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 :)

Ask David Mullen ANYTHING

dark skin

dark skin

Hi David,

I'm gearing up for a feature with an entirely black cast. No actors are in place yet, but I know I'll be dealing with a variety of dark skin tones.
I'm curious if there are any pre-production things you tell any other departments in order to make your life easier as far as lighting a darker skinned actor.
Production design not have anything too bright? Wardrobe too. Etc...

Thanks,
-Dan
 
Yes, this is something I learned from the A.C. article on "Color Purple" -- if you darken the tones of wardrobe and sets, you have more freedom to increase exposure for the darker skintones without the surrounding objects getting too bright (and in the case of digital, clippy).

The other general rule is to remember that it is less about shining light directly onto a dark object as it is about reflecting the light off of that object. This is particularly true when lighting a black car, if you point a hard light directly at the shiny car, you just get a small hot spot in a black surface, but if you reflect a large soft source in the surface of the car, you can control how much detail is exposed and the tone and luminosity of that surface.

Skintones are not as reflective as a shiny car of course but the same principle applies, you'll find that you get nice detail when you have a soft source at a reflective angle, but even in a side-lit situation, often what you are really seeing is the soft source itself reflected on the surface of the dark skin.

Here's an example from an early F900 feature I did in 2000 called "Jackpot" -- it was shot in available light (and the sun was hitting the window sill which is why it is blown-out and clipped) but I had someone hold a white card behind the actor's head to cause that soft reflection on his cheek on frame right. Otherwise, his face is lit with natural window light:
jackpot13.jpg


So what you are seeing on his cheek on frame right is not so much the white card adding exposure as it is creating a reflection of itself in the surface of his skin.
 
Hi David,
More green/blue screen, among other things. I shot a blue screen commercial yesterday and (as you said) noticed that the reflected colour is much less than that of the green screen. I also tried some of the negative fill you discussed earlier and in the process discovered that a well placed white bounce card can indeed have a positive effect on green/blue spill on a reflective surface, similar to your post on dark skinned subjects. Here in Jamaica we shoot mostly dark skinned subjects:) Again thanks for all you help.
 
David,

I wish I could compile all your posts and turn them into a book.

So helpful and informative beyond belief. I've many hours reading
some of them and feel I've only scratched the surface.

I know you get lots of compliments, but I'm really grateful for
the resource you've created and are contributing to with this
thread.

Thanks so much,

Anthony
 
Hi David,

I have a couple questions for you.

First off, over in this thread, Anthony asked the REDUSER community how they make money off their cameras, and most of the people who've replied so far talked about ads or corporate work. I was wondering if you could comment, as someone who has "made it" as a cinematographer, on how difficult it is to make money shooting narrative work. How competitive a field is it, and how long did it take you before you could earn a living shooting primarily narrative?

Second: I am getting ready to shoot a scene that is supposed to be a wild party with lots of people, and takes place in a college dormitory lounge. I have never shot a scene like this before, and I am trying to figure out how to light it. We want to go for a high-contrast, very colorful look. We don't have the capability to hang lights from the ceiling, which is how I would think to light it. I was thinking of using fresnels, loaded with colorful theater gels, as key/side lighting, and possibly actually taping/clamping some small work lights or a couple Lowell Totas to the wall inside the frame to provide backlight and practical motivation.

What would your advice be for lighting a scene like this? In particular, do you think it would be possible to disguise some lights in the background as practical "club lights", if the key wasn't hitting the background much? Also, when using intentionally colored lighting how many colors is it reasonable to mix?

Thanks so much!
 
Sam Eilertsen said:
Anthony asked the REDUSER community how they make money off their cameras, and most of the people who've replied so far talked about ads or corporate work. I was wondering if you could comment, as someone who has "made it" as a cinematographer, on how difficult it is to make money shooting narrative work. How competitive a field is it, and how long did it take you before you could earn a living shooting primarily narrative?
Click to expand...

I don't own any cameras but my general impression from talking to those that do is that you don't first buy a camera and then find clients and work to pay for it, you buy a camera when you know your job market and clients well enough to reasonably expect the investment to pay for itself within two years. Now that's an entirely different issue than owning a camera to teach yourself or owning it to make your own projects.

It's a very competitive field and it never stops being competitive. It took me maybe three years after film school to earn a living regularly as a DP, but it took me ten years to earn what I would call a middle-class living, as opposed to a "it's slightly better than working at Starbucks" level of income. But I had the advantage of being supported by my wife during those years, which made it possible for me to concentrate on narrative cinematography, particularly features. After film school, I primarily shot low-budget features as a DP, I didn't do much corporate video work, though I did that as well now and then.

Second: I am getting ready to shoot a scene that is supposed to be a wild party with lots of people, and takes place in a college dormitory lounge. I have never shot a scene like this before, and I am trying to figure out how to light it. We want to go for a high-contrast, very colorful look. We don't have the capability to hang lights from the ceiling, which is how I would think to light it. I was thinking of using fresnels, loaded with colorful theater gels, as key/side lighting, and possibly actually taping/clamping some small work lights or a couple Lowell Totas to the wall inside the frame to provide backlight and practical motivation.

What would your advice be for lighting a scene like this? In particular, do you think it would be possible to disguise some lights in the background as practical "club lights", if the key wasn't hitting the background much? Also, when using intentionally colored lighting how many colors is it reasonable to mix?

Thanks so much!
Click to expand...

You first have to ask yourself how much club lighting would be installed for a dorm party. That's the trouble with house parties, for example, often there isn't much lighting in general, just a few dim lamps. You have to think about how these college students would have added colored lighting to the party -- maybe colored bulbs in some table lamps? A few cheap mini-PARCAN's on black poles in the corners? Some gelled fluorescent tubes? If you can justify some black theatrical lighting stands in the corners, you may also be able to create a "goalpost" rig of a horizontal pipe between two beefy stands for some hanging lights, maybe mini-PARCAN's though I prefer using Dedolights for that stuff if the light itself is mostly going to be out of focus in the background.

You can consider getting some dim ambient soft top light with hanging Chinese Lanterns, or by bouncing off of the ceiling.

As far as colors go, it sort of depends on how tacky you want the party to be. If not, then I'd create a color scheme that works from a narrative / mood standpoint (overall warm or cold, etc.) and create some variations (an orange key with a red backlight for example looks very rich and warm). Some colors (like deep magenta or green) work better as backlights than key lights, though it just depends on the look you want, sometimes a face in a deep colored light is interesting.
 
Hi David,

I know it's blasphemous to even mention the Arri Alexa on this board ;-)

But I was reading this article ...

http://www.fdtimes.com/news/?p=2107

And I was wondering what you think are the strengths/advantages of
the Alexa Camera. Obviously, it would be hard to find anyone
here to say nice things about it or feel it's worth the money ... but
since you've worked with so many cameras, lenses, etc -- I think that
if anyone could be objective it, that would be you.

Yes, I realize it's 2-3 times the price of Red MX and at least twice the
cost of the Epic when it comes out, but in case a client ever asks me
or wants a "look" or feature set that's slightly different ... I'd like to
have an understanding of what the Alexa offers that's unique.

I hesitated to ask this, but since it's "Ask David Mullen Anything" ...

:-)

Thanks in advance,

Anthony
 
As always, your comments are extremely helpful. Thank you.

The scene is supposed to be a bit creepy and disorienting (it is the opening scene of a crime drama), so I will probably go for something a bit sickly -- green and yellow or violet maybe. PARCANs will work perfectly, and I didn't realize how cheap they are!
 
AnthonyFlores said:
And I was wondering what you think are the strengths/advantages of
the Alexa Camera.
Click to expand...

Until I actually use one, I'd only be making guesses. Right now, it seems popular with TV series, partly because of the ease of ProRes recording and post maybe. I think in some ways that the Alexa is an ideal TV series camera for that reason. Simplicity, cost and speed of workflow is a much bigger issue for TV shows than it is for features due to the large volume of material shot compared to the short post schedules, tight deadlines, and tight budgets. Not that Red One footage is hard to post anymore, but it still requires a transcoding step, which for some producers, is one step too many.

I don't think it's fair to compare it to the Epic yet since that camera isn't available for testing; currently you can only compare it to an M-X Red One. It seems to me that on paper, the primary advantage of the M-X Red One (ignoring cost of ownership, which is not an issue with me) is resolution, which is a bigger factor for theatrical feature work than for television work.

Not having used the Alexa, I don't know whether it is more reliable than an M-X Red One, but general reports from the field seem to indicate that the Alexa is working pretty well so far.

For feature work, I'd be more interested in the Alexa if they got their 2.8K ARRIRAW up and running. I'd also be more interested if they put out their 4x3 sensor version with the optical viewfinder; it would be great to shoot an anamorphic feature with one. 2.8K RAW on a 4x3 sensor with a 2X anamorphic lens wouldn't be much less horizontal resolution than shooting in the Red One's ANA format with 2X anamorphic lenses. But again, that 4x3 sensor version of the Alexa doesn't exist yet.

I think if I tested the Alexa against an M-X Red One for a feature (again, first waiting for 2.8K ARRIRAW to be implemented), I'd mainly be looking to see if the resolution difference was outweighed by other image advantages that the Alexa might have.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Until I actually use one, I'd only be making guesses. Right now, it seems popular with TV series, partly because of the ease of ProRes recording and post maybe. I think in some ways that the Alexa is an ideal TV series camera for that reason. Simplicity, cost and speed of workflow is a much bigger issue for TV shows than it is for features due to the large volume of material shot compared to the short post schedules, tight deadlines, and tight budgets. Not that Red One footage is hard to post anymore, but it still requires a transcoding step, which for some producers, is one step too many.

I don't think it's fair to compare it to the Epic yet since that camera isn't available for testing; currently you can only compare it to an M-X Red One. It seems to me that on paper, the primary advantage of the M-X Red One (ignoring cost of ownership, which is not an issue with me) is resolution, which is a bigger factor for theatrical feature work than for television work.

Not having used the Alexa, I don't know whether it is more reliable than an M-X Red One, but general reports from the field seem to indicate that the Alexa is working pretty well so far.

For feature work, I'd be more interested in the Alexa if they got their 2.8K ARRIRAW up and running. I'd also be more interested if they put out their 4x3 sensor version with the optical viewfinder; it would be great to shoot an anamorphic feature with one. 2.8K RAW on a 4x3 sensor with a 2X anamorphic lens wouldn't be much less horizontal resolution than shooting in the Red One's ANA format with 2X anamorphic lenses. But again, that 4x3 sensor version of the Alexa doesn't exist yet.

I think if I tested the Alexa against an M-X Red One for a feature (again, first waiting for 2.8K ARRIRAW to be implemented), I'd mainly be looking to see if the resolution difference was outweighed by other image advantages that the Alexa might have.
Click to expand...

Thanks David, unlike Red cameras, I doubt I will ever own an Alexa, but I'm
really enjoying the process of learning about all these technologies.

I'm realizing that no matter how much I absorb, work, shoot -- this kind of
wisdom cannot be gain overnight -- or even in a year. As you indicated in a
previous post, you've put what -- like two decades into this?

It really shows and I appreciate how much of your extensive knowledge you
are sharing.

Anthony
 
AnthonyFlores said:
I'm realizing that no matter how much I absorb, work, shoot -- this kind of
wisdom cannot be gain overnight -- or even in a year. As you indicated in a
previous post, you've put what -- like two decades into this?
Click to expand...

Well, learning is an ongoing process, but I also spent a lot of my college years and the years following it in film libraries reading books and old journals.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Well, learning is an ongoing process, but I also spent a lot of my college years and the years following it in film libraries reading books and old journals.
Click to expand...

Thanks again David. Actually, I have one more thing to ask -- what in your
opinion is the best resource (print or DVD) for learning the fundamentals of
lighting?

I know nothing beats real world experience, of course, but for a primer on
the fundamentals of cinema lighting ... I'd be curious to know what you think
is the best resource.

Thank you! :-)

Anthony
 
Here's a quick budget-oriented question:

You have $20,000 to create your lighting kit. You want to cover all your bases (indoor, outdoor lighting, etc) and get the most you can out of it using a Red One Mysterium X sensor.

What do you get?

What do you get?
 
I can't be that precise in terms of telling you what to get, particularly since the budget is tight, obviously you are going to look for deals, used equipment, etc. and who knows the prices on that stuff in advance?

Being more vague and general, you need a mix of tungsten and daylight sources, or lights that are switchable between the two (such as fluorescents and some LED's). You need small focusable lights. You need some big punchy sources. And probably the really big stuff you'd still rent when necessary (a 20K tungsten or an 18K HMI, for example.)

Also, if your budget is tight, then most likely this package will have to work for 20amp household circuits rather than rely on a generator. So that limits you to 2K and lower in terms of wattage.

I'd say you first need a basic tungsten kit, usually a case with a couple of 650w and/or 1K's in it, maybe a mix of fresnels and open-faced units.

You may also want something smaller and more focusable, like some Dedolights.

Then for the punchy stuff, maybe a couple 1K PAR's or PARCAN's, with spot, narrow spot globes, or even the 1.2K "firestarter" types.

Then for daylight, maybe at the small end, a small Litepanel LED or something like that, and then maybe an 800w Joker HMI, plus something like a Kinoflo unit (maybe a 4' 4-bank, or 2' 4-bank, etc.). Then maybe add a 1.2K HMI PAR when you can, though the 800w Joker is about as bright. Again, like the tungsten spot PAR, the 1.2K HMI will give you your punchy effects to simulate sunlight on a small scale.

Beyond that, there are all the oddball things like Chinese Lanterns and homemade fixtures that use lightbulbs and whatnot.

I'm also a big user of Source-4 Leko's, both the 750w tungsten and the ones with 800w HMI Jokers, but that may be out of your initial budget range.

I think you'll find 1K tungsten PAR's to give you a lot of bang for the buck, and for the power.
 
AnthonyFlores said:
Thanks again David. Actually, I have one more thing to ask -- what in your
opinion is the best resource (print or DVD) for learning the fundamentals of
lighting?

I know nothing beats real world experience, of course, but for a primer on
the fundamentals of cinema lighting ... I'd be curious to know what you think
is the best resource.
Click to expand...

The best resource is really just inspiration from lighting that you like -- lighting in nature, lighting in movies, lighting in paintings. You can then reverse engineer what you observe and figure out how to recreate it. I used to create scrapbooks of frames from movies (taken off of the TV set, later grabbed off of a DVD) to be studied later at my leisure, or glanced at for inspiration.

Book-wise, my favorite has always been "Film Lighting" by Kris Malkiewicz. I also like interview books that mix creative and technical talk, like in "Masters of Light" and "Cinematography Screencraft". Of course, there are some good tech manuals on lighting, such as Harry Box's and the Carlson's books.
 
Thanks David, just ordered the books on Amazon. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Dear David,

Are these Color Viewing filters really useful? If yes, how do you use them yourself? I know the general theory behind it, but would love to hear of its true, practical usefulness in the field.

And lastly, if they are useful for shooting film, are they equally useful when shooting on the RED?

Thank you David!
George

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/60792-REG/Tiffen_3CVF.html
 
If you are talking about contrast viewing glasses, that's just a personal style issue, some people find them useful. They basically darken the image so that you can judge more easily with your eye how dark the shadows are going. I've only used one when I did a b&w short film because of the higher contrast of the film stock. Modern stocks see detail much closer to how our eyes see things, especially a well-trained pair of eyes, so I haven't felt the need to look through one -- but I see some major DP's still using them, so they must still find it useful.

The thing with digital is that you don't have to imagine anything about how the image might turn out, you can see the lighting effect on the monitor with reasonable accuracy. So a contrast viewer would be more used in pre-lighting or on a scout when you didn't have a camera there, but these days, people even take digital cameras out on location scouts.

I also wonder if a pair of dark sunglasses could do the job just as well as a contrast viewer...
 
Hi Mr. Mullen,

First of all, thankyou for your generous donation of time and expertise here on the forums. You represent an amazing resource to aspiring Cinematographers, myself included. We are extremely lucky to have you. On to my question.

I currently live in Edmonton, Alberta. I am in my second year of English studies at the University of Alberta. I tell you this because I recently read somewhere (perhaps the 'Cinematographer Style' interviews?) that you acquired your bachelors in English literature before you even began a career in Cinematography. This deeply interests me for a variety of reasons. Being an aspiring Cinematographer myself, I can't help but wonder how positive (if at all) the effects of my degree may be on my work. I originally took English to better my reading comprehension and writing skills in hopes that it would contribute in some way to my art of understanding and perception, and ultimately, to my Cinematography. I did not take it because I want a career in Academia. I am constantly plagued with guilt. I ask myself:
"Wouldn't it be better to be out there shooting?",
"Wouldn't it be better to have more time to study movies?",
"Will my degree in any way influence my ability to get Cinematography jobs in the future?"

In short, I feel like I may be wasting my time. English literature has always been something I enjoy, but not even close to the extent that I enjoy Film. The question that I wonder about most, David, is, "Will my degree in any way influence my ability to get Cinematography jobs in the future?". Am I going to be judged purely on the quality of my work and my ability to work with others? Or does my past (Academic and not) play any part in it. What do you think I should do? Did you struggle like I did back when you were younger? I understand this may be a broad and difficult question for you to answer. As always I deeply appreciate your time and help. If you could offer any insight, musings or stories of your own I would be greatly indebted to you. Thanks very much David!

Sincerely,
Evan Prosofsky
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top