Are Films and Shows Lit Too Well Now?

[BrendanLeahy]

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

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Interesting. I think you have a point, but I can't point to any examples though.

 

[Michael Tiemann]

I love the perfect lighting of The Crown, The Man in the High Castle, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, etc. I love seeing the details that enrich rather than distract from the plot, the characters, etc.

As a boy I sang in a choir at the National Cathedral for a significant dedication attended by President Ford and Prince Charles. We sang beautifully, of course, but in my mind I kept taking snapshots of that hisoric event. I have the same feeling when watching the crown: incredible writing, incredible acting, but I keep noticing that every frame is just f*cking gorgeous. Hate to lose that.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

I love the perfect lighting of The Crown, The Man in the High Castle, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, etc. I love seeing the details that enrich rather than distract from the plot, the characters, etc.

As a boy I sang in a choir at the National Cathedral for a significant dedication attended by President Ford and Prince Charles. We sang beautifully, of course, but in my mind I kept taking snapshots of that hisoric event. I have the same feeling when watching the crown: incredible writing, incredible acting, but I keep noticing that every frame is just f*cking gorgeous. Hate to lose that.

I have not seen two on your list, but I have watched The Crown and agree it's beautifully shot.

Mr. Probst et al. on Mindhunter also did a great job. Both shows visually tell the story extremely well.

Perhaps a better way to explain it is sometimes in shows and films, the lighting seems grossly inappropriate, like they're trying to achieve beauty when, honestly, the scene and tone don't call for such.

Check out the opening 8 mins for Stranger Things - it's nice to look at, but seems a bit out-of-place for how suspenseful everything is meant to be. It's almost "too pretty" to enjoy, although I'm well aware of how subjective that statement is.

 

[Marc Pilato]

Good subject.I’m not a pro working in the feature film industry. But i’d say that it should be a creative choice first not a safety one. My preference goes to chiaroscuro style and films similar to «*the revenant*».But you lose time when you don’t control light and time is money.I think the limit should be the natural human vision so crushed black and clipped high light are natural.

 

[Phil Holland]

It's a great topic and I think in modern times if you have the budget, time, and crew to support "anything" it's often that "everything" is done to a real high standard to produce a decent level of production value.

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.

 

[James M. Holmes]

This is a great topic. Thanks Phil for your insightful answer. It makes total since that VFX needs it to be cleaner and less stylized. Also what Phil was saying about episodic cinematography I heard on the ASC podcast before when they was talking about Breaking Bad. I'm sure that many others follow that same approach of the pilot episode says what the show will look like for the life of the show.

 

[Marc Wielage]

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.

I think it's very easy for neophytes on the net to sit back and criticize from afar, rather than actually going out in the real world and producing real commercial work that's equal to or better than films at this level of expertise. Shows like Last Jedi are done after countless hours of discussion, storyboards, planning, camera tests, and previz, all leading up to the actual production. Then they start developing looks for dailies and the VFX, some of which eventually winds up in the final film, which in this case took more than 18 months.

It's not unusual for films at this level to be subject to opinions from the director, studio execs, the editor, the post crew, all ultimately handled by the finishing supervisor (in this case, senior colorist Walter Volpatto of Fotokem). Sometimes what ultimately winds up on screen is a compromise where multiple people's ideas all get incorporated to try to satisfy everybody; other times, the visuals are predominantly the decisions of just the director and DP. But I think the film had a lot of different looks, and I didn't see anything "safe" in there at all: they did some fairly striking, unusual visuals that we haven't seen before in the Star Wars universe. I wouldn't be surprised if thousands of man-hours went into creating the final looks for this film, particularly when you consider the VFX people and the color crew.

As one example: cinematographer Steve Yedlin -- who is an extremely creative and technically-aware DP if there ever was one -- went to great lengths to apply a very specific type of film grain in a VFX pass to the entire final image to make sure everything had one unified look, despite coming from live-action film stocks, digital VFX compositions, and digital cameras. They went to great pains to actually apply the grain at one level for the highlights, a different level for the mid-tones, and another level for the shadows, all to get the look Yedlin was looking for. I would bet hundreds of hours was just spent on the grain alone (particularly when you add up the dozens and dozens of different versions of the film that had to be delivered). Good or bad, what you saw represented the filmmakers' very specific creative intent -- not chosen arbitrarily, not accidentally, but all very specifically. Every shadow in every shot was deliberately placed there for a reason. And that is very typical for $200M+ Hollywood feature films.

To me, criticizing a film like this for looking "too perfect" is kind of like criticizing a singer because they hit all the notes dead-on and didn't make any mistakes, or criticizing a baseball player because they hit every pitch.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

To me, criticizing a film like this for looking "too perfect" is kind of like criticizing a singer because they hit all the notes dead-on and didn't make any mistakes, or criticizing a baseball player because they hit every pitch.

I haven't seen it so I cannot comment. But I think you are missing some of the argument.

Let's take opera, which I know very little about. People who appreciate opera will occasionally say that while a certain singer always hits her notes, she doesn't have that certain extra something. So perfection is not the problem at all - it's what else there is underneath it.

Or, let's take speakers. I once listened to a pair of flat panel speakers which exhibited very clear sound. In fact, maybe the sound was perfect. But the sound had no body to go with that perfection.

Perhaps that is the angle that Brendan was thinking about.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

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

 

[Daniel Stilling]

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...

 

[Christoffer Glans]

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:

Old-school
- Blown out windows, crushed shadows.
- Likes bleech bypass.
- Likes grain (not noise).
- Have a special love for 16mm and 8mm outside of their love of 35mm.
- Likes vintage lenses, anamorphic lenses.
- Likes a pushed grade, either in colors, contrast or both.
- Have a few books about grainy black and white photography
- Favors older movies over modern cinema.


Contemporary
- Likes HFR (not all, but some).
- Loves HDR.
- Expose well over the entire image (you can see out of windows).
- Shadows are dark but never crushed.
- Aims for a "window-look-through-effect".
- Loves high resolution and never go under 4K.
- Loves clarity and noise reduce as much as possible.
- Likes 3D.
- Likes a balanced grade, not too pushed in either colors or contrast.
- Have a few books on modern clean design and large canvas photos on their walls with super high resolution photos.
- Favors modern cinema.

 

[Eric Lange]

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

@Brendon you are a Director and DP and second unit director on a number of notable productions... If that is the case or not the case I certainly don't view your comment as coming from a "Neophyte".

I agree about your observation with Last Jedi. [BTW I absolutely loved that movie, I was expecting to hate it from all these hateful reviews but I enjoyed every minute and every second of it!!! ].

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 agree with that sentiment and in particular "all ages-friendly lighting". I think that's absolutely true. I laughed my arse off for the first quarter of the movie as it WAS really funny, and then the movie shifts into much darker psychological territory that I think went over the heads of most people vis a vie how sociopaths and malignant narcissist and Psychopaths are very very good at manipulation and counter manipulation and how folks that are excessively conscientious can be easily drawn into that. You also have multiple narratives as told from different character's viewpoints especially with the Skywalker character (that I LIKED very much, even though on the interwebs emotionally stunted individuals thought that that was a travesty); as the Skywalker character is more complex and has had to make tough calls that don't necessarily make him a two dimensional "Good guy" and has come to the conclusion that he has been barking up the "Wrong tree" for most of his life and a much more gritty yet balanced outlook. So NOMINALLY given those themes and darker psychological complexities of the movie (Last Jedi) things could have been shot/lit/graded in a far darker and more sinister fashion. However to do so would break "Form" for the whole franchise even though the script does have much darker and complex elements (that I really liked), but not worth it to have a seven to ten year old kid be an emotional wreck by the end of the movie and be really upset! That's not the goal of the franchise and it seems they were able to breath new life into the STAR WARS narrative without going off the rails or totally "Breaking it". I feel for what they did, and they did INDEED strike a very good balance IMO. You want kinds to like STAR WARS not be emotionally scarred by it LOL. It is difficult to make an all ages piece but I think they did that very well.

On the other hand, with the final battle scene, I thought was VERY artistic and almost illustrative that reminded me very much of the early conceptual artwork for STAR WARS... Very painterly in a way, was nice to see that or almost a graphic novel brought to life kind of feel, really appreciated that "Look" that they were going for.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

@Brendan I guess you are maybe asking why for example Last Jedi is lit/rendered the way it is versus how someone like Ridley Scot lit and shot Blade Runner* (first one).

Personally if you really crush your blacks/darker tones and blow out highlights then that works much better for shooting Black and White. If you do that for color, then that can have a bit of an 80's look to it, which can be very good if that's what you are going for.

In Europe and the U.K. there is a tendency to not over light principal characters/actors but make much better use of shadow. I LOVE shadows as that can bring a level of artful abstraction within the frame or shot, or can bring about very artful and almost painterly effects that are reminiscent of artists like Joseph Wright of Derby. I LOVE LOVE LOVE how Taboo is shot lit and rendered (as such); very observant to natural light of the day and sources of light plus amazing textures and deep brooding pallet of dark turquoise(s) and Prussian blues, and yet some very memorable scenes as lit/under-lit by candle light.

My other favorite for taking real risks has been MR ROBOT (phenomenal series)... And in the narrative that several different styles are applied.

Peter Greenaway is another that does take interesting risks like on the 'Draughtsman's contract" shooting was only at dawn and dusk for a substantial fraction of the production... That's a very narrow window to cram everything in !

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000425/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzMt-oAPaVU

^^BFI retrospective/ review by Mark Kermode of 'Draughtsman's Contract" . Much like (Jean-Pierre Juenet and Marc Caro's "Delicatessen" I wish I could go back in time and say "Guys" you have to shoot these things on 35mm (at least) Not 16mm !

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101700/
^^ "Delicatessen"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=Tg3V8HDK5go

^^Trailer for Delicatessen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNNaass9Zh4

^^Making of "Delicatessen".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLuVVw0wz4A

^^^"City of the Lost Children " + alternate trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa7oVPru4J8

and so on and son and so on...

Another example of a movie almost deliberately "Under lit" (very different style) would be Yorgos Lanthimos "The Lobster"... So when you start thinking about it there are lot of productions (typically more European) that don't over-light but seem to do the exact opposite.

https://www.imdb.com/videoplayer/vi151827737?ref_=ext_shr_emb_vi_i
^^Trailer for "The Lobster".
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*My father was a production designer but he always made sure that he kept up with what his friends and colleagues were doing on other productions so we would always make an effort to go to the movies mainly as a visual reference to what's going on. And I remember him saying that he felt really sorry for the production designer on Blade Runner as you couldn't see anything.... All that beautiful work just made almost practically non-visible lol.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*https://az334033.vo.msecnd.net/imag...rery-joseph-wright-of-derby-1766-760fbedf.jpg
^^Joseph Wright of Derby "Philosopher Giving a Lecture on the Orrery"

http://www.revolutionaryplayers.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/4216-0-1024x769.jpg
^^^^ Joseph Wright of Derby "An experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump" (image flipped horizontally).

https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/...derby-an-experiment-on-a-bird-in-the-air-pump

^^^ Right way round!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Joseph_Wright_of_Derby_The_Alchemist.jpg
"The Alchemist".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Wright_of_Derby


Interesting that in ALIEN COVENANT they were able to delve into that more painterly style of lighting etc. not a million miles away from Joseph Wright of Derby's paintings... I think they made very good use of "The Dark" and various sources of apparent lighting within the scene.

 

[H Dewey]

I think it's very easy for neophytes on the net to sit back and criticize from afar, rather than actually going out in the real world and producing real commercial work that's equal to or better than films at this level of expertise. ...

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.

As someone who is privy to much that goes on behind the curtain, your judgement may be colored by that knowledge and being sympathetic to the great pains taken. I just don't think this discounts the reaction of the OP who is reacting to the finished product.

I haven't seen the film or any of the others mentioned, but as an observer of everything, I too hate things that look too "perfect", including people. It is easier to "study" things that appear too near perfect because in the case of a movie, I am taken out of the story. The stories I get caught up in, I have no idea what the production values look like, as long as there is no flaw that holds the attention.

In the case of people, those who look too near to perfection, after a short time I have to avert my eyes because who knows?... maybe it is something deep that because I am not perfect, I do not identify with such a person.

Or maybe I just associate those perfect looks with shallowness.

 

[Tom Dowler]

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.

A lot of stuff looks better than the world really does, but I think it closely matches how the human brain enhances/adjusts for what the eye is really seeing.

And I think that makes it way more immersive and realistic feeling than the blown out windows approach. But that may just be a matter of personal taste.

 

[H Dewey]

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"

Brendan, the link below goes to story, but I think you will agree the lighting loses that "perfect" feeling you spoke of.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/...i-had-flaws-and-hishe-offers-corrections.html

 

[Craig Parkes]

I think the reality of the issue you pose is just how many VFX shots are in films these days. Older films have a level of spontaneity and accidental capture and even photochemical film processing that means they are inherently less uniform, but DOP's have been doing everything they can to get to a more uniform vision for a long time - the tools just maybe allow them to get closer these days.

I think Jaws is a great example where the DOP developed a photochemical process for evening out the super disparate skies between shooting days. That movie was fighting against inconsistency and today, well sky replacement is the norm.

It's things like this that remind you how YOUNG cinema is as an art form - just like when you look at the kinetic camera work of a Buster Keaton film - and then how when sound came in MUCH of that kinetic style was lost until the 70's and Hong Kong action films and Jackie Chan, because it was impossible to do with live sound production and Jackie Chan didn't care cause everything was going to be dubbed anyway. Then that got absorbed by western cinema and technology and ADR solved some of the technical issues for the quality of sound recording western cinema expected (or movies like Easy Rider and Badlands eschewed the norms of how many scenes with discernible dialogue were in etc.) and the sort of kinetic action of Buster Keaton films, that influenced Hong Kong action films, came back to America.

Meanwhile you know have TV shows like Mindhunter which is an extension of films like Zodiac (and stylistic choices from Fincher's earlier work) expanding what you can do on TV, and other shows like Glow that take the incredibly high fidelity look that can be had on TV and applies it to an era whose look was dominated by Videocamera tube and CRT tech or 16mm film recording and display tech.

If you don't like the look of contemporary films - it's not the lighting you don't like really I suspect (because the lighting is REALLY different between mediums, genres and individual films to this day) - you either don't like the across the board aesthetic (which is a combination of many factors) OR you don't like the competence and quality of the signal chain and instead want some sense of the artifice going on to be communicated WITHIN the medium.

Which is fine - artist and art critics alike SHOULD have thoughts about the canvas of the art - what it brings to the work and what limitations it introduces. Just be realistic that it's not a singular stylistic choice but a component of an era's style which is an interaction between the tools being used AND the style of today.

The thing I hope you DO appreciate is that the tools of today allow a MUCH greater variation of style (From say Mindhunter to Glow to The Last Jedi to Tangerine to whatever) than has been possible in any prior era. More varieties of lighting are available, they can be manipulated more in post.

Also budgets for dramatic episodic television AND theatrical releases are generally much higher than they used to be, the sorts of films and programming that maybe had the look you would like might only occur in indie cinema, or not even there, simply because films and shows that face the sort of compromises that they once did but ALSO had a budget that meant they had a mass appeal and audience simply don't exist, and the sorts of content that might fit the look you like might literally only be created at a budget level which simply doesn't exist for dramatic shows and has been replaced by reality TV.

I think the question better asked might be 'has budget increases on high profile shows and increases in technology removed too many compromises to create a striking aesthetic as a reaction to circumstance, rather than as a result of planning?' And I would say in mid-high budget drama, maybe it has to some extent.

 

[Raymond Zananiri]

Quite a propos, TCM was showing All The President's Men today. Many shots with dark or silhouetted faces, many with no fill at all, just one key light, many where you cannot see the eyes. What made great cinematographers like Gordon Willis so great, was not that they lit to make beautiful images. They lit to help tell the story, to create the right mood (for the story). In a world of conspiracies and secrecy, the darkness helped the story. Watch the film again if you could. I would bet you anything there is not a single cinematographer today who would dare take the same chances with lighting as Willis did in that film.
You are completely right. Lighting is more "artificially looking" today.
I would suspect digital might have something to do with it as well. I don't think you could successfully create the same contrasty lighting of All The President's Men with digital today. It would look really bad. Only film could do that. You really have to light your scenes flat with digital. Maybe things will change in the future.

 

[Matt W.]

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:

Old-school
- Blown out windows, crushed shadows.
- Likes bleech bypass.
- Likes grain (not noise).
- Have a special love for 16mm and 8mm outside of their love of 35mm.
- Likes vintage lenses, anamorphic lenses.
- Likes a pushed grade, either in colors, contrast or both.
- Have a few books about grainy black and white photography
- Favors older movies over modern cinema.


Contemporary
- Likes HFR (not all, but some).
- Loves HDR.
- Expose well over the entire image (you can see out of windows).
- Shadows are dark but never crushed.
- Aims for a "window-look-through-effect".
- Loves high resolution and never go under 4K.
- Loves clarity and noise reduce as much as possible.
- Likes 3D.
- Likes a balanced grade, not too pushed in either colors or contrast.
- Have a few books on modern clean design and large canvas photos on their walls with super high resolution photos.
- Favors modern cinema.

I don't totally agree with the specifics, but I think this is basically true and quite perceptive.

I prefer the old school aesthetic, and hope to see more of it in the future.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

I think it's pretty simple: if you're seeing the lighting, you're not watching the movie or show, you're studying it.

We all have the inner analyst. It's a very useful ability to be able to watch something, break it down mentally and learn from it. We're all doing it.

But in my opinion you can't watch and study at the same time. Lucky for me, it's my predisposition to watch 1st and study 2nd. Despite this, and even if I'm not in analytical mode at all, I sometimes get pulled out of the movie due to lighting. One example that stands out was on the last Lord of the rings where due to HFR and 3D some 'Day for night' scenes just looked extremely fake.

But OK, regardless. We can discuss if someone is supposed to be "beauty lit" in a dark forrest at night. But in the end it's not much different from... let's say a scene in Mindhunter where a guy gets interviewed in a room, apparently side lit from a small window and a bare bulb tungsten top light and yet... we get a beautiful soft warm light with pleasing roll off and dash of that striking light blue highlight from the side/back on the cheek...

In the end, isn't it just pretty pictures?

The upside is: if you feel everybody is doing the same thing—and it's not the right one—there must be an opening for you develop your own contrasting style and reap the rewards.