Bridge of Spies lighting

[andrew ward]

Hey Phil;

Just letting you know I feel your pain.

There can be massive jobs on and you still cant get a gig, no matter where you are.

You can be a bit time guy for years and overnight youre retired.

It sucks being freelance and hearing about all the nineteen year olds killing it and making millions.

I tell myself any day on set is a good day.

Hope things get better for you.

The only thing you can count on in showbiz is change (and the DP you do all favours for will never hire you for the good jobs).

[Phil Rhodes]

Oh, don't worry, I haven't for years!

 

It is what it is. I just don't like being told how to do my job by the big players who - well - don't do anything even vaguely like my job.

[Mark Kenfield]

Two 1.2s and a 575?

Tell him hes dreamin!

 

In my experience on big jobs its unlikely to be a BFL book light and walk away to check your phone. Thats four electrics plus grips with a world of lamps and a forest of cutters. Just out of shot is a Charlie Foxtrot of legendary proportions and as soon as they want to move on its gonna be an epic rebuild to get a world of crap out of shot and ready to light it all again differently.

A book light is never just a book light. Its empty the truck and ka-**(obscenity removed)**-ching on OT.

 

All for a closeup of Jamie Lanisters finger as he pretends to be egyptian.

 

Wardy! I've missed you, you old sour puss! :) How's things? Was GoE as ridiculous as it looks?

 

On a serious note though, who's actually dreaming about a paltry two 1.2s and a 575?

 

That orb needs a dozen nets and cutters around it if you want to be a real manly man.

 

Actually, all the Orb needs is a 4x4 floppy either side to create a full grid around it and cut any unwanted spill. Seriously cuts down on the grip jungle necessary to flag off most large sources.

[timHealy]

I've had the chance to work on two Spielberg movies and if there was one thing I noticed is that Kaminski likes to use a lot of light and the work requires rigging electricians and grips, the shoot crew, and straight power and dimmer lines up the wazoo. In that photo there is probably a full truss system and as Andrew Ward suggests, it's the "whole debacle". To me that means several bay lights across the room and par cans, lekos and 2k fresnels hanging from the ceiling just in case. There may even be several 5k's up there for good measure.

 

I haven't seen the film yet but it's on my list. So I can't really say if it is a practical location or a stage.

 

I have friends who worked on the NY city portion of the film. I could try and find out. If it is a book light for the key. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a 12x clay coat (sp?) bounce with a 12x grid cloth frame with a soft egg crate with a couple of maxi brutes or a half dozen mini brutes/fay lights into it. Not to mention a 12x solid for negative fill on camera right.

 

Since I have not seen the film yet, can someone describe the action in the scene? I can ask a friend what they did.

 

Best

 

Tim

[andrew ward]

Hey Buddy.

Gods was pretty stupid. I did like two weeks just on test shoots to workout how to get the gods and humans to all be different sizes and you barely notice.

I wont hold my breath to get on Gods 2: The Godenning. I had fun though. Always do!

 

 

You live a charmed life. If i bought that thing out the camera crew would start unfairly impuning ny sexuality and the DP would need a series of tiny extremely specific cuts to stop reflections and pings in the cabinets.

Then he'd ask me to cover it all in a piece of whatever gel I didnt have with me. And then accept the gel I did have which was the same but called a wanky name, as long as I cut the entire roll into forty unuseable-in-future pieces.

Then when the 13 year old AD randomly screamed the time from another room where she was eating cake and flirting with the talent, the DP would panic and just tell me to bring out two m18s. And then say theyre too spotty and bright and to put six seperate spaced out frames of diffusion in front of it. And then dim them. Then when the whole room was covered in gear it would take me an hour to pack once the entire crew drove off six seconds after wrap is called (except the data guy who needs my stinger and four way block till 3am that night), the DP would turn to the retard director who is only there to yell "quiet on set" at pointless times, and say "how good does that look now! Beautiful and soft!...", director replies with "youre a genius!" and I roll my eyes.

 

But if you dont get that as much as I do; kudos to you, cool rig bro.

Edited March 21, 2016 by andrew ward

[andrew ward]

The whole things cgi.

Tom Hanks died years ago in a bathroom on top of a small child. Its all been hushed up. Everyone knows that.

Edited March 21, 2016 by andrew ward

[timHealy]

That thing is a hot mess on a small set. It's lighting up the whole room like a chinese lantern. Maybe it works better on a stage or a large set with higher ceilings and where it falls off before it hits the walls.

 

Just saying.

 

Best

 

Tim

 

 

It's times like those, that people need my 'Orb' light!

 

7' in diameter, supersoft, and you can mount the whole thing on a single combo stand with wheels - which allows you to reposition it in seconds.

 

 

There isn't a single production insurance policy out there, that will bat an eye-lid at covering the cost of a couple of small mains-powered HMIs. And no one charges additional day rates for picking up gear the day before your shoot and dropping it off the day after.

 

We have similarly ludicrous, no money shoots here in Australia (which I don't believe is a particularly different kind of market to Ole Blighty), but there is still a significant amount of work above that, that is low-budget (rather than no-budget), and can afford to supply the basics that you need to get passable results.

Indeed there seems to be more of that work than ever these days, thanks to the internet, and the current content boom.

[andrew ward]

DPs love poop like that though.

Its a really cool idea, just lucky he gets to do easy jobs where a simple rig makes them happy.

[Mark Kenfield]

Hey Buddy.

Gods was pretty stupid. I did like two weeks just on test shoots to workout how to get the gods and humans to all be different sizes and you barely notice.

I wont hold my breath to get on Gods 2: The Godenning. I had fun though. Always do!

 

Haha, still sounds kinda awesome anyway.

 

You live a charmed life. If i bought that thing out the camera crew would start unfairly impuning ny sexuality and the DP would need a series of tiny extremely specific cuts to stop reflections and pings in the cabinets.

Then he'd ask me to cover it all in a piece of whatever gel I didnt have with me. And then accept the gel I did have which was the same but called a wanky name, as long as I cut the entire roll into forty unuseable-in-future pieces.

Then when the 13 year old AD randomly screamed the time from another room where she was eating cake and flirting with the talent, the DP would panic and just tell me to bring out two m18s. And then say theyre too spotty and bright and to put six seperate spaced out frames of diffusion in front of it. And then dim them. Then when the whole room was covered in gear it would take me an hour to pack once the entire crew drove off six seconds after wrap is called (except the data guy who needs my stinger and four way block till 3am that night), the DP would turn to the retard director who is only there to yell "quiet on set" at pointless times, and say "how good does that look now! Beautiful and soft!...", director replies with "youre a genius!" and I roll my eyes.

 

But if you dont get that as much as I do; kudos to you, cool rig bro.

 

 

Ah! It all makes sense now. I guess my crews must just be so utterly overwhelmed by the all-encompassing power of my sexuality that they aren't physically able to argue with my lighting designs, and so I get away with murder.

 

I'd never thought about it that way... thanks for pointing it out - explains a lot! :p at least now you know what part of your game you need to lift!

 

That thing is a hot mess on a small set. It's lighting up the whole room like a chinese lantern. Maybe it works better on a stage or a large set with higher ceilings and where it falls off before it hits the walls.

 

Just saying.

 

Best

 

Tim

 

 

Well, in that particular example, it's a high-key kitchen scene, so the wash of soft light works a treat (accented by 'sunlight' from a couple of 2ks coming through the windows, and a little LED hidden inside the extractor for the stovetop).

 

But in a more conventional dramatic setup, where you don't want spill all over the place, all it takes is a 4x4 floppy on either side of the Orb, angled in to form (effectively) a diamond of duvetyne around it - and voila, spill controlled, and you still have a nice 7' circular book light providing your key (or fill).

 

Still gives you all the advantages of a wheel-aboutable book light that can be repositioned in mere seconds, and your grip forrest is limited to two c-stands with 4x4 floppies on them (and a couple of spring clamps to hold the floppy bits of the floppies together) - so a very neat arrangement all up, especially compared to a conventional book light.

[Phil Rhodes]

I think what we're broadly discussing here is the truism that soft light looks really pretty on things that are near the light, but revolting on things which are further away.

 

Which, again, is why unless we've got a truck full of gear and a thousand willing and capable assistants, Kaminsky isn't really a model for most of us.

 

P

[Robin R Probyn]

Yes I wonder.. apart from the obvious pressure,and talent to be in that situation in the first place.. is it actually easier to make things look good when you have almost literally any lighting set up at your disposal .. compared to everyone else going to the cinema and seeing these images and trying to re react them.. with a torch,a piece of string,tin foil .. and in the US only .. C stands..

Edited March 21, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Mark Kenfield]

I think what we're broadly discussing here is the truism that soft light looks really pretty on things that are near the light, but revolting on things which are further away.

 

Which, again, is why unless we've got a truck full of gear and a thousand willing and capable assistants, Kaminsky isn't really a model for most of us.

 

P

 

Why would soft light look any worse on things that are further away?

 

There's really very little difference in the techniques guys like Kaminski are using to shape their light, compared to us small fries working with little '1-tonne' packages out the back of pickup trucks and station wagons.

 

Soft light is soft light and hard light is hard light.

 

The real difference is simply in scale. With bigger lights (and scissor lifts etc.), you're much more free to do things like shoot out through windows (compared to having a little 1.2k HMI just a meter from the glass, that you have to move every time you change angles). Or you can have 12x20s backed off from the set to give you lovely soft lighting without severe falloff from having to use smaller fixtures up close.

 

Digital lets us get away with murder on this front. At 800-1600 ISO, with f/1.4 lenses, we can mimic a lot of these larger lighting setups with a fraction of the lighting power they would otherwise require.

 

Obviously on small jobs there is a point where you run out of c-stands, and flags. But we can do so much with so little these days, even with lighting crews that just consist of yourself and 1-3 other people.

 

 

Yes I wonder.. apart from the obvious pressure,and talent to be in that situation in the first place.. is it actually easier to make things look good when you have almost literally any lighting set up at your disposal .. compared to everyone else going to the cinema and seeing these images and trying to re react them.. with a torch,a piece of string,tin foil .. and in the US only .. C stands..

 

Again, I think the techniques are no different, it's just the scale (and with extra gear at your disposal - the precision) that change. Time of day scheduling still remains just about the most powerful lighting tool at our disposal I think.

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Of course though; you don't get much free, yes, we can use smaller lights @ 800 ASA, but at the same time, I find you're fighting photons a lot more at that level--- especially if you're WFO-- the sensors are so sensitive that often you need MORE gear than you would if you were at say 320 or maybe 200 ISO-- where you are actually upping everything--- if that makes sense.

[Phil Rhodes]

It does.

 

There are significant downsides to working at high sensitivity, mainly related to the fact that tiny amounts of ambient light, practicals you can't control, and unintended bounces can start to make an enormous difference, and need to be controlled.

 

This is, I think, one reason that 35mm origination often has a certain look - you're injecting so much light onto the things you want to see that the things you don't sort of automatically fade into black-crushed obscurity. On video, you can see everything, and especially at high sensitivity.

 

P

[Mark Kenfield]

Of course though; you don't get much free, yes, we can use smaller lights @ 800 ASA, but at the same time, I find you're fighting photons a lot more at that level--- especially if you're WFO-- the sensors are so sensitive that often you need MORE gear than you would if you were at say 320 or maybe 200 ISO-- where you are actually upping everything--- if that makes sense.

 

Absolutely. And that, of course, is precisely one of the areas where the bigger scale and added precision that come from larger lighting packages pays off, and gets you that final bit of quality that the big boys enjoy.

 

Limitations will always be limitations, but the things I can get away with these days - even when all I have to work with are the nine lights that I personally own, and the judicious use of every last scrap of latitude a modern digital sensor can give me - are really quite remarkable.

 

And it's because, by being smart (and using some of digital's inherent advantages), I can design my lighting with the same broad strokes that the big boys do (It's just that my strokes are smaller, and have to be shifted around the set so much more often mid-scene).

[andrew ward]

Youre doing a lot of stroking all right...

[Adrian Sierkowski]

And of course; an example of getting more for less, however, was yesterday on a FS700 @2000 with a Metabones. . .and your keylight becomes this:

 

 

Which just happened to be in my bag of odd and end bulbs. Got a nice 2 out of it though played close in and as the set proper was mostly dark dark red paint (and a hideous look) worked out pretty well.

 

 

Though I doubt this is what they used on Bridge of Spies.

[andrew ward]

Its what they SHOULD have used on Bridge Of Meh.

[Daniel Madsen]

One thing a DP has going from them in a location like this is dark production design and a large room. With dark production design it's easier to maintain contrast with softlight. Yes, you still need to control spill but if the walls and everything else is a ways from your subject and your subject is the brightest object in the room you have a lot on your side.

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

What do you guys call these huge sheets of black fabric hanging in front of the window and that black panel blocking the light in our right-corner side? Is there a particular reason that there are three sheets (or perhaps that third, smallest, thing is something else) and for their positioning in reference to the window (the angle they’re set at)?

 

[Brian Drysdale]

They're called flags, they cut the light, I assume the large flags create a shadow down the wall behind the person taking the still.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Oh snap! That looks like our old pal Alex Worster layin' down some tape marks.

 

As Brian says, the two big 4x8' flags are cutting light off of the top of the wall facing the camera. The smaller 24x36" flag second from the right is cutting the shadow of the boom pole. The third 18x24" flag furtherest to the right is acting as a topper (top flag) on the 1K parcan that is creating the splash of 'sunlight' on the floor, cutting a sharp shadow on the right wall. Very similar effect to closing a top barn door, only sharper.

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

That’s great, guys! Thank you so much. :) Now I know what to ask about regarding The Lost City of Z (found some behind-the-scenes photos).

 

But, I mean, this is so “hilarious” and frustrating, because, OK, I get it that I would probably know to cut that light spilling through the windows (if I were a cinematographer), but what about that parcan?! I mean, at this point, I just can’t imagine having an idea that I’d need one of those to do what it does here. I cut off the window, but I add a bit of what that cut-off light would do with artificial light. It’s just... insane. :D Confusing! :D

Edited April 24, 2016 by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

P. S. 12 points for you, Satsuki, for even knowing the dimensions! I get it that they’re standard, but it’s just phenomenal that you just drop these around so easily. :D

[Satsuki Murashige]

Like I've said before, all those lighting decisions make a lot more sense when you can also post the frame from the film. By 'looking though the viewfinder' you really see what's in frame, what's out of frame, and the effect each piece of equipment is having. Otherwise, it all looks like random choices.