Lighting a feature film.
 

I'm shooting a feature length horror film starting at the beginning of February. We just got done with casting and plan to spend the entire month of January doing screen tests at the locations.

We are shooting with a Canon HV40 + 35mm adapter combo and Canon FD 1.4 50mm lens and a few pentax takumar lenses.

I own 2x 800w (between the pair) CFL's with stands/umbrellas.

My DP has 5, 500w cfl bulbs but no stands. I have 2 extra stands, but no recepticles for them.

I was looking at getting 2 more recepts, and also purchasing 2 of those chinese 800w red heads.

I've got gels, and will have sand bags on set.

What direction should I go in, to get the best look at the lowest cost?

I'm always frustrated by posts like this because I'd like to help, but most of the stuff i could say comes across as either unrealistic or smug.

I'm not sure whether this will sound smug or unrealistic... possibly both, but here goes:

If you have somebody calling themselves a DP, then they are exactly the person that should be telling you what fixtures they want. Chances are your "DP" is probably more of a cameraman, which is cool... but you really want somebody thats spends their time thinking about lighting and framing and the big picture visually... somebody like... a DP.

Soft lights have their place, but its really easy to make them look lifeless and flat and you usually need a box of gear just to control their spill. You can always soften a hard source, but not the other way around. The cheapy redheads are a good idea so you have some hard light sources, but what you buy should be dictated by what you are shooting and where and what the DP want to happen visually. A "complete kit" is a myth. Even the guys with major lighting trucks have wish lists. Your lighting kit on this film should be based on the needs your storyboards and locations as interpreted by your DP.

You are shooting horror... It depends on the genre of horror and location, but I'd definitely be wanting some hard lights.

Imagine this scenario:

"I'm going in to the studio next month to record an LP. I have a cymbal and a few bass strings, and my guitarist has an amp. I guess we need a guitar so i'm buying a cheap chinese fender knockoff. Aside from the guitar, what kind of instruments do you think I should buy to make the album sound awesome?"

I don't want to be one of those guys that discourages you. I think everybody should make indie no-budget features. Heck, thats exactly why i have a production truck filled with lights, dolly, crane and sound gear... I want to help people with great ideas make no-budget features too.

But the very first question you should ask the music recording scenario guy is "um. what kind of music do you play?"... along those same lines, here are the beginning of questions you should be answering:

What kind of horror film are you shooting?
---This determines the style of lighting which in turn determines what kind of lights you'll want. Old school zombie? Blood spurting slasher? Intellectual thriller?

Indoors, outdoors or both?
--- If your film is all outdoors, then thats a whole different set of gear than if its all indoors. If you are shooting outside during the day low-budget you want diffusers and reflectors. Big pieces of foam core and rigs to hold up sheets/diffusers whatever to cut the contrast off of faces. If its all indoors, then...

Day, night or both?
--- If its night then you need to provide all the light. You can then control everything, however, if its day...

Using sunlight or not?
--- If you use sunlight coming in windows, then you'll need your other lights to compliment that. You'll either need a crapload of interior lighting, or possibly a way to cut back on the brightness of windows. It can be as simple as mosquito netting, or a sheet... but if you want to look like a feature, chances are that blown out windows and unbalanced lighting isnt the look you are after.

is your shoot fully scouted and "light-scheduled and light-located"?
--- On the smart no-budget features, scenes are carefully scheduled to take advantage of the existing light. You avoid shooting exteriors from 11-1 (or really, from 10-2), if you are shooting lots of scenes over many days supposed to take place in a short period of time, you schedule those scenes to take place during the same time of day each day so you dont have shadows jumping from long to short and relative intensity shifting madly. Exterior romantic scenes are shot during the golden hour... etc.

Sometimes it makes more sense to just split a shoot up and use the same time of day over several days. Other times it makes more sense to black out the windows and rent big HMI to blast in the windows so you have a constant and steady source of light that doesnt change as you shoot. Other times it makes more sense just to say "maybe this scene takes place indoors at night" and go for it.

Are you shooting sound or replacing it later?
--- This can make a major different in fixtures. I did a 4 day shoot that took place in a tiny apartment at night... shot during hot summer days with tungsten fixtures and sound sync. This means a tiny apartment with all the windows blacked out, the A/C turned off and 2 redheads and 2 blondes blasting away. I was absolutely drenched in sweat after 20 minutes and dehydrated and delirious at the end of each day. At the end of that week i placed my order for the cool-light HMIs. I will never allow myself to be baked alive again. (i had sunburns from the blonde right behind my head. ahhh)

I've seen some experienced DPs make magic with what seems like useless and impossible thrift store fixtures. I've also seen people use a $10,000/day lighting truck to create completely mediocre scenes. Just like a music cd, it really is the talent of who is using the gear, which is why everyone should want to find a talented DP, then turn all the gear decisions over to them.

Ignoring the previous paragraph (which, to me is rather important), in my opinion your shopping list you should be looking at should start with this:

buy light stands. They are cheap and even the crappy ones can last awhile if you treat them well. Have at least one really tall one.

Buy at least one super clamp and at least one grip head. Its still a talent thing to know when/how to use them, but when you need them, nothing else will work as well. A piece of galvanized pipe in a grip head can turn a light stand into a back light or overhead... I've bought a few of the cheapy ones from b&h and found them to be quite serviceable for the price.

Borrow a ladder. You'll find a use for it.

buy plenty of extension cords.

buy way more snacks, drinks, bottled waters and food than you think you'll ever need. Seriously, this is the absolutely most essential and most often neglected part of shooting a no-budge feature. The people on set are worth FAR more than the gear. If you starve people they get grumpy and make poor decisions... and are less likely to come back. If you feed them well (not fancy, just "well") then they are far more likely to take a bullet for you and say "lets go for it." I'm not talking about a single bag of chips and a 6 pack of budget "dr. cola". You need to make the snack table look like the snack table at a really bitchen party. If you do that, people will loosen up like its a party and everything will flow smoother. You deny caffeine and delay a meal for some bogus reason you run the risk of a mutiny. Seriously. I've seen MANY productions die a quick and painful death due to lack of craft services and I'm sure other people will back me up on this. For a one day shoot, you can get away with it. A Feature??? Thats a huge favor to ask of people. You can get away with a lot of abuse but skimp on food and they will abandon you. If you ignore everything else in this post, heed this. Zero budget films are MADE by the snacks and food served to the crew. It can be peanut butter and jelly on white bread if it has to be, but if you have some form of food ready at all times to hand to the crew the second they get peckish, you will have a 10,000X higher probability of actually finishing your film. It sounds lame, but no matter how old you are, ask your mom. She has the greatest power to help you make a great no-budget film and chances are will love to help out in this way.

If you are shooting with the sun streaming in, buy some scoop lights, some high wattage (200w) bulbs, some low wattage (20w?) and some daylight spiral fluoros. Scoops are what, $10 and worth it if you dont have nicer fixtures to give you a bit of control over where to point some light. The bright and dim bulbs are fantastic for practicals. If you are shooting a darkish scene, put lamps around the room and populate them with dim bulbs. This way you get lots of varied light without overpowering the scene, and not looking all red like you dimmed them. The super brights are if you are shooting a shot with lots of ambient spill and you want the lamp to compete with/compliment some moderate window-light.

You are shooting a 35 adapter on a not-terribly-low-light-friendly camera. Go back and buy even more practicals and scoop lights. It depends on genre and where your film is set, but in most "dark horror" you want many little light sources around the scene. Its not about actual blackness, just lots of contrast. Plus, once you iris up to 1.4 to try to avoid the camera noise you'll realize that all but a tiny sliver of the screen is out of focus and thats when having lots of points of light in the background of a scene will keep it interesting. Heck, drag some old christmas lights out of the attic and find any reason at all to drape them in the background of scenes. lots of blurry lights is cooler than "blackness" and chances are you'll need all the light you can get.

If the window light is extreme, you may need to cut it back. I've had great luck just hanging lace curtains outside the house. Cuts the light back in a nice, but believable manner... I'd troll the thrift stores for lacey curtains, old "misty" shower curtains... really thin sheets. It can all work great in the right situation. If you come up with a way to rig them, they can be overheads if you are shooting in harsh sun, window diffusers/cutters/blackouts, big reflectors and even direct diffusers if you want a really big soft light source for a shot.

Buy a big sheet of white foam core. its a reflector, its a flag. Chop it up and its a cookie. Its both magical and cheap.

Buy a china ball. You can get amazing results just slapping a china ball over the existing ceiling fixture. Its handy to have in lots of different indoor situations. Definitely worth a try for the price.

Its not like all these are the absolute necessities, but they are all so cheap and can be so useful that i think its worth having them around just-in-case. Once you evolve past needing them you can still find uses for 'em and you didnt spend too much money along the way.

So THATS the direction I think you should go in. I'm no lighting expert, so take what i say with appropriate salt. On the other hand, I've done most of the typical and notorious "trial and error" purchases working my way up from a scoop lights to britek to cool lights/arri/kino, (and also from mop-handle boomed atr-55 to oktava to schoeps.) I learned the hard way what works and what doesn't and probably spent $30k to get what amounts to $25k in gear due to my stubbornness/mistakes. I reckon that plus the fact that me and my evolving gear have helped out on lots of no-budget shoots gives me particularly useful insight into the zero-budget gear acquiring process.

If you wanna be a rock band, you need to find a guitarist. If you want to shoot a feature that looks nice? Find somebody to DP that has a strong, cool vision and is willing to cross you to make their vision happen. When everything hits the fan, you want a DP that is willing to fight for the image... and a boom operator willing to fight for mic placement.

Thems my 2c. hope it helps!

-Andrew

You should try renting some lights. A few Fresnel spots can make all the difference and the rental houses will give a deal for longer periods and even for shorter time it's worth asking for their best price. Also, one big light can be a real time saver compared to lots of little lights trying to create the same look.

The food is important and is ignored at your peril.

Good lighting can be had with one or two lights if you're VERY careful. If you have more to work with than that, you're ahead of the game.

Message Withdrawn

Hi Joseph,

Andrew has a lot of good information in his reply. Most of which I would agree with but some I have a different opinion on. A little of my background so you'll know where I'm coming from. I've been DP on 5 short Independent films and am going to be DP on another one (maybe 2) being shot in February and March. I started out as most on this sight, as filmmaking being a hobby and now I am in the process of building my own production company.

One question I have for you that was not apparent to me is, what is your roll in this project? Are you the Director? Producer? 1st AD?, etc? You mention that you have a DP with some lighting equipment but it would help if we know who the rest of the crew would be. The reason I ask is, it will do you know good to have a truck load of lights and the only crew you have is the Director, DP and maybe one PA. You'll never use all of it and your time would be much better spent worrying about other things and just use some very basic lighting techniques.

I've spoken and worked with some pretty accomplished DP's and one thing is apparent. They don't try to do everything. They know what they want, they have a very good idea of how to get what they want, but in the end they rely on their specialists to give them the various elements and then they put it all together. As an example, if I know I will be having to use the sound from the take and we won't be doing ADR or VO's I'll let my sound man know what type of sound I want (i.e. mabye if the tension is high I might want the dialogue to come through with a little more air in it or if it is suppose to be a motivational monologue I might want a little more of the lower registers of a males voice emphasized). I won't tell them how to achieve it, I'd just let them know what I'd like and then listen to their setup.

The same thing applies to lighting. There are times when I have to also act as lighting director but in most cases I'll ask that there is at least someone who is knowledgeable about lighting on set so they can be responsible for setting up the lighting. If I have a lighting person on I'll discuss what look I'd like to achieve and give him/her general parameters such as maybe achieving a 4 stop difference between the brightest areas and the darkest. I'll let them decide exactly how they are going to give me what the scene needs. Then during test shots we'll tweak things and again once we get the actual actors in place we may need to do a little quick adjustment but in general once the actors are on set we're ready to roll.

Of course, all of this is done working closely with the director.

As far as what you've said you have available I couldn't imagine trying to light a horror film with cfl's. as Andrew mentioned the spill will be an issue and I think you'll find that they won't have enough throw to give you the look you want. Before you buy anything I would recommend renting first. It will give you the chance to test what equipment you like working with and give you an idea of what you really need. I have a basic kit that I use which consists of 4 x 650w Fresnels (HMI equivalent daylight balanced),1 300w Fresnel, two soft boxes for the 650's, scrims for each light, stands for each light, furniture clamps, spuds, 3 large black foam boards (for flags), 3 medium white boards, two circular 50" bounce cards, about 300' of extension cords, various 2 to 3 adapters, a few 3 ways, some very basic gels (mostly diffusion and CTO), and about 200 lbs of sand bags. With that set up I can be pretty sure I cold light a small scene that doesn't involve too much movement. It won't light a large set but I could do a pretty good size living room with that. So you can see, just as with everything else in film making, you can go crazy on lighting equipment.

You mentioned that you were going to be doing test shots in January at the various locations. So I'm assuming that you've got your shot list together and you have the shot order done. Also, I'm guessing that you've blocked each shot with your director. Getting your shot list and blocking done, at least in my experience, is crucial to being able to determine what equipment you'll need. You might be able to get away with two lights and a couple of bounce cards or you might need 20 lights. It really depends on what is going to happen in each scene and the angles you'll be shooting each scene from. One of the things that I learned really quickly is to try to limit the amount of equipment on set. It would be great to have a ton of lights and mics all over but they could also just get in the way of your shot. So, you'll have to look at each shot, figure out blocking, then place your camera, then your lighting and sound equipment. And, then you'll have to work with the director on what he's willing to compromise on because they always want something that is impossible to do within the budget you have (money and time wise).

So after all this rambling, the way to get the best look at the lowest cost is to: first determine what look you want to get for each shot; then try to find someone who is knowledgeable enough with lighting who also might have the necessary equipment; and finally rent what you don't already have within your collective crew.

That's just my take on it and what I'd advice to someone in your situation.

Good luck and keep us posted on the progress of your film.

Garrett

I'm really surprised at this response. Several directors got their start with only a single light or two.

What's worse, telling a new filmmaker that they can get away with only one or two lights, or telling a new filmmaker that filmmaking is an unattainable goal because of the cost of the same lighting setup an HBO production uses?

Who said anything about having an actor walk through three rooms? Of course in that situation you'd need more lights (if it had to be done in one long take), but the guy never actually detailed the circumstances of his production. If you didn't have enough lighting to cover three rooms, there are ways to work around that. It would be a little extra work, but you could MAKE it work.

I think some people just don't get it... the only people that really care about image quality more than a good script is the person shooting the film and other dp's, camera guys, etc etc.

I stick to my original statement... if you have more than one or two lights, you're ahead of the game. Just don't go crazy with the lighting just because you have a lot to work with. You can really screw an image up if you don't know how to use multiple lights... throwing shadows in every which direction and what not. Sometimes simple is better.

Message Withdrawn

Message Withdrawn

How is shooting a feature film with 1 or 2 lights setting someone up for failure? Kevin Smith did it with Clerks. Robert Rodriguez did it with El Mariachi. David Lynch did it with Eraserhead. Countless early noir films were shot with just one or two lights because of budget restraints.

All I'm saying is, there is more than one way to make a film. If you think you need to mimic the latest HBO production method, you're just being close minded.

I agree that everyone should start with short films. But, I think most people will quickly find that they tend to get more footage than they know what to do with on those films and over stuff their productions with unnecessary equipment, lighting, locations and footage. They put more effort into the look of their set, camera and equipment than what goes into the story.

If you have $10 million to work with and a 50 man crew, things will naturally fall into place. If you have $500 and a couple of friends... do the best you can.

Not trying to muscle in...but Joseph, if you make the trip, let me know. I would love to gain the info given from you Perrone, just to listen in.

JS

Message Withdrawn

I only worked on one feature film (where I had the opportunity to work with a very talented DP) but did a lot of higher-end product photography.

All I can say is: Consider carefully what you want your shot to look like.

Then figure out how to make it happen.

Might take a 1k HMI. Might need just a flashlight or reflector. All depends on what it is that you're after.

First things first, so we can sort this out and give a little more refined answer...
You say you own "2x 800w (between the pair) CFL's with stands/umbrellas."
What exactly do you mean?

And when you say "My DP has 5, 500w cfl bulbs"
What exactly do you mean?

I have NEVER seen an 800w nor a 500w CFL bulb.
What is the actual wattage of the bulb?
For example... One of my lighting instruments is a Kino Flo Diva containing 4 x 55w lamps for a total of 220 watts.

All the Best!

David.


I too have not run into a 500watt CFL light.

I have two 200watt incandescent equivalent daylight CFLs in old portrait photoflood lamps with 1.5ft diam open parabolic reflectors. The fixtures are edison screw batten holders.

They do not work as well as the original globes as there is now a mix of direct light spreading in all directions from the front end of the CFL tube cluster and the forward throw from the parabolic reflector. The original incandescent globes were a bit like PARs except the front is obscured by an internal reflector which throws the light back onto the parabolic reflector.

They are not ideal. Proper lights are far better but you do best you can with what you can. I lit this audition clip with them as rather primitive cross keys, plus the coleman lamp which is in the shot as a kick light.

The 50mm f1.4 and 58mm f1.2 on the 35mm adaptors were wound in to f2 as the shed the actors were in was meant to be gloomy. The lens on the SI2K from memory was set on f4.

http://exposureroom.com/members/DARA...d66d180457613/

The close-up and reverse were shot with groundglass adaptors on Z1s. The wide two-shot was a SI2K.

If you are going to buy the chinese redheads, maybe consider going a little more costly and getting their 650watt fresnel lights. Take care though. On eBay, some lights being described as fresnels are open face redhead style lights.

As a sort of more robust china lantern for local soft fill light on close-ups, I have used porchlights on plastic conduit with a combination weather resistant socket and switch for caravans on the end of the conduit. You can see it in use at the tailend of this clip.

http://exposureroom.com/members/DARA...a4ac4a5830b07/

If your curiosity is now whetted and you want to see what the cadillac thing is about the trailer can be found at
www.cadillacthemovie.com.

Try to rent a Fresnel kit. Get a few 650 watters and a few 150's. Try to rent them. Be aware also of the load you place on a location's electrical. I think a house is good to about 2k. I know there's a rule of thumb, I don't usually worry about it but I use mostly flos so I wouldn't.

Btw Andrew Dean gave a great post here.

QUOTE: "these forums are littered with people who have 1/10 the knowledge necessary to make a short, yet talking about making feature length movies".

I am the first to admit to this defecit, that I am here to learn and certainly no one should take what I suggest as the way to go.

Perhaps consider it this way - like in a lecture room, sometimes a reply to a question is valid conflictory debate between equals, sometimes in itself a question disguised as knowledge to help protect the ego of one seeking the knowledge by then stimulating the furthur response, othertimes maybe a workable bad habit which deserves to be challenged and corrected by a better practitioner.

When posts are self-censored, this sometimes disappoints me because the other point of view is lost before I stumble upon the thread. - I'm slow-witted enough already without having to try to join dots. However I also commend self-censorship if it is intended to diminish conflict.

To those of you with 1/10th the knowledge necessary to make your film. Go ahead and make the dang thing. You'll learn so much through trial and error. You won't have a learning *curve* it'll be a vertical line.

Bob,

I am here to learn. That may surprise some people, but I learn a TON from people on this site who come here to share the things they know. I've learned more about Macs on this site than anywhere else. And that is something I am very grateful for. I've learned about indie movie techniques, editing, post work, and a ton of other things. But I am, and always have been, a voracious learner. I read 8-10 forums a day, half a dozen magazines a month on various facets of the craft, and practice as much as possible, absorbing everything I can, and happy to share the lessons I've learned.

But something I have found increasingly true over the past couple of years, is that people with a true desire to experiment, learn, and share, people wanting to improve their skills and their craft, are waning. They are being replaced by the masses of people who've been empowered by the internet, by the camera manufacturers putting relatively high end tools in the hands of people not ready for them. And by people who are not only ignorant of the tools, but who have no desire to actually learn, and seek only to "solve today's problem".

You notice them right away. They have less than 10 posts in the forum, are in the midst of some large project, and are up to their neck in a situation that anyone who cracked a book on production would have learned in chapter one. They don't seek knowledge, they seek answers. And they only seek answers that they want to hear. The how, not the why or when. How do I get the film look. How do I record double audio. How do I get this effect. Never do you hear, "could someone explain this or that."

There are a few on the forum here and in other places that have taken a great journey together. Who've come through hi-8 or S-VHS, through DV, maybe through HDV together. They've learned hard lessons along the path and helped each other. Others have joined in at various points along the path. Bob, hopefully you will join us on this path.

Perrone.


"Bob, hopefully you will join us on this path."

Am already on that beaten path since 1971 if I count film cameras and a bit of stringer news work, am still learning albeit slowly thorugh own projects and pro-bono on the projects of others.

Like many I have lacked motivation and daresay was uncouraged to up sticks, give up the dayjob and migrate to where its at.

That is probably where a lot of this issue lies, part-timers and tourists who can now afford to play. Many generate substandard product but dominate in such numbers as to bury the genuine experienced committed "lovers" of the crafts. They may have stayed home and battled for a living, yet now experience cherrypicking of hardwon tips from those who have not committed a lifetime to learning by experimenting, practice-practice and more practice when the whole thing was far less affordable.

and yes, it is frustrating to have to defend the few commonsense rules I have managed to pick up along the journey, simple things like, organisational discipline, keeping logs, decent sound - "Aww she'll be right, we'll ADR everything", "There's timecode on the filenames, - what more does the editor want?"

(Punish them - by consignment through the unremitting fires of hell to sync up on a Steenbeck, a feature's worth of unslated motion picture film originated in an undisciplined homevideo-style shooting ratio of 30:1?? - just kidding.).

and yes, the industry practitioners who did the hard yards before the so-called democratisation of the industry through cost reductions in equipment, do become frustrated by those "know-all" newcomers who pollute the reputation of certain crafts with unthoroughness and expediency.

There are however, some good young people coming up over here. Unfortunately, they will also migrate as they are motivated and determined.

It is good you have come back to continue the debate.

very tiny feature... very much horror
 

Joseph: Instead of concerning yourself so much with type of camera, light units, brands wattages, etc. It might be more important to:

1. Look at the work of the person who is going to be your Dp, Horror movies are all about lighting does the person actually have a sample of interesting horror type lighting or just own some lights?

2. The acting in most indy features is terrible and sinks them totally. Ask yourself if you have spent the hours casting through a large number of potential actors to get the best possible performances

3. Have you had the script read by a number of other people. have you compared it with Horror movies you liked, how much time have you spent fixing the script and preparing the breakdown so you do not shoot a bunch of stuff that ultimately isn't used. Thus giving yourself the most possible time to make the scenes and takes you do use the best they can be.

4. Consider the makeup, SFX, Post and Music which will make your movie a success or failure.

5. Finally rent the equipment you need. Is this about making a movie or increasing the number of pieces of production equipment you own?

Perrone wow, Subtle and Disciplined that's a sign of great character. If I may add this is a quote from myself to a question of "what lights should I use . . . " in another forum.

" Before you begin putting up lights, take a breath and realize that you have 2 goals.
1 The scene to look natural
2. Get enough light for your camera.
The very first thing is to just use your eyes. Where is the natural room light coming from, is there one light brighter than others, where does the light fall and what kind of shadows are created. If you like the look of the room in it's natural form than great, just duplicate the lighting with stronger wattage bulbs.
If you want to make changes and add certain emphasis, now is the time to create your lighting plan. Never start putting up fixtures until you know what you are looking for.
Everybody loves the different kind of lighting tools that exist and each has their favorites, but they are tools. It's the lighting design and plan that will ultimately make your scene what you want.
This also works for outdoor shots as well. Always use your eyes before your camera.
Gary is online now Report Post Edit/Delete Message

Ive done loads of feature films but as a sound or dubbing mixer.

I did my first indie last year as a DP and only had three redheads to use but the 30 years of being a keen photographer came in very handy.

I did what has already been said and looked at each scene and considered how I wanted it to look, we did a lot of day and night/moonlight shooting as it was a horror so having three dichroic daylight filers for the redheads came in very handy, it also meant that I could use them in daylight to add to the natural light available.

Here is a scene I posted to show the audio tech 875 boom mic but you can see how I have added to the light coming in thru the window to make it better for the camera a P2 301:YouTube - 0004OS - iPhone.m4v It was one redhead with a daylight filter bounced off the ceiling.

I was lucky that we had pro actors in the lead parts but it is a tribute to hammer horror so their performances are very traditional.

We also did some moonlight scenes and I lit the farmhouse outside with two redheads with daylight filters, we also did some window scenes and interior car driving and I used a small PAG light with a daylight HMI bubble for those.

The resulting film will need very little grading and the whole thing was done on three 800w redheads with the daylight filters and the small Pag HMI light.

Just to add that if it's a horror film you'll need to decide of you're going for a natural look or a more stylised look. The horror genre has a great tradition of both.

hi,

if you are serious about making a feature hire a gaffer

and let him worry about the lights.

cheers,
ian

What an interesting thread - and not just the lighting debate! I've helped on and shot myself about 8 films, all shorts and two, 30-40 minute 'features'. All are documentaries (loosely speaking) and only almost all were shot entirely outdoors so I know next to nothing about artificial lighting! All have been shown at various festivals and conferences. It is not my day job which is nevertheless linked.

However, at the risk of angering Perrone (only joking), a couple of observations: I find lighting in films often unpleasantly artificial and obvious and when used outdoors, not needed. Not sure whether this is just bad practice or a kind of contemporary look. The point is here that professionals know their stuff but do not have a monopoly on taste and indeed can show bad judgement when a style or way of doing things is somehow accepted as the norm, but by whom? Secondly wasn't there a whole Danish school of filmmaking (Dogme group - Lars von Trier) who made relatively successful films in the 90s with almost no artificial lighting at all: one of their rules:

'Special lighting is not acceptable (if there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera)'.

So we really do need to be careful about what we mean when we talk about standards etc - they really are relative and sometimes reliant on a unquestionable hegemony.

We have just reached a point in the evolution of "motion picture" cameras (I use quotes because that term has been traditionally applied to film cameras, but I'm using it literally, to describe digital cameras that capture moving images) where the sensitivity makes it possible to capture decent images in many situations without requiring additional illumination. The idea of shooting interiors just with existing practicals is now a reality and will only become more so as cameras continue to become more sensitive. DSLR's, for instance, are able to shoot in light levels that equal the sensitivity of the human eye (or beyond, in the case of the 1DMKIV and the Nikon DS3). This does suggest that the Dogme philosophy of using available light will have a new lease on life as the resulting images can now be rich and uncompromised versus the often ugly, occasionally beautiful DV footage of the past.

However, naturalistic lighting has always been a part of every serious DP's palette. We were all taught to look at the light at a location and consider where we wanted to go from there, whether to recreate it at an appropriate exposure level or to start from scratch. The individual project dictated the particular approach. Many projects require a far more stylized look than simply available light could ever provide, to work in concert with the tone and emotion of the script.

Let's take, for example, a scene involving a tearful goodbye between a young couple as the man prepares to board a train to go off to war. A fully traditional approach might have steam pouring out of the engine in the background of the shot (it's amazing just how many years this was used as a visual effect long after steam engines were no longer in use), dramatic music, and of course achingly beautiful lighting. Going the other direction, shoot the scene in front of a drab Amtrak train at high noon, with harsh shadows on the faces, dark eye sockets and blown out patchs on the foreheads and noses. One may appear distractingly corny, the other distractingly amateurish and ugly. Is there a compromise?

Of course; we can achieve a naturalistic effect that won't distract the viewer and retains the emotion of the scene. Consider how these two heartbroken souls see each other at that moment--searching each other's faces, struggling to record everything and burn the memory into their brains in case they never see each other again.What visually complements the emotion (arguably) is to render these faces as beautifully as possible in the given environment. In the real world, harsh overhead lighting is not likely to be part of one's memory of that moment but if you put that up on the screen, the viewer will have a different response. So, we silk or completely block the overhead sun, build the exposure level back up to keep the background from blowing out with a large bounce (you get a far more naturalistic look from a 12x12 or larger bounce than a handheld disc or 4x4 piece of board) and perhaps position a solid on the train side of the face as negative fill, which sculpts the face and gives a hint of the darkness underlying the scene. That's just one approach--there are many others. A great deal of successful exterior shooting is knowing exactly what time of day to shoot a given shot and building your schedule around this. Working with Roger Deakins, he would have a very specific time window to shoot a given exterior shot and I don't recall ever seeing as much as a bounce on any of them--he just knew exactly when the light would be right to capture the scene exactly as-is. On a low-budget show this can be difficult to impossible because there are so many other production factors that have to be accommodated and compromises must be made. However, on a microbudget production where time doesn't necessarily equal money, this may be more achievable.

To address the comparison between documentary and narrative filmmaking: the construct of shooting narrative tends to take a lot more time, due to multiple takes for performance and the tweaking of various departments to dial things in. If one decides "the light is great now, let's just start shooting", one must also have a REALISTIC sense of how long it will take to shoot the scene and where the sun will be by the end of that period and make sure that you won't get boned by having your set plunged into shadow halfway through. Fortunately this information has become much more accessible thanks to several available iPhone apps (I use Sun Seeker).

Lately I've been shooting additional units on an ABC series; we are fortunate to have the Arri Alexa which is rated at 800 ASA and does fabulously well in available light. Following the lead of the 1st unit cinematographer, I endeavor to use the least additional lighting (when appropriate) both in the name of efficiency and a naturalistic look. Often in this scenario, it's a matter of turning OFF lights and or providing negative fill to keep things from flattening out and creating contrast. Available light isn't always beautiful, but it can often to sculpted to be more so. The Alexa is a dream, but we also shoot high speed footage on the Phantom camera which we rate at a paltry 160 ASA. The other day I had to shoot a storage room on both cameras; easy with the Alexa, but when we put the Phantom up and cranked to 120 fps, I was now down to somewhere between 25 and 40 ASA, essentially Technicolor 3-strip level of sensitivity. Building the light level up in this tiny room was a Herculean task (1K pars hanging from ceiling to punch highlights, 5K fresnels bouncing off showcard hidden here and there). It's one thing just to throw big lights in there, but at the end the result has to look naturalistic.

Ultimately this is what cinematography is about: knowing when to retain natural elements and work with them (i.e. not being "surprised" by the shifting sun); how to augment OR subtract light to achieve a particular look; to approach every project with a sensibility that matches the material; to be able to think and plan ahead as far as possible to keep on schedule. And about a hundred other things!

Charles covers lots of important issues and there many more things that can effect your lighting and call for "artificial" techniques to make things simply look decent. I think a huge factor is that cameras don't have the exposure latitude of the human eye. It takes a lot of light to fill in shadows in a daylight scene that my eye doesn't really notice. The camera will take a daylight scene and turn the sky white and eye socket shadows almost black due to a lack of latitude. It can take a lot of setup to make the lighting that your eyes like seem good in the camera. Another problem I have come across is different light levels between the background and foreground making the background blow out. If you stand in an open area of a building like a carport and shoot towards the outside, your talent will be a silhouette even though your eye can see everything perfectly. This effect is magnified with longer lenses that minimize the foreground elements except the subject. It is easy to get in a situation where a person can be a silhouette in front of a blown background. If a scene calls for a transition from a bright to a shaded area, the shaded area will need lots of light to bring it up to looking simply shaded instead of like a sudden solar eclipse.

Your post was fascinating and informative Charles and I'm grateful that experienced professionals take the time to write on this forum - the mix of people here is really what makes it so interesting. Your basic points about time, schedules and necessities make so much sense.

Of course most of the issues that Charles and Marcus raise have been problems on films I've worked on - to be honest since we are making the films for ourselves we tend simply to do things differently to avoid the problems, as with no budget at all there is little alternative, but have learnt that knowing how natural light conditions work has helped enormously and using the simple tools like zebra patterns on my camera have made a huge difference.

I suppose my 'problem' is with the (seemingly) increasing use of a very stylised look which gets in the way for me as it breaks the whole cinematic spell; I saw a film set in early 20th century urban Ireland ('Angela's Ashes' I think) and everything was lit darkly, brownish (and always raining) but quite richly to emphasise the grim conditions. When the hero enters a bar it is still dark all around him but he himself is 'mysteriously' lit. It all looks fantastic in a way and was brilliantly done but, for me, it is simply fake and wasn't appropriate for the serious subject matter.

Just to add fuel to the fire... here's a CRAZY idea.

The lighting package should be decided, scene by scene, by looking at the STORY BOARD.

Don't have a Story Board that breaks your entire film down scene by scene? Then you're not really serious about making a quality movie. Period.

If you haven't pre-visualized the location, content, time-of-day, background action, foreground action, and movement in EACH AND EVERY SINGLE SCENE OF YOUR FILM - you're simply not taking the task of filmmaking seriously.

If you DO this stuff, then when you're looking at scene 104-c - and the gaffer tells you that to achieve that look in this location under these conditions the best option is to fly a 10x silk for the sun and fill with 8 Kinos. Then you have a starting point to light something properly.

If you just toss six miscelaneous insturments in a truck and expect to light EVERYTHING you'll encounter with just those you're either making a VERY simple movie, or you're a very simple moviemaker.

It's like throwing four acoustic violins, a bass drum and a xylophone into a truck then showing up and figuring you can cover all the necessary music to keep a crowd entertained for a couple of hours - no problem.

Good luck with that.

The mysterious light is probably there to direct your eye to the hero in what could be a busy set - it's one of the techniques used to do this. Also, you often need to see the actor's eyes so that you can see their emotions. The well known Godfather counter example had a good dramatic reason for not revealing the eyes.

You can get away with less "beauty lighting" on an art house or indie film than a mainstream studio picture in which the leads have to look good. The result being that these films can be a bit over-lit at times because you need to keep the execs happy.

All dramas are an artifice and all sorts of devices are used in story telling or as Kubrick said "it may be real, but is it interesting?".

Bugger the lights - get some reflectors or make some...

I was just reminded of another lighting quote - when asked where the light was coming from the DP replied "the same place as the music."

Storyboarding is an interesting one. For those who have a tricky time visualizing a breakdown of a scene, it's a help. To be able to communicate a frame to others ahead of time, it's useful. However I have seen many a new filmmaker become hung up on the process of making storyboards, investing way too much time and effort into making beautiful "comic books" that ultimately bear little resemblance to what the actual film will become. Basic shot concepts like closeups, over-the-shoulders, triangles etc. don't need storyboards. Over the years I've worked with many novice directors who have started designing the visuals without me, only for us to sit down and end up radically reworking things, rendering their storyboards useless.

In features and episodic, most of the time we use storyboards for complicated action sequences or visual effects or second units, places where a lot of people need to be dialed in on the bits and pieces. Standard dialogue scenes are virtually never storyboarded.

So I guess for me Bill, the "period" at the end of your statement about not being serious about making a quality film would be replaced by a less serious piece of punctuation! Depending on the experience level of the person making the film, of course.

As far as building the lighting package based on the scene, we do do that, indeed. However it is more based on the location itself than the individual shots, unless there is something unusual or particular noteable planned. This would come in during discussions between the director and DP in prep. A big night exterior may require adding some additional units or support (in our world, condors of various height), whereas a day exterior is likely to be more grip-based, i.e. adding a larger set of bounces or butterflies. BTW I would be a bit perplexed if a gaffer ever recommended using Kinos on a day exterior--they don't have much punch, so certainly you would need a lot of them--I guess in a situation where only limited power is available it's a way to go. It's a lot of gear to get a reasonable amount of light though...

It can certainly get complicated having rental items come and go from a package during a job--it's a virtually full-time job handling the ordering and return of such things (for all those who have ever asked what the job of a best boy is, there you go). For small jobs I'll tend to order a package that will work for most of it and cover the bases with a minimum of day-played items.

I work at the other end of the spectrum as Charles and I come to the same conclusions sometime. Storyboards are good for some scenes, but others scenes are fairly routine and a story board would be a waste of time. I will say that thorough pre-planning is critical, but a complete storyboard is not necessarily the most important part. As far as the light kit goes, I bring everything I can and shoot with whatever light or power I have available. I recently got some LED lights not only for their convenience, but because they won't rack up huge deficits in what is normally a limited power source. My next gadget in my light kit is probably going to be a big mirror for outdoor shoots.