Here is a still from an interview that I shot recently, I was looking for feedback on the lighting. Any feedback is welcome, especially suggestions for next time to make the lighting better...

Thanks

I wouldn't put your talent in a black blouse with a black backdrop. ditto for her black/burgundy hair, needs some kind of halo or backlight IMHOP.

Btw, anyone have a link for tips on lighting dark skinned people? I've heard dp's comment on the subject--and the comments are never some Politically correct rhetoric like "Light them the way you'd light any person". apparently there are issues.

Like what Brian is saying, you could try separating the subject from the background by either:
A- Adding some backlight to the subject.
B- Adding light to the background. Use a different color backgrop, or cast light onto the b/g. You can play around with patterns or gradients of light if you want.

Btw, anyone have a link for tips on lighting dark skinned people?
Usually the problem is that the dark skinned person is against a really bright background (and you want to keep detail in that b/g), or he/she is wearing a white shirt (which will blow out if you want to see detail in that person's face). You can change the wardrobe around to avoid the white shirt situation- grey-ish colors can appear white on camera.

You could also use a scrim to cut down the exposure on a subject's shirt but not their face. Basically, just place more light on their face but not their shirt, or the background.

http://msegrip.com/mse.php?show=product&cat=53&products_ID=26008

There are other scrims which slide into the light.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=details_accessories&A=details&Q=&sku=71635&is=REG

I think the advice to not have a black blouse on a black background is good, but I could see the blouse anyway so it was lit properly. I think I might change the background light and maybe fill a bit more as there is a fairly deep shadow on the talent's left side (camera right).

Relating to lighting people with darker skin tones:

Light them like anyone else is generally correct.

There is an interesting exception with people with VERY dark skin. I hope to get someone like that in a production some day so I can get this ability: VERY dark skin can get a property like a black reflecting pool. The dark reflecting pool makes almost mirror images on the surface of water and really dark skin can also achieve this high reflectivity. It can not make a mirror image, but nighttime lighting of a dark-skinned person can be very interesting. The shape of the face can be shown without revealing the face at all by creative use of back lights or "kickers". It also works at night with light–skinned people, but the effect is not so total.

This lighting was shown/explained to me by an austrailian DP who gave a seminar last year in Hawaii, but I have forgotten his name. He had some clips shot at night with a native Austrailian (aboriginal?) actor and the look was very dramatic.

...Relating to lighting people with darker skin tones:

Light them like anyone else is generally correct.

There is an interesting exception with people with VERY dark skin. I hope to get someone like that in a production some day so I can get this ability: VERY dark skin can get a property like a black reflecting pool. The dark reflecting pool makes almost mirror images on the surface of water and really dark skin can also achieve this high reflectivity. It can not make a mirror image, but nighttime lighting of a dark-skinned person can be very interesting. The shape of the face can be shown without revealing the face at all by creative use of back lights or "kickers"...

Yeah, the way I've tried to explain this is that we're defining the shape of the face with shine. Most often, this is going to be produced with backlights, kickers, and sometimes side (ear) lights. If you look at some print ads featuring models with very dark skin you quickly see that this has become the convention.

The alternative is not so good - you can make someone's color anything you like with creative lighting and camera work, but to keep a really dark skin dark you end up working only with highlights & shine.

For example, below is a photo of Forest Whitaker playing Ugandan dictator Idi Amin (in The Last King of Scotland). His skin was dyed darker for the role - you can see in this shot that the shape of his face is represented mostly by shine.

you could probably get away with a minimum of making sure the hair light falls on both shoulders.

To make her "pop" from the background, hit the background with the complementary color of the predominant brown/red/orange in the rest of the scene. Blue would probably do the trick. Throw a cookie on that background light and you're good to go.

http://www.digitaljuice.com/djtv/segment_detail.asp?sid=74&searchid=3200

I love these series BTW. These guys cover all the good stuff in an easy to follow manner.

Hi Kevin:

Not a bad shot but it could be improved tremendously with just a few small modifications. I am a documentary producer and cinematographer and I light and shoot hundreds of interviews a year and once you pass your first few thousand interviews, you learn what works and why.

1. We always tell talent to try to wear jewel tones. Because our clients tend to like warm backgrounds, I am usually working to make the BG orange/red/amber/yellow. Place a nice jewel tone blue against this and you have the makings of a nice look. I agree with the other posters, black person with black clothing and black BG have no zing or contrast. Bad combo.

2. IMHO, black Duvetine is a cop out. It's what you do when you have no time to make a real location look good. Not a criticism, I shoot plenty of them but make sure you are shooting against black because it is what you really want, not because you were too lazy to light a good looking set. I know that sometimes, you have no choice. We have a pretty ugly stage here and when there is no budget or time to dress a set, up goes the black. It's just that it's the same thing that everyone does, therefore unoriginal and boring visually.

3. Get a good hairlight/rim light on your talent! I use a 300 or 150 watt Arri, armed in on a C-Stand with a 40" arm. Especially with black BG, no hairlight makes them disappear into the BG.

4. More frontal fill. With this woman's freckles and other skin imperfections, she would benefit immensely (as would most us) with some really nice underlight soft fill. Great for filling wrinkles, eye bags and other forms of humanity. I work with a lot of "actors of a certain age". It's funny but when you light a lot of these actors who were in films in the heyday of Hollywood, they KNOW what makes them look good. Place the camera higher than their jowl line, soft frontal fill, nice big catchlights in the eyes, nice hair light, etc. I have heard certain female talent direct the gaffer and or DP on adding fill, which side to photograph them from, etc.

I kind of dig it and am not usually offended when they request this, after all, they were lit by the greats of our business and after you are in front of the lights for decades, you know intuitively how the lighting will make you look.

For soft frontal fill, try a 300 watt fresnel, tightly barndoored to reveal just a tight spot beam, full spot, about 8ft above camera, opposite your key source side. Shine the light down onto a piece of 3x4' white foamcore at the feet of your talent. If necessary, angle it up toward their face with a full apple.

Voila, instant beauty treatment for women but it does pretty well on men as well unless you are trying to emphasize the "ruggedness" of a man's features.

5. I find with a Chimera as a key, I am usually too far off axis if I am not getting any catchlights. Don't be afraid to use your key source perhaps 30 degrees off camera angle rather than the closer to 45 degrees that many use. Once again, depends on what you are going for. If you do end up being closer to 45 degrees from camera with your key, I sometimes will use an Arri 150 with barndoors, mounted on a 40 arm/C-stand to place the light directly over camera lens. I will soften with a piece of light diffusion and run it on a dimmer. This is often called an eye light as it will place catchlights in the talent's eyes. Using it on a dimmer also adds a bit of warmth and additional frontal fill. Once again, not trying to blast the talent with this light and not trying to blind them, just use it for a small effect.

You have a good start, just keep shooting and learning and your interviews will look awesome. It just takes time and experience.

All the best,

Dan

You need a laugh? Here you go.

About 9 years ago I had a gig shooting a professional speaker in Long Beach at a convention of high powered doctors. The speakers was a woman psychologist. When I got there to pre-light the stage area had a lovely set of 8' tall almost butter yellow folding screens between fake plants as the stage dressing. Not the worst background I've seen. She arrived, looking nice, but since she was on the heavy side, she had selected an elegant black valour dress with a bright red scarf at her throat. She looked very professional and I suspected someone told her basic black would be "slimming" and the red scarf would ad a touch of drama and color. I cast a wary eye on the dress knowing I'd lose detail, but looking at the yellow background, I figured I'd get a clean outline and could live with it.

Literally halfway through her introduction - with my camera rolling - two stagehands came out and (insert drumroll here) struck the yellow screens leaving the house.... BLACK VELOUR DRAPE as her background.

The entire video ended up looking like a Jay Leno "Beyondo" gag - with the bright (blood) red scarf wonderfully enhancing the "headless" effect.

Just another day in professional video.

Dan, THANK YOU!! - I've emailed you too.

Bill .. oh yes . .. In the world of Chroma Keying, would you call that "Black-Screening"?

hEY Dan that was cool. I cut and pasted it to my "video notes" folder.

About the sample footage here--it does indeed look like a disembodied face adrift in the dark reaches of the universe. That's terrible, right? Actually it isn't IMHOP. Interview lighting should tie in to the topic. If you we doing a doc on UFO's, perhaps this lighting would work, though if that was your topic i'd throw a few shadows on her face, unbalance the light.

I read some lighting tips by W. Graff on interview lighting, as I understood it, the "Old School" technique for flattering light for women is to throw soft light on the talent from nearly the same axis as the camera. Maybe Dan can comment.

Dan's advice is excellent, but I am not sure I know what he means by "jewel tones?" Pastels?

Thanks for the advice everybody. Yes I was disappointed when she showed up in the black blouse and I knew we would be shooting against a black background. I thought the backlight was strong enough but general consensus here seems to be that it wasn't, correct? I was afraid of blowing out the highlights around her. Should I have broadened the beam to more fully cover each shoulder and pumped up the intensity a bit more? Perhaps placing the light more behind her, and less on top of her?

As for the color I threw on the background, is the general consensus that it was not dramatic enough? I did have a light shining on the background with a red filter and a random pattern cookie in-between. Should this light have been brighter to more clearly define where she stops and where the background begins?

As for the key light, I was trying to imitate some looks that i've seen on tv of late. Several interviews I've seen on tv lately seem to almost be hatchet lighting (cutting the interviewees face in half down the middle). I do see now what you mean by intensifying the fill and/or bringing the key around closer to camera. It's more dramatic than flattering the way it is, and maybe I should've focused more on flattering.

Thanks again for the input and happy new year to all...

Kevin

What's the easiest way to get a simple black background?

black fabric draped over 2 stands with a crossbar, clamps all around.

Bruce, I shoot on location so I was interested in a portable solution. I bought a roll of seamless paper from the local still photo store ($44) and a stand system that fits nicely into an included case ($159). The stand system takes about 15-20 minutes to set up, but it's pretty easy, even for a one man band operation. I can get other rolls of paper in just about any color, or if the mood hits me, muslin can also be used off of the same stand system. The rolls I use are 10 ft in width, but I also carry a couple of 53" width rolls incase I don't have a large enough space for the 10 ft roll.

Hope this answers your question, Bruce.

Thanks,
Kevin

Bruce, I shoot on location so I was interested in a portable solution. I bought a roll of seamless paper from the local still photo store ($44) and a stand system that fits nicely into an included case ($159). The stand system takes about 15-20 minutes to set up, but it's pretty easy, even for a one man band operation. I can get other rolls of paper in just about any color, or if the mood hits me, muslin can also be used off of the same stand system. The rolls I use are 10 ft in width, but I also carry a couple of 53" width rolls incase I don't have a large enough space for the 10 ft roll.

Hope this answers your question, Bruce.

Thanks,
Kevin

Isn't there a way just by control of lighting?

pair of 10k's on the subject choked so the background gets no light. ND the camera so the subject is exposed correctly. Black cloth is cheaper ;)

[QUOTE=Kevin Randolph]Thanks for the advice everybody. Yes I was disappointed when she showed up in the black blouse and I knew we would be shooting against a black background. I thought the backlight was strong enough but general consensus here seems to be that it wasn't, correct? I was afraid of blowing out the highlights around her. Should I have broadened the beam to more fully cover each shoulder and pumped up the intensity a bit more? Perhaps placing the light more behind her, and less on top of her?

Kevin,

Don't be too hard on yourself. The single most important element in the frame is the subject's FACE. That's what we watch for all the most important visual clues about what she's saying and how she's feeling. You NAILED the lighting on her face. She's easily visible, not blown out or too dark to make out expression details.

The rest of what we're all saying is a discussion of the little variations in approach that helps you get from competent to excellent. Don't mistake what we're saying for "you did something WRONG" - you did not.

Light the subjects face correctly FIRST AND FOREMOST and THEN work on all the little things - many of which Dan and others here suggested - that can elevate your shot from good to great.

yes, first and foremost, did you get the footage in the can? If so, everything else is learning curve.

Dan's advice is excellent, but I am not sure I know what he means by "jewel tones?" Pastels?

Think of the emperors bag of riches, what kinds of color tones are in it? Royal Blue, Chinese Red, Gold, Coppper, Amethyst, etc. Bright, but not overly saturated colors. Pastels work but I prefer more saturated colors. With the advent of HD and clean NTSC/PAL dvds sometimes hooked up in component, a lot colors that we used to avoid like the plague in the days of VHS and lower res broadcast are now usable. I still avoid pinks and purples but bright blues, yellows and reds are somewhat usable nowdays.

HTH

Dan

[QUOTE=Kevin Randolph]Thanks for the advice everybody. Yes I was disappointed when she showed up in the black blouse and I knew we would be shooting against a black background. I thought the backlight was strong enough but general consensus here seems to be that it wasn't, correct? I was afraid of blowing out the highlights around her. Should I have broadened the beam to more fully cover each shoulder and pumped up the intensity a bit more? Perhaps placing the light more behind her, and less on top of her?

Kevin,

Don't be too hard on yourself. The single most important element in the frame is the subject's FACE. That's what we watch for all the most important visual clues about what she's saying and how she's feeling. You NAILED the lighting on her face. She's easily visible, not blown out or too dark to make out expression details.

The rest of what we're all saying is a discussion of the little variations in approach that helps you get from competent to excellent. Don't mistake what we're saying for "you did something WRONG" - you did not.

Light the subjects face correctly FIRST AND FOREMOST and THEN work on all the little things - many of which Dan and others here suggested - that can elevate your shot from good to great.

I agree, you did not do a bad job, I was just posting for improvements in what you are doing.

Best,

Dan

Here's another frame grab from another interview. I know I'm still black background happy, but I thought that I'd put it out here for feedback. Once again, please be critical - but be constructive. If you can point out something that could be better at least give me a hint on how...

Thanks Again,
Kevin

Forget about the background, you have other issues to deal with. There are certain techniques for photographing challenging subjects and you have one here. The basic rule is that when you have too much of a person you have to show less, less is better.

Yuor camer angle is too low, raise it just enough so you will not shoot up her nostrils, this will also minimize seeing the double chin.

The interviewer can sit a little higher forcing the subject to raise her head slightly and stretch out the double chin making the entire face appears slimmer. Also have the subject lean slightly forward and preferably sit on the front edge of the chair rather than against the backrest, this will also force the subject to sit taller, will reduce the double chin and gravity will help the rest.

Have the interviewer sit a little more away from the camera, this will force the subject to turn slightly more sideway making part of the right side of her face disappear resulting in a thinner looking face. But you still have her left side of the face to deal with. When it doesn’t look good make it darker. Looks like you are using a reflector for fill, lose it, or if that’s a natural fill use a black cloth or a black sheet of foamcore to block any light from reaching the shadow side of the face.

Use a large and soft light source as a key light. If you don’t have a softbox (you should if you do interviews) bounce the light against a white board or shine it thru a diffuser.

Position the keylight at a true 45 degree or even at 90 degrees. The wraparound effect of a large light will shine gradually in the shadow side of the face but will stop from reaching the entire shadow side making the face appear slimmer.

Use a longer lens setting to slightly compress the image and crop the shot. The curve of the shoulder is making this person look really round; if you crop the shot at the shoulder you don’t see what outside the camera view.

Her upper chest is hot, IRE hot that is. This too makes the person appear large. Use a flag or an open ended screen to reduce the light. If you don’t have a flag an inexpensive sheet of black foamcore will also do the trick.

If you have a similar subject who do not wear glasses, another lighting technique for photographing challenging subjects is to use a single Fresnel light as a key light, a 300w will do it. Place a diffusion gel on the light and place the light high and in front of the subject. Do you see the little shadow that you have right now on the left side of her nose? If the light is placed correctly that shadow should be directly under her nose and half way between her nose and the upper lip. Close the barn door on the Fresnel so you will have a sleeve of light that will illuminate only her features.

There are many more techniques when dealing with challenging subjects, but this should get you started.

Nino

www.EFPlighting.com

Hi all:

Nino, great advice, all right on the money. With a person of this size, anything you can do as a cinematographer to make them look as good as they can look is your duty. With women in general, always have the camera higher than their eyeline. A 3/4 oblique pose is the most flattering to a person like this so make sure that their body is at angle to the camera axis but not so far that you don't see both eyes.

I also agree about the tighter framing, seeing less of this person't size is going to be less distracting and let the viewer connect by seeing her eyes and facial expressions.

Your lighting in general is much better on this one but still looks a bit flat on her face to me. I would also have taken that lavaliere and gotten rid of the tie clip and replaced it with a vampire clip. I would have them clipped it inside her sweater, right at the apex of the "V" just below where you clipped it. With this lighting, I find the lavaliere distracting and it draws the eye to her body, which is also distracting. In an interview, you always want all of the attention toward the eyes and face. Since she is wearing glasses, that is already another distraction against seeing her eyes.

Keep on shooting and improving. Just remember that square on to camera is not a flattering pose for almost anyone.

Best,

Dan

Although I tend to agree with the previous two...what is the topic of the piece she is being interviewed for? If the topic were obesity or treatments therefor, accententuating her size may be better for the purpose of the piece.

I like first lighting setup. Nothing distracted your mind from her face. To me it is the important element, and it looks very good. Rest of her is not so attractive, so i would keep it in the shadow, that person and viewers would thank you.

I am a little bit late on this post but I have a link that covers a couple of techniques when lighting people who are dark complected or are wearing glasses.

I tend to use a 500 watt soft box for the key placed at somewhere around the 10 o'clock and a back/hair light at 5 o'clock, and the fill at 3 or 4 o'clock. For the fill I use a piece of white foam core attached to a light stand with a home depot clamp. I got a lot of inspiration and results from the digital juice website. I recommend the link below for starters then watch another of Digital Juice's talents named Perry J. He is a one man operation and you can learn a lot from some of his techniques.

http://www.digitaljuice.com/djtv/segment_detail.asp?sid=110&sortby=&page=2&kwid=0&show=all_videos

Here's another frame grab from another interview. I know I'm still black background happy, but I thought that I'd put it out here for feedback. Once again, please be critical - but be constructive. If you can point out something that could be better at least give me a hint on how...

Kevin, you would do well to read and heed Nino's comments. He is a long time veteran and has probably done interviews numbering in the thousands. Go take a look at his new website. A true gentleman for sharing this much knowledge for free.

Good luck and keep learning,

-gb-

Thank you all very much for responding to my post. I do really appreciate your feedback and plan to take it to heart. After reading what you had to say, I can clearly see where I could have made this shot better now. I'll try to keep your tips in mind and see if she will let me reshoot this "interview" (she is a friend of mine and this interview was set up so that I could play with some new equipment that I had just ordered). I'll see if I can post an interview shot in the near future in which I can correct for these issues.

I do think that part of the issue of her, and the previous frame grab as well, looking really round is that I shot these two interviews in 4x3, but when I save the still image I'm not getting the right pixel shape (square vs rectangle). I do understand that she is... well really round, and that the lighting can minimize that look, but there is some play here with the pixel shape.

Anyway, I plan to post another interview grab soon and I hope that things will look better...

Thanks again,
Kevin

P.S. - Nino, I really appreciate the detailed feedback that included the tips for improvement. All good points...

Great comments, particularly from Nino and Dan.

Even if I don't know I agree with some of them, particularly on how the subject will sit or where it will look at relatively to the camera.

Besides the lighting tips, which being a DP myself I certainly value, there is the relationship subject/camera which I think altogether very important, perhaps even more than all the rest or almost so.

I have been shooting and editing several documentaries that I myself shot, interviewing lots of people. After that I have probably become a "talking-head freak", paying attention to The History Channel interviews (just to name one) as compared to what I did.

Let's start with the subject position and viewing direction.

1) Sorry to say this, but I am convinced the subject should sit a bit uncomfortably. Nino hints at this when he says "...have the subject lean slightly forward and preferably sit on the front edge of the chair rather than against the backrest, this will also force the subject to sit taller". Certainly so! There's more to that: an uncomfortable person will not stay still, but move around more, giving some internal "action" to the shot. They will tell their thing more dynamically, probably using their hands more or more body language. This is great for the shot. Be careful: unrest is not the same as nervous. This effect is very subtle. Try it and see.

2) The closer the interviewer sits to the camera, the more personal the relationship viewer/subject on the screen later on will be. Not having the viewer looking at the camera, of course. If the subject looks more to the side, the viewer will unconsciouly expect a shot of the interviewer, which in most cases (like on mine) never will happen.

These have been some (surprising) findings that I came to realize when I started this unexpected documentary turn in my life. Item 1 was particularly interesting, as I could have never thought that might be an issue.


Carlos

Here's another frame grab that I'm putting up for constructive criticism. I know the first problem with this one is the mixing of indirect sunlight and tungsten lighting, but aside from that, please let me know your opinions for improvement.

Thanks,
Kevin

You need more flat fill on the left side. By flat I mean a source closer to her eye level. I think it would help with the deep shadows on her face that are no flattering and may be distoriting the overall shape of her face.

Okay, as a glutton for punishment and trying to get this right, here's one last frame grab from an interview I shot. First, she's reading a script that is too low, so her eyes are slightly shut, and due to what I've learned from previous post on this thread the camera is too low (slightly shooting up her nose). Also I should have had her lean forward in her chair to help eliminate her double chin. But what else could I have done to make this shot better?

Thanks,
Kevin

Yup, camera is too low. If the tripod was about a foot higher, it would be more flattering... focusing on the eyes instead of the chin.

Also, you might want to try to flattening out your lighting for women in general and not model their faces so much. DP Walter Graff explains it quite well here: http://www.bluesky-web.com/soft.html

HTH,
Brian Brown

Thanks for the link, Brian. I found it very useful and informative.

Up until now, all of the frame grabs I have posted were shot before I started this thread. I hope to do some test with what I have learned here and then post a couple frame grabs, and hopefully you guy will let me know if I have improved any. Thanks so much. I'll post the next grab in about a week or so.

Keivn

Glad to help, Kevin.

I'm pretty "green" on lighting setups and theory. I just bought John Jackman's book on lighting, but I think I'm also going to buy Walter Graff's DVD instruction set on lighting: http://www.bluesky-web.com/new-pagemerchandise.html

He's offering both DVDs, head shot and general lighting, about 3hrs of instruction for $65.

Might be something you're interested in also.

Take care,
Brian

Hi Kevin,

Everyone seems to be helping you with constructive feedback so let me give you some positive feedback you may or may not have considered. On the shot of Phyllis, I you were trying to obtain the Hollywood "golden triangle" effect on the cheek opposite the keylight, congratulate yourself - good job. Also, on Phyllis, if you were trying to setup a small kicker to give her eye the classic sparkle effect, give yourself another pat on the back. (but watch out for the the backlighting issue and camera composition on her shoot)

Good luck, Michael

Thank you for the post Mike. I always appreciate an "atta boy." It's always very helpful to know what was done right in a shot, especially as I'm still very young as a videographer. Sometimes the criticism, even when I know it is what will make me better (and I've asked for it), goes down easier with an 'atta boy', so that you.

Rehi Kevin,

Good for you. It would be easy for us to point out things on the Phyllis clip such as the color balance issue, but I'm sure you noticed that on your own. And we all need a bone from time to time <wink> and I'm glad you and I are of the same ilk - give us the bitter pill that makes us get better yet give us some encouragement for the things we're doing right (and maybe didn't even think about it).

Good luck, Michael

So I'm back again with a frame grab from a recent interview. I've tried to take to heart all of the tips and input that I've received earlier on this thread. So here it is, and as always don't hold back, but be constructive...

This looks really good. The equal of a lot of what I see on the A&E crime shows and similar cable content.

My one quibble is that it seems just a tad dark, but that reaction could be a function of my Mac gamma.

Wow, that looks nice. Very warm and inviting. The hair light and spill on her shoulders looks great to my eye.

In the future, you might try a little bounce from below to soften the shadows on the lower part the face... on women, anyways. Men can always be modeled more dramatically.

Nice!
Brian Brown

Looks pretty good - maybe a little dark for my taste. My only quibble is that her left shoulder and arm seem to blend into the background. Her face is nicely lit, nice catchlights in the eyes.
The background has interesting splashes of light, I'd have liked more in the lower right.

Thanks for your input. It does seem that I need to buy another light to help light up the background and perhaps ad a contrasting color.

Here's another frame grab from the same project. Once again, please don't hold back on your constructive criticism...

Hey there, I really don't want to judge any of your shots because I find them all pretty good (I can see you have an eye for good lighting, something I hope I have myself). But there's one thing I'd like to be critical about: the old lady at the top of the page gets the key light clearly from the opposite side of her interviewer. I really don't like that in most cases. But, as I said, I don't like it - that doesn't mean it's wrong or anything - just to me it doesn't seem to work well in interviews. You have done it differently in all your other shots (key from the interviewers side), so you probably know what I mean :)

Hi Kev:

Wow, your last two grabs show immense improvement over your earlier setups. Very nice lighting.

You might want to learn about some of the different styles of lighting like broad lighting, short lighting, butterfly lighting, etc. The more lighting knowledge you have, the more "tools" you have to create different looks that can evoke many more moods. The first step is to be able to light a decent looking interview which your last two grabs show you can know do. The next step is to be able to light any of these in "film noir", "horror", "high key", "low key", etc.

My only nit picks are on the last frame, you might want to brighten up the BG just a bit, it looks a little gloomy, unless that's what you were going for. I don't know the subject matter so a dark BG might have been perfect?

On the second to last frame, I would agree, a bit more low angle fill would flatter her face, I almost always use a flexfill or a piece of foamcore on the floor or on an applebox at the talents feet and hit it with a 300 watt fresnel, it really helps give that extra gloss and glint to their faces without flattening out the light too much.

Keep up the good work, you are learning quickly Grrasshopper.

Dan

Kevin you have made some giant strides since your earlier postings, now let’s see if we can fine tune this.

First keep in mind that lights positions are not etched in stone, conventional placements are a starting point and will vary depending on the subject.

The fill light is too low and too much off the side. Incorrect fill light position can create all sorts of visual problems. The ideal position for a fill light would be just slightly above the camera lens. When short on set-up time the small sungun on your camera can make an ideal fill light if the output can be properly controlled and adjusted; many manufacturers make brackets that can bring the small light even closer to the lens, this light position will also ideally place a catch light on the eyes. By keeping the fill too far away from the key light you are basically creating a secondary and conflicting key light as both lights are coming from opposite directions resulting in the fill light creating its own shadows. On your shots it’s evident by the dark valleys on the side of the nose because there’s no light hitting there. Also the low position of the fill makes the jaw line blend into the neck, remember that shadows are the most important part of lighting, that’s what give us modeling and depth, we have to control shadows not eliminate them.

Let’s start working on the background now. Forget about patterns, cookies and any other gimmicks for now, the best thing that I can tell you right now is to go over and understand this: http://efplighting.com/?The_Chiaroscuro_Principle

Keep up the good work.


Nino

www.EFPlighting.com

Thank you for your input, Nino.

I hadn't noticed the necks blending into the chins - you're exactly right. I'm still using a reflector as my fill "light" and I did have it at a very low angle. It seemed to catch more light from the key light, which I thought was a good thing. But it seems that it just created a second, and distracting, key light.

I just shot some interviews today using my little on camera lamp to create catch lights in the eyes. I'm afraid that it might be too underpowered to be a proper fill light though, at 35 watts.

As far as the link to your sight on the Chiaroscuro Principle - I've read about it nearly two dozen, literally and with no exaggeration. I do understand it (I think), I just wish that I knew of a way to make it work with only one Lowel Prolight to light the background. Hence the use of the cookie. If you have any tips on effectively lighting the background, using the Chiaroscuro Principle, and only having one light source for the background, I'd love to hear it. The only thing I can think of right now is a very specifically shaped cookie.

Well, a lot of the problems my lighting faces seem to be able to be solved with buying more lights. Looks like I'll just have to save up and get by until then... just like the rest of us.

Thank you again, Nino, for your honest and critical feedback. Any of you other guys have anything to add?

Kevin

Completely agreed with Nino in his comments over your "blonde" interview lighting, probably because we believe in similar principles.

His suggestions on using the camera light as both camera fill and eye-light is on the spot, and it should help concentrate the viewer's attention on the character, something that was primordial in old chiaroscuro portraits and in traditional Hollywood lighting.

Your lighting on the background is also an area that will need further improvement. Perhaps you will need more units to achieve that, or you may try more tricks.

The question is the principle: if you want to do chiaroscuro, you should follow some rules. Rules that will probably be broken in the dynamic thing "moving images" are.

A dark follows a clear that follows a dark that follows a clear. Perhaps the areas behind the characters should be split in only two, if you have just one light, and follow the chiaroscuro principle more precisely.

The kickers or hair lights you use, which seem to be two (one from the left and one from above) could be subtler and perhaps just one. Use that extra light on the lower right corner background, which is jet black. Or use part of the kicker reflection on the background too, perhaps using a mirror reflector to send it there.

Perhaps what you will need are more C-stands, flags and reflectors, instead of more lights.

Another question, and this is a personal taste comment, is that perhaps some softening of the key light might make the final result more flattering and also more forgiving, if you are not sure if this or that angle are better for the character.


Carlos

I offer this up so that the critical input can be more specific, if possible:

The softbox on the Key Light is relatively high, pushed up almost to the ceiling (Nearly 10 feet, I believe).

The “Fill Light” is a 42” Relfector that is place low. The bottom edge of the reflector is nearly touching the ground.

The Hair Light is a Lowel Pro Light with a Snoot on it and the dial twisted to full flood. I know it seems to be a contradiction, but it eliminates the possibility of lens flare. The light is on a boom and angled down, a slight bit sharper than 45 degrees.

The Background light is another Lowel Pro Light with barndoors, opened up all the way, and shown through a cookie with a random pattern.

This is, right now, all the equipment that I have for lightning.

P.S. - Nino, I stole some of the graphics from your lighting diagrams - Hope you won't sue me...