Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

Why should I light?

T

Thomas Lohan

New member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In real life there aren't powerful lights like those used on a movie set....
So...why should I used them if I want the movie to look as realistically as possible????
Also....could I get away with diegetic light if I use a Canon 5D MkII or Nikon D90 which both have fantastic low-light abilities?
 
Because your eyes are like film ASA 10,000 and have a dynamic range of of 30 stops (note: those numbers are not accurate, just an example of how much more sensitive they are than film stock or digital sensors) To get images to look more natural, like how our eyes see them, we need bigger lighting to level things out most of the time.

I highly suggest you pick up a lighting theory book. I can't suggest one off the top of my head, but someone else should.

Matthew
 
Cinema isn't real life. Cinema can be a close approximation of it, or a fanciful departure from it. Lighting gives you the opportunity to influence the mood in ways that are difficult to do with available light -- it's an important tool that works in tandem with all the other elements of a motion picture to draw the audience in.

And, in practical terms, it allows a considerably greater degree of control and repeatability than available light.
 
Because you want it to look good.

Most natural lighting isn't particularly attractive, and doesn't necessarily further the dramatic needs of your storytelling. Lighting a scene is not about providing illumination, it is about shaping and styling the light.
 
You're forgetting that movies don't look like real life, they look like movies. You can fashion your lighting to appear more lifelike or less staged, but at some point you'll need to cheat a little and fudge reality a bit to make for a decent image.

Your question is like asking why scout locations? Why make sure we can hear everyone clearly? Why use a well thought out script? We don't do these things in real life.

It's a film, it's not real life.
 
If you don't want to light, don't light.

When people start telling you the footage looks like crap, you'll change your mind :)
 
I'm going to stick with the ideas in the first response, assuming he just wants it to look natural, and not stylized.

The limitations of the capturing system dictate that you must light. The sensor is not seeing what you see. It isn't sensitive enough. Some cameras have better light sensitivity. Go ahead and use them if you like the results. For a theatrical film, shooting on a dslr of today isn't probably going to work out too smoothly, and the quality results vary.

For unlighted learning and testing, you may get great results with those cameras.

I am hoping that the ASA on the Monstro goes up big time. Something like 800 or more would be great.

The bottom line, though is that sensors capture a thin slice of the available light. You probably want to finesse it because of noise in the shadows. You will notice that the sensor doesn't capture what you actually saw with your eyeballs. That mismatch is a factor, and one of the main reasons that professionals light the hell out of their shoots.
 
If you are talking about daytime interiors, "natural" light can be quite sufficient at times, assuming it creates the mood you want (which is one reason why we light) but to recreate natural daylight after the sun has gone down takes a lot of work and some big units.

And if you are thinking "I'll just call it quits for the day once I lose the light" then you won't make it far in production. I mean, what if you have a six page day interior scene on the call sheet and you are shooting in winter with less than 10 hours of daylight?

Not to mention that natural daylight changes throughout the day and what if every set-up is supposed to look consistent, like it was shot at a single time of day? Lighting can help even out those changes, and then take over once you lose the natural light.

There are plenty of times even on big shows where they do use mostly available light if it looks good. But they also have to be prepared to alter it or replace it, so the big lights are still necessary if only on standby.

There have been times in a day interior where I've thought "it looks great - I'm not going to light it!" and then halfway through the shooting it goes heavy overcast outside and now my levels drop below f/2.0, or the sun moves over and hits a brick wall and now the whole room is bathed in warm bounce light instead of cool sky light. And suddenly I find myself scrambling to bring in a lot of lights in the last minute, losing time. So it can be a tough judgement call because it is nice at times to just use natural light. Most cinematographers love it. It's just not always practical for today's schedules, plus there is the whole issue of creating the right mood for the scene plus making the lead actors look good at the same time.

For example, what if the script calls for the room to be bathed in the dying warm light of sunset, and you need 12 hours to shoot the scene? What if you want the effect of a shaft of sunlight sneaking through a crack in the curtains in a darkened room at sunrise? Maybe your location's window doesn't face the sun. Maybe it's overcast that day. Maybe you have to shoot that scene at night for some reason.

On top of that, what if you have to build a set? Then there is no natural daylight at all -- it ALL has to be recreated from scratch.
 
There are a number of filmmakers who are content to work with available light, or who even insist on it. Godard is probably the best known, but there are many others.

As already noted above, natural light as recorded on film or a sensor will not look like it does to your eye on the set. But if available light suits the material or your budget, there's no reason you can't use it. Just be aware that the imagery will tend to lack the dramatic intensity most people seek in movies. OTOH, bad indoor lighting (which usually means over-lighting) can be worse than no lighting at all (assuming you have an exposure, of course).
 
Jonathan Stevenson said:
When people start telling you the footage looks like crap, you'll change your mind :)
Click to expand...

But I light and people still tell me that. :)

Actually, I'm a big fan of available light, or at least as a base to work from.
 
When one uses available light, one is still lighting, but with instruments that are, generally speaking, immovable and difficult to adjust in aperture size and intensity.

The challenge then become positioning the subjects and camera in such a way that the available light does what set lights would have done. It's still lighting and can be done masterfully or, unfortunately, horribly.

As has been mentioned, if the available light is from the sun, one must shoot quickly before it changes.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo
 
Mitch Gross said:
Because you want it to look good.

Most natural lighting isn't particularly attractive...
Click to expand...

It is when Terrence Malick is shooting it. :wink:

Outdoor shooting, obviously, relies heavily on natural light and the crafting of natural light. So if the author of this thread wants to shoot natural light, he should consider writing a script set outdoors.
 
Well, light is the medium...

Shouldn't have to say more than that - but, remember, film needs light to activate the photochemical process. Also, who wants to watch a black screen?

Yes, you can just turn on most cameras and just shoot... flat images...
 
Tom said:
It is when Terrence Malick is shooting it. :wink:

Outdoor shooting, obviously, relies heavily on natural light and the crafting of natural light. So if the author of this thread wants to shoot natural light, he should consider writing a script set outdoors.
Click to expand...

Malick though has very long shooting schedules, so he can afford to shoot parts of scenes at the right time of day for the look he wants.

Most of us work on tight schedules where we get the right light for part of the day, and we spend the rest of the day, into the night, trying to maintain that look with supplemental lights and/or a lot of grip work. Because it can be hard to intercut two angles when one is obviously shot near sunset and the other was shot near noon. Unless it was overcast that day...

Remember that cinematography goes way beyond the simple need to get enough light to get an exposure.
 
I saw once some footage shot with the SI2K.A guy just received the camera and shot some footage in his living room with no extra lights or anything like that. The image quality was almost the same as a regular webcam...

Anyway....is it possible that in the near future the cameras will become so advanced that no extra light will be needed?
 
because you are also telling a story and light is part of it.
because you have to make it look good so people will enjoy watching it and feel "comfortable" at the movie theater.
Lets remember that movies are first fun and entertainment and are the product of an industry.
 
Why light, you ask.

Film isn't about using real light, real sounds.... that's a documentary or reality shoot.

Film is all about manipulation of the audience. Manipulation through acting, through sound, through lighting. Each changes the moods of your audience.

That is why you light. To maintain the lie, the illusion. If you want to be honest, go ahead.

-Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top