Are Films and Shows Lit Too Well Now?

[Bill Totolo]

I sincerely don't mean to offend anyone that shoots in a particular manner or style, I'm just trying to open up a dialogue to see if others feel the same way, or if I'm missing something.

A lot of films and shows I've watched nowadays feel... well, visually boring. Everything is so perfectly lit that it kind of pulls me out of the scene. The most recent example I can think of was The Last Jedi

Barring comments on storyline and such, I felt the mysterious hole of roots + mirror scene Rey faced was lit in a way that just made me feel removed from any sort of feeling for the scene. It felt like all ages-friendly lighting where things were supposed to be mysterious and dark, but still "safe"

I have lots of other examples of films and shows, but the question I have for everyone else is: Are filmmakers shooting things too safely these days?

We have an incredible amount of dynamic range, color accuracy, etc. now, and lots of ways to monitor it on-set and fine-tune the hell out of it, but I personally haven't found too many films and shows taking that risk to crush their shadows and blow out highlights anymore. They're out there, it just feels like it's getting fewer and far between.

So, let's discuss! I want to see what comes of all this dialogue

I would argue that the scene didn't work, and it wasn't the lighting that pulled you out.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I see a big difference between lighting a scene when having a digital feed to a monitor or just an optical view finder on a old film camera.

Before DP´s closed one eye and looked into the the set, today they stand around monitors and trying to make everything perfect on the screen which normally seams to make them take a bit more precautions than necessary. Also today "everyone is a DP" the Director, the producer, the client and who ever else that is in power to have an opinion. Back in the days it was different, very few on set could envision how the result would actually look so far less comments where dropped when there was a shitty video tap at best to comment about.

 

[H Dewey]

I wonder if some of the decision makers in regard to lighting aren't used to led lighting as opposed to tungsten lighting... in our everyday lives.

For me personally, having converted to led lighting in my home some years ago, any room not brightly lit is noticed immediately when I enter. And if I notice some part of a room is in shadow I find a way to fill that shadow with a lamp or something.

Led lighting has changed my world view.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

When I'm shooting VFX related stuff, that's about as clean as I get in terms of lighting to a T. I enjoy Bob Ross'n and having a few happy accidents available if we want to explore them, something as simple as an unwrangled flare on a pan to lock to reveal a character, but even that is predictable and "aimed at". But sometimes real happy accidents occur, a glint of light, a subtle dance of shadow, etc. Sometimes you want those special takes to make the final cut, but it's never a given if the edit feels better otherwise.

That said, all of this depends on the project. Much episodic needs to be dialed in to be consistent as different Director's and DPs will likely be utilized during the run of a show and much of that gets pretty safe, but it's safety that leads to consistency.

That makes sense, especially for VFX! The cleaner the better. I also understand re: safety/consistency when switching out crews. I'm curious now what your thoughts are on Halt and Catch Fire if you saw it?

I wouldn't say lit too well, as I would say lit too much or too flat.

In my book, if it's lit well, it doesn't mean that everything is lit, bright, visible. It means that the DP has correctly applied lighting techniques that uses both light and shadow.
You are absolutely right in the sense that many DP's today light in a "safe" way and I wish more would take chances with contrast, dark, silhouettes...

Very good points. I think if I could change the topic heading, it would be to what you stated about "too much or too flat". Often times, I feel it's the former - some DPs seem to bring attention to everything with their style of lighting, and for me, almost nothing then seems important.

I think this is a generational thing. Films have rarely been HDR before, meaning, 35mm always blow out windows or crush shadows and not until recently have we had the ability to manipulate images into being well exposed and within range across the board, matching up closely to how our eyes sees things. I think it's within the same realm as 3D and trying to make the screen into a window to another reality rather than a photographic image. This funamental philosophy of imagery in cinema is a big divide among many working today. Those who hate 3D I think also likes blown out windows and crushed shadows. Those who hate HFR and HDR (exposure-wise) also loves grain, 35mm look, older lenses with character rather than perfect lenses with sharpness.

I'm generalizing of course, but something like this:

This is a nice breakdown, even if you feel like you're generalizing! I really dig Phil Holland's philosophy on cinema and "The Window Effect" term he uses - I think what he and others are doing is really, really cool. We'll definitely see more of this as the other camera companies catch up, but nonetheless it works when done well.

I love it. Never been a big fan of blown out windows or crushed shadows.

I think the "perfect" lighting you're talking about most closely mimics how the human eye (and brain) see the world. The brain fill in so many details and the eye has such great response that IRL windows never/rarely look blown out to the eye.

Even though I completely blanked on HDR, it's pretty much here. Again, with regards to The Window Effect, it's great and matches closer to what our eye sees. I personally find myself asking for films and shows, though, that if it distracts too much from the scene, should you be showing it? I understand the counter-argument is blowing things out is distracting, too!


--------------------------

All of these points so far have been great - it's nice to see + read viewpoints from across the spectrum and learn new perspectives and reasons why things are (or may be) done!

I have a lot more of you to give responses to, but I'd like to take some more time to digest what you've posted and look through all the articles + videos!

 

[Marc Wielage]

I think the neophyte tag is unfounded. That is, the OP is obviously not a neophyte at watching movies, and I took it he was commenting as a consumer of movies.

I checked the o.p.'s IMDB page, and it told me what I needed to know. There are a lot of armchair critics out there on the net who believe they know better than professionals who've been doing their jobs far longer than the critics have been alive.

I think it's very rude on a professional forum like this to criticize a cinematographer's work (and the associated work being done by the colorists and post crew), particularly with preposterous and ephemeral phrases like "it looks too perfect." I don't have a problem with people asking how a particular shot was done in terms of lighting, and I think it would be fair to point out an actual flaw -- I'm thinking of a real technical problem like bad focus or shabby VFX or a shot that totally didn't match -- in terms of criticism. But I think getting personal and slamming an entire film on a whim is unkind, unprofessional, and ill-informed.

There were creative aspects of Last Jedi I didn't care for, but on the positive side, I thought the acting was good, I thought it looked terrific, it took us to locations we've never seen before, and there were some genuine surprises in the story. Given that it's made $1.3 billion worldwide so far, I'd say a large part of the audience enjoyed it. I don't dispute there are fans that don't like some of the creative choices in the script and characters, but I think Rian Johnson has defended those choices fairly well.

I would argue that the scene didn't work, and it wasn't the lighting that pulled you out.

That's a totally fair criticism and I can buy that.

Led lighting has changed my world view.

When you find out how often movies are extensively re-lit in post, it'll change your point of view even more. I think post production has given DPs a lot of new options in post, particularly when time ran out during production and they couldn't finesse a shot as much as they wanted, or weather conditions weren't controllable. You'd be surprised how much this happens, even on really big shows.

Speaking of big shows: noted DP Rachel Morrison from Black Panther noted that she put her foot down and insisted on waiting for the weather to clear for certain shots in that film, and that there was a bit of pushback from Marvel on it. She claims she won most of those fights, and this helped both the lighting and the look of the film overall, but that the producers were not accustomed to delays like that. So it is possible to push the envelope during production in order to help the lighting... when you have enough of a budget, schedule, and chutzpah to pull it off.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think the image should be judged by whether it is appropriate or inappropriate, not by how perfect or imperfect it is -- it's all about context.

But beyond that, I will say that digital technology has allowed a greater level of technical flawlessness than ever before, which is fine if that's what one desires, but I personally don't mind a feeling that flawed human beings made the image, the Japanese notion of wabi-sabi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

And I actually think that "Last Jedi" has some wabi-sabi to it, it's not flawless -- there are some rough spots, some grit at times, which I like. Despite being a big-budget movie, it feels like a personal expression of the filmmakers in many scenes, not an impersonal play-it-safe corporate creation (some of the criticism by Star Wars fans only proves that it wasn't trying to please everyone.)

I think with the low-noise of digital, with its increasing levels of dynamic range and resolution, it is getting harder to make an image rough, textured, gritty, and happy accidents happen less often or they are more self-conscious.

 

[James M. Holmes]

I think the image should be judged by whether it is appropriate or inappropriate, not by how perfect or imperfect it is -- it's all about context.

But beyond that, I will say that digital technology has allowed a greater level of technical flawlessness than ever before, which is fine if that's what one desires, but I personally don't mind a feeling that flawed human beings made the image, the Japanese notion of wabi-sabi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

And I actually think that "Last Jedi" has some wabi-sabi to it, it's not flawless -- there are some rough spots, some grit at times, which I like. Despite being a big-budget movie, it feels like a personal expression of the filmmakers in many scenes, not an impersonal play-it-safe corporate creation (some of the criticism by Star Wars fans only proves that it wasn't trying to please everyone.)

I think with the low-noise of digital, with its increasing levels of dynamic range and resolution, it is getting harder to make an image rough, textured, gritty, and happy accidents happen less often or they are more self-conscious.

I really like this David but is this a reason why a lot of people use vintage glass to cut the digital look?

 

[David Ellison]

There was a really interesting post made where a bunch of different DOP's tried to break down certain scenes in Bladerunner and how they were lit.
One DOP I forget who mentioned how he'd see a breakdown of Rachel taking the Voight Kamp test and some guy had seriously over engineered how
it was done with multiple lights and bounce cards and all sorts of superfluous stuff.
The guy pointed out it was a single source backlight bounced into a soft side light.
i think this reflects modern lighting in films over engineered when its the simple stuff that stands out.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

IMO, one clear trend in cinema has happened very slowly over a couple of decades but has changed the the way we create the final look of a film.

In the days when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and people shot on film with only an optical viewfinder, only the cinematographer really knew what he was going to get. And he (pretty much always a he) also knew that he had to get the look he wanted right there on set. Color timing - the olden day equivalent of today's "grading" process - could only do so much in post.

Fast forward and now, as pointed out above, "everybody" is a DP since they can see in the monitor what is going to be captured. But also, we have nearly unlimited capability to change the "look" of what we capture in the grading process as long as we got a "thick negative" when we shot.

I'd argue, given how expensive it is to linger on set, that it is a fairly reasonable approach to just get a good solid approximation of what you want in the final output and strive for that thick negative, which will allow plenty of latitude in the grading process. As always, the balance is between how expensive it is to pay the colorist for the extra work vs. how much it will cost to work longer on set to tweak the lighting and get just that "perfect" exposure. I am sure that rubs some long time DPs the wrong way because they have a certain and understandable pride in their role in setting the look of the film. Evolution...

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Idle thought - "criticism" and "critique" are different - and one person's perception of criticism might be intended as critique.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Time to address Mr. Wielage:

I checked the o.p.'s IMDB page, and it told me what I needed to know. There are a lot of armchair critics out there on the net who believe they know better than professionals who've been doing their jobs far longer than the critics have been alive.

Truth be told, there are only two projects on that IMDB page that I actually worked on. The other two belong to a BL from St. Louis I believe.

It seems hypocritical of you to say I'm acting rude, unprofessional, and ill-informed and then make a sweeping judgment of who I am just by glancing at some old short film and doc credits.

I also don't think IMDB credits should matter in my personal perception as a person in the audience that's making a comment about this film or any other?

I think it's very rude on a professional forum like this to criticize a cinematographer's work (and the associated work being done by the colorists and post crew), particularly with preposterous and ephemeral phrases like "it looks too perfect." I don't have a problem with people asking how a particular shot was done in terms of lighting, and I think it would be fair to point out an actual flaw -- I'm thinking of a real technical problem like bad focus or shabby VFX or a shot that totally didn't match -- in terms of criticism. But I think getting personal and slamming an entire film on a whim is unkind, unprofessional, and ill-informed.

What qualifications do you recommend everyone on this forum have before make any post regarding their own observations as an audience member, consumer, and cinephile?

I don't believe stating that I felt pulled out of a film (as well as other films or tv shows) because of how it was lit is an attack on a DP's work personally. I'm just pointing out an observation, and asked to open a dialogue to see if others felt the same or not.

There were creative aspects of Last Jedi I didn't care for, but on the positive side, I thought the acting was good, I thought it looked terrific, it took us to locations we've never seen before, and there were some genuine surprises in the story.

If you stated the create aspects you disagreed with, would it then be fair for us to say you're personally attacking the creators and have no right to state your opinion because you're not well-versed X or Y area? Of course not - everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Given that it's made $1.3 billion worldwide so far, I'd say a large part of the audience enjoyed it. I don't dispute there are fans that don't like some of the creative choices in the script and characters, but I think Rian Johnson has defended those choices fairly well.

With regards to earnings, this is a mammoth of a topic that strays completely from the open discussion.

When you find out how often movies are extensively re-lit in post, it'll change your point of view even more. I think post production has given DPs a lot of new options in post, particularly when time ran out during production and they couldn't finesse a shot as much as they wanted, or weather conditions weren't controllable. You'd be surprised how much this happens, even on really big shows.

Speaking of big shows: noted DP Rachel Morrison from Black Panther noted that she put her foot down and insisted on waiting for the weather to clear for certain shots in that film, and that there was a bit of pushback from Marvel on it. She claims she won most of those fights, and this helped both the lighting and the look of the film overall, but that the producers were not accustomed to delays like that. So it is possible to push the envelope during production in order to help the lighting... when you have enough of a budget, schedule, and chutzpah to pull it off.

All of this is great and informative, and every DP has their style of doing things. I'm happy to learn more about how others do what they do and why they do it this way or that.

Again, this topic was meant to open up a dialogue, and we've gotten some great insight so far and had fantastic discussion back and forth from all across the board. It's really cool hear everyone's insights.

I'll clearly state, so it doesn't go unnoticed, that I don't I'm better than the DPs making these enormous feature films, nor do I think I'm even close to a lot of great cinematographers and directors that are on here - I have a long way to go, and if I can be even 1/100th as good as some of the great people I know and admire, I'd feel like I'm getting somewhere.

Let's get back on topic, now :wink5:

 

[Bérenger Brillante]

I've always felt the more experience you get, the less projectors you put to get the same effect you wanted initially.
You just have to choose the right angle, height and source.

That's why I like seeing lots of projectors on the set, and DP's who are able not to use mot of them and still make it look good.

 

[Aaron michaels]

I think the craft is gone, shoot digital and they want powerful lights with low light shooting cameras so they can also shoot with natural light with less work. On the other hand, shooting film took people with ideas and crafts to make a movie look and feel great. Now we have too much light and get blown out windows, sky's etc. I think we have gained fast and powerful cameras but most classic films were shot on 35mm. Sometimes when I look at how much money we spend on digital equipment..How many films could I have shot on 35mm when I compare the cost. We have these great cameras to choose from but most of the time post production is imitating the flaws from film that we complained about. Have I been Drinking!? WTF?

 

[Mark K.]

I don't think 'perfect' is the right word. When the image is perfect, you don't notice it, because it carries you along in the story.

There is however a strong argument to be made that films are lit too softly these days - you see beautiful soft, wrapping key (and back, and edge) lights constantly (even in situations where it's completely incongruous for the light to be soft). It has an uncanny valley effect - That's the problem IMO.

 

[Aaron Lochert]

There's good cinematography, bad cinematography, and cinematography that is right for the movie.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I think with the low-noise of digital, with its increasing levels of dynamic range and resolution, it is getting harder to make an image rough, textured, gritty, and happy accidents happen less often or they are more self-conscious.

That's a very realistic assessment, David. I've been very surprised by how many of my post clients demand we add film grain to the final digital renders we release for their projects, and I invested in several thousand dollars worth of real film grain for that purpose. I'm not convinced it actually looks like film, but it very definitely takes the "digital edge" off the image and adds a kind of texture that I think works well for some projects.

But beyond that, I will say that digital technology has allowed a greater level of technical flawlessness than ever before, which is fine if that's what one desires, but I personally don't mind a feeling that flawed human beings made the image, the Japanese notion of wabi-sabi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

I should start a post house and call it Wabi-Sabi Post. (If anybody would get the joke: a post house run by flawed human beings.)

What qualifications do you recommend everyone on this forum have before make any post regarding their own observations as an audience member, consumer, and cinephile?

Not being an asshole is very high on that list. Especially a professional forum where potential employers and co-workers are reading the words you write and will remember who you are. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if you ever get hired to work on one of Mr. Yedlin's future films.

Again, what bothers me is the sweeping generalization that the entire film was "too clean," which is just silly. How did you see it? In the theater? In Imax? In Dolby Vision? In 3D? On home video? If the latter, how was your monitor calibrated? Can you really trust what you see?

The thing about being a critic is you have to be well-informed enough to make valid critical judgements. The internet is filled with crackpots who are basically unemployed kids living in their mother's basements and spending 20 hours a day on forums slamming the many things they don't like. I think there's a way to criticize something respectfully that doesn't insult the artist and also provides real examples of what you're talking about.

As one example: I got chided on Facebook a couple of weeks ago because I pointed out a real color-correction mistake in the brand-new trailer for Ant-Man & The Wasp. I loved the trailer, loved the color, and I look forward to the movie, but the curse of being a colorist is that if there's a mistake there, chances are I'm going to see it... because it's my job. I mentioned it in passing in a public post, and within an hour got a private message saying that the team who worked on it was chagrined and was now going to have to make the fix. I laughed and facetiously replied, "hire me, and I'll spot these problems before they get shipped."

The difference is: I wasn't slamming the artist, and I wasn't slamming the whole thing. I was criticizing 3 frames out of an entire theatrical trailer. It also wasn't on a professional forum, it was just a shoot-from-the-hip observation, and it was very precise (and I was right). Not a big deal. The people doing the work are great, it was just a momentary QC blip. Crap happens.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I've been very surprised by how many of my post clients demand we add film grain to the final digital renders

You know, I mentioned this to you at least a year ago, maybe more, but let me ask again: why don't they just do a film-out? Sean Baker likes that process, and he used it for the scene that he shot on digital in Florida Project. It doesn't fix the flaws in digital imagery but it reduces them. In fact I dare say that Tomb Raider (2018) used that process, too.

Your answer, as I recall, was that doing film-outs was not in your vocabulary. Something like, it's the worst of both worlds, or something to that effect.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

[...]

The difference is: I wasn't slamming the artist, and I wasn't slamming the whole thing. I was criticizing 3 frames out of an entire theatrical trailer. It also wasn't on a professional forum, it was just a shoot-from-the-hip observation, and it was very precise (and I was right). Not a big deal. The people doing the work are great, it was just a momentary QC blip. Crap happens.

I hear you, but...let me offer this constructive criticism. When you were good and ready to engage this thread, your first post on the subject was to basically laid out the status quo and drop the mic, which does not really meet any burden of proof. Slings and arrows ensued.

I think you and I are very much in agreement that there are many amazing productions out there where perfection of image is strong element of overwhelmingly strong productions. Which is what I said. And I do think that several people managed to narrow the scope of their subjects and/or arguments to take us from the impossibly sweeping statement of the OP to a place where one could see the two sides in meaningful ways.

You have a lot of industry experience, and I value very much what you write when I can productively apply it to my own work. For example, I'm now using an FSI DM-240 that arrived this week because I've finally taking your message of the importance of calibrated monitors to heart. If it really does help me get my productions to a place where they look sane on both desktop and the interwebs, I will definitely thank you.

Keep 'em coming!

 

[Sabovic Adis]

I think the craft is gone, shoot digital and they want powerful lights with low light shooting cameras so they can also shoot with natural light with less work. On the other hand, shooting film took people with ideas and crafts to make a movie look and feel great. Now we have too much light and get blown out windows, sky's etc. I think we have gained fast and powerful cameras but most classic films were shot on 35mm. Sometimes when I look at how much money we spend on digital equipment..How many films could I have shot on 35mm when I compare the cost. We have these great cameras to choose from but most of the time post production is imitating the flaws from film that we complained about. Have I been Drinking!? WTF?

No, You haven't!
It's just that some of us were born in different colorspace, and everything not looking filmway simply looks wrong.
Look what happens to audio: once we had only 40 dB of DR and just a couple of kHz to play with, so we had to ride faders, X-curve the lines, compress shit to death and limit the crap out everything so the noise wasn't audible...today, we don't have to, but we do it because it doesn't sound warm, round, ballsy or silky if we don't. We even add humm, buzz, jitter, wow & flutter, noise & turntable crackle...fuq! :rofl:

There's good cinematography, bad cinematography, and cinematography that is right for the movie.

Senseless to debate tastes?! Of course not, there's bad taste, good taste, no taste at all, You name it!

:biggrin:

 

[Eric Lange]

That's a very realistic assessment, David. I've been very surprised by how many of my post clients demand we add film grain to the final digital renders we release for their projects, and I invested in several thousand dollars worth of real film grain for that purpose. I'm not convinced it actually looks like film, but it very definitely takes the "digital edge" off the image and adds a kind of texture that I think works well for some projects.


I should start a post house and call it Wabi-Sabi Post. (If anybody would get the joke: a post house run by flawed human beings.)


Not being an asshole is very high on that list. Especially a professional forum where potential employers and co-workers are reading the words you write and will remember who you are. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if you ever get hired to work on one of Mr. Yedlin's future films.

Again, what bothers me is the sweeping generalization that the entire film was "too clean," which is just silly. How did you see it? In the theater? In Imax? In Dolby Vision? In 3D? On home video? If the latter, how was your monitor calibrated? Can you really trust what you see?

The thing about being a critic is you have to be well-informed enough to make valid critical judgements. The internet is filled with crackpots who are basically unemployed kids living in their mother's basements and spending 20 hours a day on forums slamming the many things they don't like. I think there's a way to criticize something respectfully that doesn't insult the artist and also provides real examples of what you're talking about.

As one example: I got chided on Facebook a couple of weeks ago because I pointed out a real color-correction mistake in the brand-new trailer for Ant-Man & The Wasp. I loved the trailer, loved the color, and I look forward to the movie, but the curse of being a colorist is that if there's a mistake there, chances are I'm going to see it... because it's my job. I mentioned it in passing in a public post, and within an hour got a private message saying that the team who worked on it was chagrined and was now going to have to make the fix. I laughed and facetiously replied, "hire me, and I'll spot these problems before they get shipped."

The difference is: I wasn't slamming the artist, and I wasn't slamming the whole thing. I was criticizing 3 frames out of an entire theatrical trailer. It also wasn't on a professional forum, it was just a shoot-from-the-hip observation, and it was very precise (and I was right). Not a big deal. The people doing the work are great, it was just a momentary QC blip. Crap happens.

AND also picking up on what David Mullen ASC was saying...

My visual memory of Last Jedi, was actually that there were a LOT of visual mistakes and dis-continuities and in fact they appeared to employ (roughly speaking) about 5 different visual styles (at least),

in terms of lighting, grading and shooting, and VFX/CG that I really appreciated. For me that made things a lot more interesting and actually showed to me that they willing to take more risks... I have to admit that's what caught my eye and mind; I remember watching in the cinema thinking that that was rather curious.

Maybe that's symptomatic of some of these productions being so large that you have five discrete teams working on stuff from different corners of the planet and it all has to come together.

I have to admit I kinda liked that. And for once I was actually really enjoying the movie rather than taking it all apart from shot to shot, which is rare for me.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Is Last Jedi out on blueray/4k yet as I think I want to watch that again... And maybe see if season 1 of Taboo is out on blueray or 4k too as just a comparison as I can't stand the compression level of Netflix/FX and the like... So would love to watch it at beter depth, color and tonality.