Albion Hockney

the status quo in all industries is to make women look beautiful in a classical sense. The most hilarious example is doves "real beauty" campagin which focus's attention on more "regular" looking people who are 1. still classically pretty just not glamorous models and 2. still emphasising a need to use beauty products. Do you not see what I mean by understanding the baggage that comes with "glamour" ....I mean you have to admit the industry as awhole (movies, fashion, beauty) is pretty **(obscenity removed)**ed up right now no? ....and creating idealzed images in cinema of beautfiful women only goes to support that right now. Your in a sense setting up this world where we value the beautfiul actress more then other's just because her body is such a way. What do you say to someone who is born looking "ugly" ....are they automatically a step behind? I mean that is terribly **(obscenity removed)**ed up. Sure I think some level of this is part of our world....if your a handsome guy you have a leg up....but men are valued very differently the level that exists of this for women is crazy. I do some documentary work and I have heard these stories from women with ED I mean something is just a little off in our society right now and I think some of this glamour stuff needs to be knocked down because it is harmful. back to the deconstructionist thought... The very concept of beauty and glamour is not one that can be locked down. that is to say people have been trying to define beauty since the begining of time and it is not a concept that can really be defined. Therefore it is very much worth questioning why we think certain things are beautiful today because much of the reason we think certain women are beautfiful has no biological end ....it is simply because society has taught us. For example in the 50s 60s women were much larger and today are much more skiny. So to say this kinda light that removes skin texture, this kinda women who looks like way, etc is beautful ....that is problematic and very exclusive .....only a certain group of skinny, mostly white, probably rich, etc, etc women are "glamorous" and that is very very problematic....and to be straightforward ....bad for the world.

I think an interest in sports should be questioned.....male aggression and interest in sports is also a marketing game. I think the Bio stuff is really interesting and I'm looking forward to learning more about that. From what I have read of evolutionary theory though alot of this stuff is very prelim ....alot was founded by men and just rreinforces stereotype so it all seems a little iffy... I'm in know means well read enough to say much more though. As for the "radical feminists" I understand that you disagree with much of these ideas but not all "radical feminists" believe men are trained to like naked female bodies.... Getting back to movies though I think you can make a nice argument the thriller stuff and the crime films etc are a male thing of course ....but just the act of using darkness as a tool ....I donno about that. As for glamour I think there is nothing intrinsically shallow or wrong about going after that and using it in films ...but you should be aware of all the baggage it comes with in using it I think. Which is why I personally like to try to redefine it a little hence the interest in the work of lubezki or someone who is trying to approach it differently then the status quo..... As someone who has shot commericals you gotta understand its a pretty big turn off to hear someone over your shoulder with no creative understanding of whats going on say "we really need more light on her face". I couldn't imagine lighting some scene with the script and collaberation with the director perfectly in line and then have to know that you need to make a womens face look a certain way for no reason other then that she is famous and has an image to uphold. Is that not a little silly?

I saw a 70mm projection of the master back a few years ago and it was really stunning. It is a different thing then seeing 35mm for sure. With that said 35mm is the norm ...its what we are now used to and it says a baseline expectation. I think the question is besides just looking at the technical aspects of "wow this is sharper...wow" is it helping the story telling. Most people I talked to about the master 70mm screening said the first 10min was very "WOW" but after that they settled into the story telling and the larger print didn't matter so much to them. Now I'm not saying I advocate lower resolution ....the 2k DI standard sucks .....and I think its inevitable in the next 5-10 years we start seeing some 8K + cameras and projection systems in theaters. But I dont really like 70mm as a selling point especially when its intercut inside a film....I just don't get that 70mm for select scenes thing. Maybe if it was an artistic choice for like the ending scene or something or a couple really pivitol moments.

its all constructed though! why don't men like glamour? because it wasnt sold to them and a part of there life since they were born ....and for a men to like glamour is to be feminint which is thought of as a negative....historically women have both been evil and saintly but in both roles they are objectified and stereotyped. To say the darkness is intrinsically male is like saying black/darkness is intrinsically sinsiter and evil and white/light is intrinsically pure and good. Tell that to a person of color! I don't think its pathetic for a women to want to be beautiful at all.....but I think it should be questioned....what is this beauty that is being looked for and why socially do I want it. In film it should really be considered because most of the times actresse's are commodities

Oh wow, so much to say! David I really appreciate the practical side of the conversation you bring to the table, but I think much of these things need to be questioned....I understand there is a business at hand and that has implications, but it seems a good idea to ask "why is the business the way it is and is it problematic?". in this case with both points I think the bussiness is super problematic in both limiting artistic creativity and being inherently sexist Gender Issues I understand this is a big conversation so not to go to far down the road....Personally I think the whole of society is pretty **(obscenity removed)**ed up in this area and your right Anna, I'm sure women ask to be lit that way... and I think your also right in saying its not sexist to treat women differnt from men....Women and Men will never be the same of course. But you have to question the root of why someone wants to be lit a certain way and why we do these things. It's hard to get away from the fact that this stuff has a root in thousands of years of a patriarchy and even if Women find agency in being sexy on camera....it still can be problematic. Anyways with that all said yea I think beauty lighting a women is super sexist and the film industry is super sexist and again agree with you Anna things seems to have gotten worse in a lot of ways. In terms of diffusion David, yea we still use diffusion but 1/4 black pro mist is a lot differnt then the heavy diffusion of other times where could literally see a change shot to shot on screen when a pretty women was there. Soft Lighting Think of the word soft.....the lighting is litterally touching people softer its more subtle in appearance by its nature. Again bringing up Savides .....Harris knew how to use soft light to make images appear more realistic while still retaining stylistic charector (I suggest watching Birth, that is a well shot film!). As someone who shoots and spends a good amount of time thinking about light literally every day I walk around Anna I would say that the sun is not the "Most" natural source of light....it is one of many. When your inside your house in the day and the sun is not coming through the window the interior is being lit by sky light which is a huge soft source. I think in the real world people are often not in situations where a light is hitting them directly and because of the increased Dynamic range of our eyes we see them still as lit.....when you are looking at someone .....lets say in a lamp lit room and they are facing away from the lamp that light on there face is super super soft because its lit being bounced of adjacent walls. Soft light is everywhere and I think very natural. No more or less then hard sources. ...on to this nervous system thing. You tottaly can change the meaning of archetypes ....we invented them and they are up for question! haha we will have to agree to disagree on this point I'm sure. I say question everything.....language is the most constructed thing of everything ...and even language is tied up with all sorts of political, gender, class etc etc etcissues. you know Gondry made a really nice movie about Noam Chomsky with animation and such and does a really good job taking about how language is constructed I really recomend that. you may tottaly disagree but I think its a good watch either way. ahh and the dark lighting. Dark is definitely in and trendy right now...I'm for sure guilty of it too I love to light dark.....and again I'd say that its use is usually intersting and not just to scare people in this classical sense. That said darkness in photography today I think has a lot to do with the fact for a long time hollywood and out technology told us we need to use a lot of light to make a movie so people are rebeling now that they can and trying to find new ways to make images. Also it should be said that realistic darkness is being better used in films then ever before.... sometimes in real life its dark man! you can't see much.....why shouldn't films try to repersent that reality.....and so often it can be used in beautiful meaninful ways.

Tottaly, the shinning is so great for that reason. I can't really take horror seriously as a genre although some stuff gets made with in it I think that is interesting. Personally I think genre in it self is a silly thing and more of a marketing game than anything else.

Anna I don't necessarily privalage modern work over older works ....This is like privileging Duchamp over Renoir .....both were brilliant! but thought has progressed and new ideas are brought forth. The idea that "new is better" is a construction of the modern world ....especially of consumerism and captialism .... and I very much agree.....new is not always better and your right right its not necessarily more "real" ....but I think people are presenting new ways to get at truth and they are valid ideas. I agree....and anyone not using lights to be more natural is missing the fact that the camera itself imposes its own reality. Those who know what they are doing approach it differntly .... Harris savides had a great understanding of how to light for the camera to help recreate a honest reality. Every cinematographer I think should have an understanding that cameras do not capture reality ....they create a version of it sure....but an image in itself is no more true then a painting and it should be treated as such. I very much like Davids example of "one from the heart" in which the asthetic is high stylized yet done mostly with practical sources. This is the one place I think you are missing something. If shadows affect the nervous system one must ask why.....it might be born into us....but that is a concept still ....maybe its evolution and we are just afraid of the unkown but that is still something to challenge and it is not a fixed idea it is a concept! ....as for galmour lighting as I brought forth with Lubzeki's tree of life I think there is a new "glamour lighting" which is saying that our reality is beautiful in itself and I don't need to stylize it to show glamour. Also on a slightly less theoretical level this becomes a women and gender issue too because you have to look back at the reason for "glamour" lighting and all of that soft filtration crap on women.....because women are these beautiful objects and blah blah we are now working through that so your not going to see a soft fx filter on a women's close up anymore...although I can't say across theboard things have gotten that much better for portrayl of women in film.

First of great thread...some really interesting stuff said here! Anna, I think you make some great points I was curious to learn more about the Idea you started with ...in terms of why art students have trouble drawing light and shade....is there any books/essay's you've read about this ...thats very interesting. The idea that we don't really see light....we see objects. Wanted to introduce a couple counter points though, I think what has happend is (and I just talked about this in another post on the main forum) is that we have entered a modern and now post modern era of thought. The essence of post modernism is deconstructionsim which is basically rooted in the idea that everything we think and feel is a constructed concept. The notion that we feel a "shadowy" scene is more frighting is a constructed concept and post modern thought tries to take this a part and ask "why are shadows scary" ...."ok because we don't know what is there and we assume that something dangerous could be there"...."ok why do we fear what we don't know" etc etc and when you do this and those ideas start to break apart I think you are able to work toward a truer/more honest place. The problem with all of this is of course if everything is constructed then theoretcially anything can mean anything and meaning is just lost.....There is this really great thing that the philoshpher derrida said which I don't know how well I can paraphrase but basically he says that ....yes everything is a concept and therefore meaning is always constructed (in terms of lighting again we are talking about "shadows" meaning frightening") but yet we still must try to create meaning and all we have is the socially constructed world so we must move forward under the pretense of knowing that is kinda all bullshit and try to find something. Now with that said I think your right that some of this I think has led to this more "objective" lighting that doesn't try to put meaning on a scene and let the scene be the scene. I personally like this idea in some way, but I think the best contemporary cinematography does what derrida was saying which is that it is aware of the fact that to just light a frighting scene with heavy shadow is a constructed concept and that you can get deeper then that without being tottaly banal and objective. You can still try for meaning ....but be weary of where the meaning is coming from! I think you see this in a whole slew of differnt way in contempoary cinematography work. I have heard of DP's referencing film cliche's and placing them in differnt types of scenes for example maybe you have this love scene where the guy is afraid to commit and is terrified and you light it like a horror film where you can't see the face of the women. In another take you see lubzeki do tree of life and using a very realistic lighting asthetic to get closer to beauty.....I think Lubzeki's work in tree of life is basically saying "people think hollywood lighting and capital C cinema is what beauty is but I'lm going to take that apart and show you that natural light and less galmour is actually more beautiful". maybe I got too theoretical here haha ....I like to give a pretty deep read of things!

Thanks for the response David two thoughts come to mind I have recently been thinking about. 1. this is something Darren Aronofsky said recently which is that all his films are cliches and that it's not about using a cliche, but about how you go about getting there. In the terms of a DP I think this means ...for example taking your cliche backlit 50/50 kiss. In older cinema a dp might go straight for it ...big studio backlight camera close up super out of focus BG ...maybe some filtration. Now I think a way to get there might be much more subtle..... trying find a more naturalistic way to get to that moment that feels more true. Maybe you shoot on a longer lens farther away with a dirty frame, maybe that backlit is a street lamp instead that they just happen to be near ....etc. 2. Going along with the same scene I think the other notion that is more modern might be to do that super hollywod backlight thing but doing it with a knowing nod to the fact that it is referencing an early hollywood cliche. I think in a way this is even what Hitchcock was doing. Hitchcock knew the cliches well and he would flip them on their head to create irony ...Hitchcock thought his work was hilarious .... I think that is a very modern concept in itself as many people don't think of Hitchcock as a maker of comedy ....but he was! and his films are both funny and thrilling and scary....hence they deconstruct those concepts of what makes a comedy a comedy and so on. Of course yes....I'm a total art guy and cliches do still work for a lot of audiences in a more conventional way ...and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But I do think the goal of any artist is to, and I think as cinematographers we for sure are all artists even if we approach it more from a craft sensibility, progress the form in some way.

Not very effective ...but depending on the size of the flag can be useful. Stephen in your diagram I think you are thinking that the flags on the left and right side of the source are making the light a harder source but I think what your missing is that from the perspective of the talent in that diagram ....the talent can probably see most of the light source. so yea you can make a softer source harder by flagging it but depending on the placment of the flags in the Z axsis it might actually not make the source any harder.

So many amatuer sets or commercials the DP's and Directors are just doing differnt jobs.

Thanks for that, this is a very interesting point and I will read that essay for sure. I think in terms of this conversation with a focus on the topic of lighting especially the work is rooted in the "real" world the one society created with street lights and lamps and all of that so when talking about natural looking image making I think the deffinetion is more about making images that look like what our eyes see day to day. Although again that is a really interesting notion. George, to be honest I think you are a bit out of touch! I mean this not in a malicous way at all but, like I said Gordon Willis knocked down the notion that "funny requires a lot of light" with annie hall in 1977! ... Furthermore technology has not actually led to the requirment of less lights on a set in a way I know.....maybe smaller lights ....but keep in mind Prosofsky usually shoots film probably 50-400 speeds. Less lamps on set is for sure a part of the naturalistic asthetic which has been taking down the old stage lighting theatrical methods of doing things. as far as more examples, they are indeed countless ....you didn't respond to Lubzeki's work on tree of life (also shot on film).... I could name a slew of highly regarded independent films that have similar ideology behind the lighting even if they use movie lamps.

Ok, sorry for the spelling error..... Just quickly George to reply to your first comment which I think is a bit of a tangent. I think this is absolutley not the case. That basic classical cinematography theory which is funny as it was invented in the modern age is basically pre-modern era Idea and modern thinking is not derivative of it, it has instead built on it. To make more sense of it ....The very idea that when a scene is scary you should light it dark or when a scene is happy you light it bright assumes there is such thing as "scary" lighting ....now this well get quite theoretical but, the very notion that dark is "scary" or happy is "bright" is a concept that was socially created and the very root of modern and now post modern thinking is to say that the concept of "scary" is something that can be broken down and challenged....to bring it full circle I would say the best cinematographers certainly challenge the status quo of what look fits what tone... a key example being the Gordon Willis Woody Allen collaberation. Now as far as Naturalism the last 60 years of filmmaking you have seen progressivly less hollywood style studio lighting and more and more DP's using motivated sources. This not just being in lighting.... camera work as well, in terms of handheld and documentary inspiration...I also think your right in saying some DP's have been doing this for a long time and these are not new ideas....but even guys who were "natural" guys like for example Gordon Willis, he did things in a way that I would say is actually much less "natural" then much of the work being done today (and btw I love willis I am not knocking him at all!) ....My point is this....yes you could say Casaevettes did all of this before anyone but Cassaevettes was on the fringe when he made those films ....now working in that way is almost common place. So again yes these are not new ideas but overall things are trending toward naturalism. to really explain or prove this I'd have to like chart out the last 60 years of films and the tecniques they used, but to be honest I think this conclusion is pretty common knowledge. If I'm wrong on that though be interested to here from those who don't agree for sure. In terms of contemporary work that is pushing on these ideas take a look at a film like tree of life Lubezki didn't even have movie lights ....and much of the work was done with no light agumentation at all. I think 15 years ago even people would have thought he was insane. And its not like that is the only example there is alot of new work done that uses very minimal movie lighting. I think honestly the place you see this most is with younger shooters and most of them haven't shot features yet or are just starting to. If you take a look through vimeo at the latest and greatest music videos your going to see a whole lot of 35mm film and Alexa being shot with total natural light or very minimal lighting. I'd recomend taking a look at Evan Prosofsky's work as it is really great and he barley uses lights....even doing some night exterior work natural...... I also wanted to point out your use of the word "gritty" as associated with naturalism ...I think that is also an antiquated Idea....no longer is naturalism more gritty and documentary esque the new wave of naturalism can be any style it wants....and often it is beautiful and clean (take a look at tree of life!)

Hey Miguel thanks for the insight for sure. I was aware of Kaminski's work....I guess I'm curious to see something that is not interested in being subtle about it ....maybe I need more then 2 stops over direct sunlight ...even 3 or 4.....but I guess I might have the means to do so. In the derek Rose spot where were the 18ks positioned....I can see some of them in the backround I think no? Anyone know how close an 18k can get safely?

...had this post deleted from the wrong forum by the moderater so reposting here. Thanks for the couple responses when it was over there but wanted to see if anyone else could weigh in....specfically on the danger issue....why does arri say that is dangerous? Original post: Kinda the opposite of my last post...I have a shoot coming up and was interested in possibly doing some shots where I over power sunlight in direct sun. Basically flag the sun and use an 18/12k hmi at a close enough distance to where I am about 2 stops above direct sunlight. I have not seen any work like this before....alot of fashion photo work but no film. I was just curious if anyone has an references to this being done and I was a bit concerned about the saftey of big HMI at close distance. the arri photo metric calculator said its not safe to be closer to an 12k arrimax then 30ft!? is that the case? Is this because of heat or UV or something? I mean I have been 10ft from a 12light with narrow bulbs and its hot but its not going to burn you....

Is there a reason this is a UK problem. In the US at any local hardware store you can find 200W that are the standard bulb size. 300W bulbs are always bigger though.....I always assume this had to do with heat or something?

I thought it might be interesting to have a conversation on here about "the natrual look" in cinema. I think making images that apear natrual or real has been a part of cinema for a long time ....even before more natrualistic lighting became a thought, but contemporary cinematography is with out a doubt more interested in natrualism then ever before. I'm not saying I am personaly for or against this trend I think it's and pardon my pun a natrual part of the evolution of filmmaking given new camera technology and our awareness,as well as ironic attitudes, toward things that feel fake or "cheesy". I think the idea of natrualism in itself can be interpreted a lot of ways and I'm curious what others opinions are toward natrualism. How do you incorporate natrualism into your work? Do you hate the trend or love it .....is it here to stay or do you think we will renounce it? ....whose work do you love/hate?

that film was shot handheld.

If you want to do rear projection and achieve a look that is realistic you need a really great projector and strong source material. I think it doesn't matter too much what you are shooting on yourself (digital or film)....someone else might chime in and say some technical stuff with 35mm I am not aware of but I couldn't really see any difference existing. As for screen size I'd think you want something pretty large in size as to get a bit of distance between your talent and the backround. For the projector I'd say you want atleast 1080p (2k or 4k would probably be better) and you will want something very bright ....at the very least 5000lumens there are specfics of the screen type too for sure, I did this once many years ago and I had a good talk with a rental house about what screen to use as there are several options in materials....I'd talk with the rental house about that part.

Yea we are going to give it a high angle through some diff so the talent should be able to see ok. Satsuki the problem with shinny board is that I need the light to be stronger then direct sun as shinny board is reflective I don't think your ever going to get more out of it then the sun.....also lack of control would be an issue. sorry this post is in the wrong forum I dont know how that happened can a moderator switch it over to lighting?

Thanks guys this helps alot....think I was just afraid to let the unexposure happen

Ah, didn't think about the color temp issue! .... David do you ever underexpose faces backlit by the sun.... lets say in a traditional scene with dialog?

Kinda the opposite of my last post...I have a shoot coming up and was interested in possibly doing some shots where I over power sunlight in direct sun. Basically flag the sun and use an 18/12k hmi at a close enough distance to where I am about 2 stops above direct sunlight. I have not seen any work like this before....alot of fashion photo work but no film. I was just curious if anyone has an references to this being done and I was a bit concerned about the saftey of big HMI at close distance. the arri photo metric calculator said its not safe to be closer to an 12k arrimax then 30ft!? is that the case? Is this because of heat or UV or something? I mean I have been 10ft from a 12light with narrow bulbs and its hot but its not going to burn you....

I have been having trouble with my day exterior work ....in specfic when shooting in more middle day (not sunrise sunset). I have a taste for natrualism and low key lighting I suppose and I have been having a hard time figuring out how to expose faces. so often people say "put the sun behind your talent and fill them in" but to me this approach often looks really false to me because if you bring up the fill enough to get a nice exposure on the face at or just below your shooting stop it looks really lit to me. .... I recently did a fashion shoot where we did a scene at around 10AM sun in a semi low position and I put it behind the talent and filled with a 12x and it just looked really false to me....just flat and bright. So I guess my question is simply.... how much fill do you need in a daylight setting and has anyone had a good experience with underexposing? and if not what are some other techniques people like when dealing with direct sunlight to create more natrualistic images with good contrast.

^^^ that is awesome, 1500mm! ...I thought 400mm was long