Albion Hockney

I think one thing that is throwing you off is that you are looking at a log picture as reference. Log is not supposed to be used as a repersenation of your final image ....generally because log images are so flat they appear much brighter and more milky then your final image. so with that said I think your first image is "darker" then you think the underexposed parts of the frame are just lifted a lot. your final image appears pulled down a bit, but honestly it doesnt look far off from what it would be with a more standard curve applied to it. When shooting on cameras that does LOG or RAW I generally look at LUT that has a curve that is closer to the final graded image and then I light for that. For example on the RED I will use "Red Gamma 3" with the knowledge that I have a bit more information then that in the raw. Some poeople use a "rec 709" curve and light for that when shooting log ....I find rec 709 too contrasty so I try to look at a LUT that is a little more wider ranged then that. As far as the noise thing goes one thing you can do is shoot at a lower iso then native if you want really crisp shadow detail. this is similar to using more light and bring it down in post as you are basically overexposing when you drop the ISO. Every camera is different though I would run some tests with pushing the native iso of the camera with underexposure and see if it gets too noisy for you. the last thing I would consider is that everything in images is viewed in relation to what else is there, but this I mean darker images usually appear dark because they are "low key" Meaning there is still bright parts of the frame that may read a stop or two over exposed but most of the image is below exposure. So if you want something to appear dark you may not want to just underexpose it but instead create contrast in your frame with the lighting

DF-50 is the standard depending on size you might want 2 or more the biggest space I used a DF-50 was a gym with 15ft ceilings probably about a 25ft x 25ft area and it did pretty well....a 2nd one woulda made things easier though.

I think if you underexpose the hell out of it and then hit them with a soft tungsten source it might work. candle light is getting tough I think you would need like 5k's or a handful of 2ks on a flickr box or dimmers going through alittle diff . assuming your playing it like there is a lantern at a distance away from them like on the opposite side of a porch or something. seems a little dangerous though I donno how that will work. the sky replacment might be a good route Im sure that has been done and tested....I'd talk to some CGI/Compositing people and take some example stills to show em exactly what you'd like to achieve.

HAHA, maybe! No I donno...I think this goes back to probably some other posts and I can only speak for myself, but I would say now alot of the younger guys are just more realistic in their romanticism. Speaking for myself again, by that I mean I take into consideration that most people/audiences now are used to those older romantic cinema images and they don't have the same power they once did so now its about grounding something in a little bit more of a reality and then in the right moments subtly getting to a heightend image. I made a post a little bit down about bradford young's work in "Mother of George". I think Bradford Young is great example of someone doing what I explained above there. His images are often some what stylized and I'd say "romantic" ...but at the same time they feel like they could be lit with practicals in a real setting. I think now its kinda like, maybe we don't need all of those big tools and highly stylized images to transport people to a differnt place....maybe it can be more subtle? I donno if thats right or anything, but kinda the way I have been thinking about it, curious to hear your thoughts david. Because again going back to the painting I think there is a ton to take from the renaissance painters and forward to the romantics, impressionists, etc ...but I think just like painters have moved forward to more modern asthetic we as cinematographers can too.

Yea I tottaly do, I understand that the renaissance stuff isn't apart of the romantic period in painting and I kinda blocked those things together which probably isnt the best thing to do....I guess I just sum up all of those ideas of incaptualting beauty in kinda straight forward ways as romantic ideas... which I guess technically they are not. That said even though the renaissance birth'd painting "realistically" with perspective and motivated light and all of that, now when you see those painting's they are no longer "realistic" to me they feel pretty exagerated and romantic....the actual period labled "romantic" just took those realistic renaissance ideas and built on them by exagerating things to try to heighten that beauty the renaissance painters were trying to capture. Anyways I would say those older ASC guys (i hate to sum them all up like that but regardless) are pretty romantic....just take like any famous train scene with big shafts of light and the smoke and etc ...those are very heightened images ....the world does not look like that and they are heightening the scene to try to get to a greater thing....so whether they were inspired by rembrant or a painter from the actual romantic period I think it all comes across pretty romanticized. never though about hockney with that pool soon, but yea tottaly. hockney is just so great... so funny.

Thanks! keep em coming great blog

I think the painting inspiring cinematography is kinda this overly romanticized thing Alot of the older ASC guys where basically romantics in how they were lighting so it does make a lot of sense though that they would pull from these very romantic works of art. ... I think there is stuff to take from all of it though just the history of how painters of the renaissance started to look at light is very interesting and useful stuff.....But I also think its also just fun and romantic to go look at painting and say so and so inspired such and such shot or asthetic so its really caught on. That said I spend a ton of time at art museums, but I generally not only interested in the "old masters" and the renaissance stuff ....everything is intersting and I think its worth not just looking at how painters are using light, but just a deeper understanding and appreciation of art in general is important if your going to shoot movies....Its the same reason you should read....it helps think about things in different ways. I actually probably spend more time looking at and thinking about contemporary and modern photography then anything....I also am a huge hockney fan although his painting probably wouldn'y be called "cinematic" at all I find it really inspirational actually. I am a total sucker for some whistler though ....all his "nocturne" paintings .... beautiful stuff and really pushed me to experiment with underexposure.

whats the difference between spot and reflectance meter?

Ok makes sense! thanks much.

For night exteriors i have usually gelled tungsten lights to get them in the ballpark of sodium or other low CRI city lights. I'm curious if light sources which are inherently give a very low color spectrum will be give a broader spectrum if gelled properly for example can I put a little Minus Green and CTB on a sodium light to make the strong color a little more subtle.

Wides with lights in frame are a problem for sure. I think you gotta know it is what it is.... there is no magic that can be done if there is no where to hide lights. I really get turned off but blown out lights in frame unless the style of it really plays to the story so I always try to do anything I can to bring the bulbs down to a reasonable level of exposure. I think a big part of it is what kinda chandelier it is....donno your scope but if you have a production designer to work with and the set is right for the bigger the chandelier (ie the more sources in it) the more light you can get with the bulbs not blowing out so much indvidually. I beleive in melancholia in the opening scenes you can see some examples of lighting with real chandeliers ....also in the film "mother of george" in the opening scenes .....but they are big kinda banquet hall style lights so there might be 20 15/25w bulbs in them or something. Roger Deakins always talks about spending time designing the practical sources in from the production designers and I think it is a really over looked step. One option might be compositing as if the shot is static.....shoot the scene with stronger bulbs in the chandelier and then stop down for a 2nd take and see if you can comp them together.....I once did that for a big shot of a football field with one stadium light in frame and it worked out well actually, but not sure how well it work in an interior space .....when I did the footaball field there was only black negative space around the light.

For me the general rule is shoot 800 ISO if you want to have the most highlight latitude ( I find highlight clipping to be the RED's biggest weakness as the roll of isnt as nice as Alexa). That said if I'm shooting something without a lot of highlights and I want a cleaner image (especially in terms of noise in the shadows) I will shoot 320iso. For example a commerical with a night interior.

yea yea just trying to give a basic explanantion.

Full frame is the defacto standard for focal length. on full frame 50mm is considered a "normal lens' meaning it is not wide angle or telephoto and provides a depth of field similar to the human eye in terms of the percived distance between objects in frame (for further understanding wideangle lenses expand depth of field making objects appear farther from eachother and telephoto lenses compress objects). on a t3i which has an APS-C sensor there will be a 1.5x "crop factor" meaning the 50mm lens will provide a depth of field and angle of view similar to a 75mm lens on a "full frame" sensor. because the lens has a wider image circle ment for a full frame sensor it will always "cover" the smaller aps-c sensor. But if you take a lens designed for an APS-C sized sensor and place it on a full frame camera you are likley to see heavy vingetting or literally see a black ring around the image because the lens won't project an image big enough to cover the entierty of the sensor.

This film Mother of George is one of the more interesting films visually I have seen in a long time. Based in realism the film still carries a very heavily stylistic look that speaks very powerfully the films themes and intentions. That said I have been trying to figure out how Bradford Young did a couple of scenes and was curious peoples thoughts. There are two scenes in question. The first is a conversation on the edge of a bed. Through out the film there is a soft blue top light used....the light almost seems to be giving illumination more through reflective qualities of the talents skin then the light it self but either way its just gorgeous. Anyone have any idea what this source might be.....how big and soft it is? then there is also that little warm edge as if coming from the lamp....could this be tottaly practical? given the fact the lamp doesnt look over exposed at all I was thinking it would need to be another source, but I'm not sure ....it is 35mm after all lots of latitude. The 2nd scene the lead is in the kitchen and walks over to window and sits in the sill where she is super overexposed. I usually hate overexposure like this even when done stylistcally with purpose ....but here it does look really nice and the roll off looks very smooth. I assume there is some filtration on the camera and maybe some more work in the DI on it but Im curious what filter might be used on the camera here. You can see in the 2nd still before she goes to the window there is a lot of halation caused by the filter. best, Albion

I don't think you need a lot of color in your lighting to get that kinda look .....you can go more toward green in color grading if you want more of a look on it. But I'd leave the lights alone and just warm them up if you want...... maybe try using a little subtle yellow gel but nothing super strong and I'd run tests all yellow has green in it....thats what makes it yellow. CTS is CTO with a little green.

It's all very variable depending on what kinda work you are doing. If you can the best option is to pre-light ....if you can't do that and just need to throw something up quickly its pretty hit or miss and you will really need to focus on having people in places with good natural light.....If you only have 5min to throw up a LED panel I wouldn't rely on that as a key light, I would think about that more in terms of maybe adding a little fill or an edge. For example the bourdain scenes are usually pre-light from what I have see....some pretty extensivly. (Zamboni has won a few emmys on that show and I think he really likes to nail in the lighting ...very rarley does he do a meal full natural light if its at night. The thing that has worked best in the past is China balls with some duvatene and other little non movie lights that you can rig out of frame without needing a lot of grip equipment on the ground (I basically try to avoid using stands and any lighting control like solids or 4x4 frames).....I'd say with a host of household bulbs, some china balls, dimmers, and various rigging options (Maffer, scissor clamps, etc) that'll be your best bet. Of course if you do have the ability to throw up one real light as well that might help and for day interior having a joker 1600 might be a big help even if you just bounce it off a ceiling to even out sunlight coming in.

Thanks for sharing. "A Most Violent Year" does indeed look to be photographed super well (trailer was gorgeous). Bradford Young is with out a doubt one of the most interesting cinematographers on the rise. If you have a chance I recomend seeing Mother of George its seriously breathtaking work...amazing use of over/under exposure techniques. In alot of ways Young reminds me of Willis. He often does so little using practicals and naturalistic tecniques, but the result is never simply the in vogue "natural look" or plain realism ....he instead creates these very stylized worlds and because he crafts it so well it still feels very "real" and authentic.

I was more so curious if people were aware of car brands that have less green in the glass. The thing I did recently the car windows were super green. It was a hyundai mid size suv

...always just do that part in my head....just subtract 2 stops from w/e it gives you.

Anyone have any knowledege on what cars (makes/models) don't tint the windows so green or is it just across the board? anyone have a gel combo to ease it or something they do? .....I shot something recently unaware of it and we are just going to time it out but it's pretty bad!

You should really run your setup through the photometric calculator. and factor in the diffusion you want to use full grid cuts about 2 stops of light. The thing with frame is you need to back the light up to a distance that it can fill the whole frame evenly if you want to get the softest effect possible.... and you probably don't have enough light to back up a 5k to fill a 12x through full grid and still get the stop your looking for.....best test it out on the calc. I would consider going through a 4x4 of 250 and then going through the 8x frame with light grid .....its probably about the same stop loss but the 250 will spread the light more evenly over the frame and you can prob have the 5k a bit closer.

from my experience with a white limbo BG you don't really want much of an edge or light from behind on them unless you are underexposing the white bg and doing it as grey ....having them go dark on the back side helps with seperation if anything. if you are doing head to toe I would go with a 12x and a 10k if you can do it for sure it will look nicer....even if you don't book light

My Gaffer used to always take a china hat work light (can get at any hardware store) and diff it up really heavy with a way dimmed down 250w bulb for some walk and talk kinda stuff to work as a fill under sodium vapor looking lights as the color temp matched the warmth of the sodiums pretty well. For most of the stuff we were using our own lights with a Gel combo that was less green then sodium vapor but it wasnt that far off and yea it did the trick. If the source is just for a very minimal fill so they dont go completey into darkness I dont think it needs to be super soft as you will barley notice it......but if you want it to play more and really fill them in that is a different story ....I would think like david said it will be easy for anything that really fills them in to just make the face pretty flat.

Oh also noticed your studio has a cyc wall next to your talent too.....are you shooting toward that wall at all too or is it all straight on. with that white wall there you might not even need a fill light depending on how close your talent is to it .....or you might want to make sure they have a black out curtain for it if you want to control the fill light and make sure there is not too much spill.