally lights with a huge soft light and then fills in from the opposite side. Looking at the lights in the eyes of picture 1 it looks as though there are two frontal lights with an equal amount of intensity and a light rear left to rim the hair. Possibly some fill from the right of frame. Is there any way to tell how hard or soft a light is by the size of the highlights in the pupil. I would have expected a soft light to have a much larger highlight in the pupil. How soft is this? I'm guessing not as soft as bounce light, not as soft as silk 8'x8' but more like two 3'x3' with diffusion and the reason there is little shadow is because of the fill ratio being almost 1:1 not it being a very soft light. Picture 2 Again am slightly confused because the shadows look soft but the eyelights are small - is that because he is using med-soft to hard lights with lots of fill or small sized soft lights? In other words is it something like a pepper light with loads of frost in front and then another one to fill, a very distant fresnel through a 8'x8' soft frame, or two harder lights - like peppers undiffussed peppers but becuase of intensity and fill ratio being very high the shadows appear much softer? Picture 3: Again a really low soft light - looks like a left front key and right front fill but the ratios are much lighter now. Given the lips it looks like a much larger soft light than the catchlight in the eyes - which seems surprisingly small if he is using a large soft source. Picture 4: This is much more what i'd expect from a soft source a much larger eye highlight. The shaows seem to be about the same softness as previous shots but the highlights in eyes much larger. Is that just to do with the distance from the subject. Here a left key as a diffused window with a right fill would make sense - also confirmed in earring highlights. Picture 5: Again very small highlights in eyes, left brighter than right suggesting front left key and front right fill at lower intensity but highlights seem remarkably small given the softness of the shadows. Picture 6: And this is confusing because it seems the other way round, quite a hard shadow of his chin across his collar which would suggest a hard light, but yet the highlight in his eye is quite large and soft?!

I'm very interested in Nykvists style. I'm slightly confused as to his technique I'll post a seperate topic on it.

Simple soft key and then colour graded, desaturated quite a lot especially reds - almost entirely pulled out.

You could always use a projector for the key and change the colour temperature and brightness to represent the passage of the sun. Then use a little fill by bouncing light back.

Yes always go for gels. Ask them to send you a swatch pack and then play around with one to find the perfect colours. Never rely on post production colour changes - get it right in camera.

Beautiful libary. Where is it? Put some diffusion over the windows get some fresnels outside with CTB on, leave the slatted blinds 1/2 closed and fill with a little smoke. Though the libary might not be happy with a smoke, ask permission. Add a few practicals dimmed down or with low wattage bulbs in - i.e. 40w.

I'm not familar with the scene - do you have a link? I guess one way of doing it would be to have the glass at a slant to slow down the droplets, but then the perspective might not be correct. Use something more dense so that it drips slower. Alternatively shoot your footage then project onto a screen and then film your projected footage through the angled glass. These are only suggestions which I haven't tried.

Shoot on a real train on a cloudy day. Or if on set use two large diffusion screens one at 7'oclock for key and another at 5 o'clock for fill

Hmm - wondering whether this scene needs to be redesigned - if we want it to be dramatic then perhaps a moonlight shaft across the bed from the curtains will suffice and exchange light in hallway for soft moonlight. In otherwords when he goes from one room to the next he doesn't switch on the hallway light. Then the drama is captured in the shaft of moonlight rather than the light from the hallway.

Any film noir

Yes bounced - but why from above - why not bounce off a wall to make it look a bit more 3d

Yes I would agree with Oliver - typical 3 point key from door. Digital rain.

Think about contrasts and colour wheel - if you want an orange to pop it won't if it is on a red background. Put orange on a blue background and it will pop.

Dedos and 5D will be fine. You can set 5d at 1600 ASA and shoot at f2.8-4 and it will look fine. Yes hard lights are difficult compared to soft lighting.

I would just use a real tv or projector and shoot at a high ASA.

Sven Nykvist likes to use one large soft source as David likes. Dependent on the room and latitude of the camera some fill is often needed though Dappled light is not too bad to replicate, projectors or gobos.

Very interesting. If you shoot digital I'd: 1 use the histogram to evaluate highlights 2 use the monitor til it looks right 3 A) For an evenly lit scene - little contrast and lots of frontal lighting the cameras meter reading is normally quite accurate. B) For dramatic lighting such as chiaroso I find that an average weighted meter reading is best about -1 EV C) For contre-jour spot metering works but on the whole +1EV up to +2EV is about right unless you want a silhouette

Very interesting - in John Altons book painting with light he talks about a candle where the back is cut out and a peanut bulb inserted - like the frosted glass idea. Safer and easier to film.

Doors are difficult and transitions between rooms. Will play.

Give ROSCO and LEE a ring and purchase a swatch pack - invaluable. I've got some bastard in the loft - though haven't used it much - only tend to use CTOs and CTBs.