Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

So, what is good lighting?

R

Ramesh Jai

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
982
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.apex-advertising.com
Can someone please tell me what constitutes good lighting? Is it subjective or are there any rules which one has to follow to be considered a good DOP?

Perhaps you can post a still shot from a scene of a movie and then explain why you think the DOP did a good job on that scene..

Thanks
 
Art is infinite in it's scope. There are no answers.

There are no rules; well, there are rules, but art more often breaks rather than follows them.

Just one example; Kubrick's the Shining. The conventional wisdom, "horror" lighting, things half-hidden in shadows, was rejected with spectacular success.

Study everything, art, science, the wonderful patterns in mathematics. Read a poem, close your eyes; what do you see? Light it that way.

Yes, you should read the books and master your tools, your lighting instruments, flags and cutters, then you can do whatever you can imagine.

Does this cover it? Not by a long shot.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Can you recommend some books..? I'm actually a director but lately have been drawn towards lighting. I think it's such a wonderful art.
 
Art is usually grounded in the logic of science. A enthusiastic study of nature's lighting characteristics can help in the art of 'light management and shaping' in the video and film world.

Many basics have been published to provide a good start. Beyond the basics, it is definitely artistic execution. Quality time and the local book store or library is a good resource. Some educational DVD's exist. Photography books are a good resource also.
 
Good lighting tells the story and creates the mood that the filmmaker feels is appropriate. It also solves certain technical considerations and physical challenges. In certain circumstances, the "correct" lighting for a scene may be crude and technically poor. Good may be bad. It's all a matter of context.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Good lighting tells the story and creates the mood that the filmmaker feels is appropriate. It also solves certain technical considerations and physical challenges. In certain circumstances, the "correct" lighting for a scene may be crude and technically poor. Good may be bad. It's all a matter of context.
Click to expand...
So..lighting is subjective..?

Ok. What I wanted to know was about the technical rules to lighting e.g., not blowing the highlights, etc., or even that doesn't matter as long as one feels that it is essential to telling the story?

I am asking this question because I work with 2 DOPs. One is all for bounced lighting and can't stand specular lighting. The other insists on pointing the lights at actors (with diffusers of course).
 
David's post reminds me of a story I heard, whereupon a well-known DP (sorry, but I am crap with names) decided one day to give his Gaffer the chance to light a scene. He went to another set, and waited for one of the sparks to tell him that they were finished with the lighting set up.

The DP hat a look at the scene and said "nice". Then he told the sparks which lamps to turn off. After about half the fixtures were turned off, he was happy with the results.

----

Sometimes one lamp can do the job.

----

It never hurts to take a trip to the art museum and study the old masters.
 
rameshjai said:
So..lighting is subjective..?
Click to expand...

A resounding yes.

rameshjai said:
I wanted to know was about the technical rules to lighting e.g., not blowing the highlights, etc., or even that doesn't matter as long as one feels that it is essential to telling the story?
Click to expand...

Story should always come first. In "The West Wing" they would always blow out some highlights for dramatic effect. Other stories may call for crushed shadows.

rameshjai said:
I work with 2 DOPs. One is all for bounced lighting and can't stand specular lighting. The other insists on pointing the lights at actors (with diffusers of course).
Click to expand...

If they are to work on the same show, than you might have a problem. They need to agree on a basis.
A good 2nd unit DP always visits the main set to learn how to emulate the DPs lighting style.
 
rameshjai said:
So..lighting is subjective..?

Ok. What I wanted to know was about the technical rules to lighting e.g., not blowing the highlights, etc., or even that doesn't matter as long as one feels that it is essential to telling the story?The other insists on pointing the lights at actors (with diffusers of course)

I am asking this question because I work with 2 DOPs. One is all for bounced lighting and can't stand specular lighting. .
Click to expand...

Yes, art is subjective and lighting is an art. To one person, blown-out areas are beautiful and to another, they are a mistake. So you have to decide what is appropriate for the scene at hand using your own taste and knowledge.

There are certainly a lot of technical things to learn about lighting, but there are no rules per se, just current styles and attitudes, personal taste, etc. A hard or soft key light can be right or wrong in context to the dramatics of the scene, but even then, it's subjective whether it was right or wrong.
 
Martin Weiss said:
A resounding yes.



Story should always come first. In "The West Wing" they would always blow out some highlights for dramatic effect. Other stories may call for crushed shadows.



If they are to work on the same show, than you might have a problem. They need to agree on a basis.
A good 2nd unit DP always visits the main set to learn how to emulate the DPs lighting style.
Click to expand...
Thank you Martin and David. Exactly the kind of answer I was looking for.

Does everyone else agree?
 
I'm not a DP, so both Martin and David have the advantage of me here, but it doesn't hurt if you try to acquaint yourself with classical painting traditions, before attempting to answer this question. As David points out, all lighting doesn't have to be "beautiful" (compare say, the work of Conrad Hall in "Fat City", vs. "American Beauty" for one stark example of the range possible) and you don't have to accept classical traditions, but if you haven't internalized aesthetic standards, there's not much basis on which you can distinguish one lighting approach from another.

To get on the high horse (again!), the movie business is full of people making judgments about script, music, costumes, photography, etc., whose entire knowledge of the field came only from watching TV and other movies. Which is probably one reason why so many films are badly written and visually boring.

So spend a few weeks looking at Rembrandt, Vermeer, Caravaggio, Goya and Velasquez paintings, and you'll at least get some sense of dramatic lighting possibilities. If it all looks the same to you or none of it is particularly exciting, you could still be a great director, but maybe then leave the lighting choices to someone else....

But again, this is advice from an idiot who doesn't light for a living, so take it for what it's worth.
 
rameshjai said:
Does everyone else agree?
Click to expand...

This is Reduser :shifty:

jpp said:
I'm not a DP, so both Martin and David have the advantage of me here
Click to expand...

I would not call myself DP yet - especially not when mentioned in the same sentence as David ;) Right now I feel comfortable with being called Lighting Cameraman.

A DP needs to know so much more than "just" lighting (which by itself takes at least one lifetime to learn) — you have to know some math, some physics, some electronics, of course you need to know about on-set politics, and most importantly: you need to take good care of the technical crew.


----

I heard that in the old days in the Lodz school for cinematographers, in the first term you would only get paper and a pen, in the second term a stills camera, and only in your third year would you get to expose film.

----

Another good source for learning is reading through David's thread here on RedUser, the CML list (cinematograhy.net) and the American Cinematographer. And of course: watch many different films, from different times and genres. Have fun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top