I'd like to be able to learn from each other here. This thread will be for learning to get more complex lighting for the folk here. The format is:

1) Post a screenshot or viddy clip
2) Describe the lighting setup in detail
3) If you like, detail why you choose this particular setup

I'll start:
1)
43

2)
I have a clamp light directly to the left of the two actors. You can see the rim of light on the face and some flare from it on the left side of the frame (the XL1s doesn't show you the whole frame in the viewfinder :( )

Three more to the right and higher to provide fill. All lights are clamped scoop lights from the hardware store with Phillips Marathon Soft White flourescent bulbs that fit in normal sockets.

3)
I thought this lighting setup would look neat ;)

How do I post a frame of footage up? I see it done all the time. but have no clue how to do it... just give me the quick details and I will post them as I go along...

When posting, go advanced, then click on the paperclip above the text entry box...Once you have chosen the file and uploaded it, it will be added to the paperclip menu...selecing that will add it to the message.

I just bought the special edition release of "Dead Poet's Society" at target for $13.78...the BTS has a ligting master class that is one of the coolest things I've seen on lighting yet. I just wish it were longer. It shows not only straight up light here, light here kind of stuff, but using camera tricks as well and simple practical onset solutions to big problems.

Nice find.. I'll have to swing by target this week.

Here is some lighting by example that shows the lighting as well...no explanation needed...I lied...the card is just a pice of foam core from the hobby store for reflecting light...lights used are craftsman 500w worklights...couple of variations are shown.

53

54

51

52

These were from our lighting tests before we shot "Average Joe"...to see if we had a prayer of putting it together or if we were just full of ourselves.

I'd have to lean toward just full of yourselfs.. :D haha just kidding.. ya ya I know.. back to editing. :)

Found a related video series with cool sample vids:

http://www.power-of-lighting.com/videos.html

Got a request from someone via e-mail for how to on a shot from our trailer, thought I'd pass on my answer here:

57

um...let me try to remember what we did. That is one of my proudest shots lighting wise in this production. I use compact flourescent self-ballasted screw in bulbs I like the GE softwhite bulbs, they filter out alot of the green tint from flourescents. I put these in ACDelco clamp lights (the ACDelcos won't fall apart on you when you use them for a little bit)...grand total, $15 / light.

3 of these clamped to a microphone boom stand on the right of the actors and about 5 feet above the floor. one light on the left for fill. incandescent table lamp behind him to the right for a little warm halo (white balance to the flourescents) and the bluish glint off the left cheek was either the moon or a street light out the window behind them...I just moved the lights closer to her when it came to do her singles so the light density matched on them. I left the blinds open behind them to let the black background fly (it was night-time). a bounce card could have been used to bring up the left side of the face for a less moody look, but it's a flashback, so I wanted it to be almost noir-esque.

Generally, you set the actors down and determine where the normal light would come from in a room and set your key light there...in this case, it was from the front of the couch...if it was to be a daylight shot, I would have keyed on the window side. Look into the camera and adjust your exposure to this.

Add fill light (lower level light to fill in the shadows) to the opposite side of the face (standard is 2 to 1 ratio of light...I just use my eyes) and lower (if the key is higher than the actors).

Then add light to the back from above if you can to create a halo around your subjects that acts as an outline against the background separating you subjects from what's behind them. If you end up having to fall to one side or the other with this, fall on the fill side as it will have the most trouble separating from the background (unless you light the background which we'll cover next).

if you have a bland background, you can either keep it dark and let the characters speak for themselves, or you can use light from severe angles to create some lines in the background (see toward the end of Casablanca when they come back to the bar and go upstairs to the office). You can shoot light through a cutout (window panes, venetian blinds, anything to add some texture). If you've spent the time to either dress the set or have a location that doesn't need it (much faster and cheaper), throw light across the background (shelf of books with titles hidden or out of focus, mixing console, cool curtains/draperies/tapestries, textured paint) at an extreme angle to show off the textures it creates...you may end up throwing light across it the other way to fill depending on your needs as well, just treat it like another subject in this case.

Leave enough room between your subjects and the backgrounds to provide room for lighting if necessary. by physically separating the subject and the background, it makes it easier to throw the background out of focus as well. If you get the camera closer to your subjects, the Depth of Field will decrease. right next to the camera lens, you can generally focus on you thumbprint and the back of your thumb will be out of focus...about 5 feet from the camera, you have about 2 feet of focus and that distance increases as you move away from the lens. Graph this with a tape measure for your camera so you know what your DoF options are. It may take a while, but the benefit is the control over your image that you get from the exercise. Remember that if you adjust the exposure it'll change your DoF...wide open (lower f-stop numbers like 1.4, 1.6, 1.8) will give you the shallowest DoF, while closed down (f-stop 18, 22) will give you longer DoF. You can use Neutral Density filters and polarizers to control the exposure at this point.

Run your camera in manual mode, don't trust it, it's a stupid machine. Make sure you run through a checklist every scene:

--Actors and Director--

This is all done on the set with the DP and crew taking notes...they will use this to set up the shot
Readthrough
Block (position your actors in the scene and figure out where they will need to go)

--DP and Crew--

I recommend fluorescent lights for the lack of heat
Use stand-ins/PA's while the director goes over the scene with the actors
Props
Lights
Framing
Adjust Focus
Adjust Polarizer (yes, even indoors I use them)
Check for glare from the lights
Check frame for extraneous contents (mic stands, exposed logos, people's feet)

--All Together Now--

Adjust Exposure
Check Focus
Check Sound Level
Recheck Focus
Quiet Please!
Rolling sound (if separate)
Announce shot for audio
Rolling Cameras
Slate
Background!
Action!
... (listen for sounds other than what the actors are supposed to be making)
Cut!
Lather
Rinse
Repeat

If you have more questions, you can tell I like to explain things...it helps me to understand them by forcing me to articulate each aspect of it, so I learn to. Lots of great info on http://www.indietalk.com on this and other aspects of indie production.

Oh man. There are a few things I wish this site had and this is one of them; except poor knightly is the only one doing it. This thread should be HUGE! Well the idea is a really good one, thanks knightly. :cool:

How to light a given scene. I must admit, I would rather throw my whole budget at a real lighting guy than do it myself. But since my budget is usually five bucks that doesn't work very well so my brother and I do it.

Here's one from me...

http://allknightproductions.com/pub_image/officer1a.jpg

This was particularly difficult because the room was really small (hot too just ask spinner) and we needed to make it look like an interrogation room.

We turned off the practical and hung a 150 Watt incandescent over the table. The biggest mistake was, that's all we used. :blush:

The nice thing is you learn by doing and so from this one, we learned that an eye light would have worked very well and if we had bounced some fill that would have been really good too. Separating the actor from the wall by having a frosted kicker back there to throw some light on the wall. The things you don't think about late in the shooting of a 48 hour film contest.

Since then I've learned about the little carrot under the nose and the twinkle in the actor's eye. I bought a book about how the pro's lit certain situations and I was shocked at how many lights these guys use for a shot. I'm in the process of trying to duplicate what I see and it's really nice to have a book that blue-prints the whole set up. We have another shoot coming up so I'll add something we did right after that's done. ;)

Some Light by Example here... http://lightextreme.com/wst_page4.html

Some Light by Example here... http://lightextreme.com/wst_page4.html

Would you be willing to detail how you lit the shots in those pictures (and possibly post the pix here too)?

We are working with a greenscreen sized 5.2 x 3 m. The edges are seamed and have a lot of thread eyes to make attachment easier.

We use 2 heavy Manfrotto stands (http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/cache/offonce/pid/2581?livid=2&idx=3) (max. height 4.1 m) and attach a pivot clamp (http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/cache/offonce/pid/2887?livid=17&idx=29) on each one. Those are parts of 2 of the light boom kits (http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/cache/offonce/pid/2869?livid=31&idx=38) Manfrotto offers. In addition we bought 2 extra boom sections to get the full length of 6 m. Because the sections haven't been made strong enough for that length you will have to support it in the middle by an autopole (http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/offonce/lang/de/pid/2896?livid=31|32&idx=33). That is basically a nice long stand which can be clamped between walls or floor and ceiling. With the help of superclamps you can hang your lights anywhere without having tripot stands in your frame.

Now we put a rope through all thread eyes and around the boom sections. The lower corners of the greenscreen should be stretched with ropes too so you get a nice crumple free background.

The greenscreen was lit by three Sachtler 1000 W halogen with diffusor. Two of them left / right at the ground and one on the top mounted on antoher autopole. I would also recommend the usage of green gel to increase the green purity.

The actor was lit by two Kobold daylight HMI 200 W, the key light from his left side 45 degree down and the fill from the right front, farther away. You have to be carefull not to compromise the greenscreen light.


Our crew preparing to shoot.
http://www.loom.at/wiki/images/4/49/Greenscreen_Crew.jpg


Me attaching the greenscreen. You can see the size of the greenscreen.
http://www.loom.at/wiki/images/5/5b/Greenscreen_Aufhaengung.jpg


Here you can see the whole setup I described earlier. Because we were missing one boom section, the frame was too short leading to some non-avoidable crumples.
http://www.loom.at/wiki/images/9/9d/Greenscreen_Aufbau.jpg


Closeup of the actor.
http://www.loom.at/wiki/images/4/4f/Greenscreen_Nahaufnahme.jpg


Acting in front of nothing isn't easy for an actor.
http://www.loom.at/wiki/images/9/9f/Greenscreen_Schrei.jpg

You need several lights to get a good result. Three lit the greenscreen and two the actor.
http://www.loom.at/wiki/images/0/09/Greenscreen_Verzweiflung.jpg


After showing you some setups you might be interested in some before and after shots directly from the camera and final postpro.

http://www.loom.at/wiki/images/2/2b/Greenscreen_CU_raw.jpg


The image looks a bit blurry because of the extrem grading, blooming and virtual camera shakes with motion blur. But it looks very good in motion.
http://www.loom.at/wiki/images/c/c7/Greenscreen_CU_Final.jpg

Another setting:
http://www.loom.at/wiki/images/c/c3/Greenscreen_Boden_raw.jpg

http://www.loom.at/wiki/images/d/d5/Greenscreen_Boden_Final.jpg


You can downlaod some video diaries from our JENSEITS homepage (http://www.jenseits.at/download_diary.html). The videos are in German, but I think you can get the picture.

The result of the greenscreen work shown above can be viewed in the seventh diary (=Produktionstagebuch 7), available as XviD (http://www.loom.at/download/jenseits/Jenseits_Production_Diary_7_Effekte.avi), WindowsMedia (http://www.loom.at/download/jenseits/Jenseits_Production_Diary_7_Effekte.wmv) and Quicktime (http://www.loom.at/download/jenseits/Jenseits_Production_Diary_7_Effekte.mov).

candle light

This was done with one light. Important considerations are
- Level of ambiance (as the Mood setting element)
- Direction of the Key (horizontal and vertical angle)
- Quality of the Key (observe how does it occure in life)
- Intensity of the highlight on the face (if you look at life examples it hardly ever excedes Zone V)
- Color of the source (Amber gel)

@ jansik

In my opinion your candle light example has a certain lack of realistic impression of candle light. For me the nose shadow looks too strong and falls just not at the right angle. The light also seems too harsh because candle light should throw a soft kind of shadow (a flame is not a point light but a small aera light).
Look at this example, which is a true candle light only photo:

http://www.johannes-leckebusch.de/Licht/Kerzen.jpg

Thank you for your comment.
I suggest you take a candle and look at the reflection in the mirror in dark.
Observe the Light Quality and distribution of shadow. Observe the ambiance.
Try lighting from life rather than from the books.
And dont give up... you can still learn.

Thank you for your comment.
I suggest you take a candle and look at the reflection in the mirror in dark.
Observe the Light Quality and distribution of shadow. Observe the ambiance.
Try lighting from life rather than from the books.
And dont give up... you can still learn.

I really don't get the sense of your answer?
I suggest you take a look at the photo posted above, which is lit ONLY by candles. I did not make or light this scene, I just found the picture and put it up here as an example how REAL candle light looks like.
To my eyes your example just looks fake.

And thank you for you advice to not learn from books and not give up .... :D
You might be interested to know that I did work as the lighting camera man for a full feature film which has been played for several weeks in cinemas in Austria. So I already might have a little bit of knowledge how to light ;)
In fact I have already successfully lit a couple of candle light scenes. And I always learn by using a combination of theory (books), practice (observing and reproducing) and common sense. There is and always will be more to learn, but that is the interesting part of life.

Hey guys, I think both look fine. This is "lighting by example", so please post to the topic and refrain from harshly judging other's examples.

according to the specular highlights in the left girls' eye, I think there might be a third light in the shot...and the shadow on the left is below the girls' heads.

Depending on the subject of the piece you're shooting, both lighting setups are valid. The first is more of a classic noir/horror look with the shadows drifting quickly to black. The second is more of a glamour lighting setup with (at least) 2 sources providing Key (the handle held by the girl) and fill (the candle held by the other girl).

The proximity of the light sources in the 2 shot gives a much softer light whereas the larger artificial light being farther away would give a harder edge to the light and over power the practical flame's luminance (easier to expose the flame within tolerance in this setup as well).

Again, both are equally valid lighting setups depending on the mood you're going for.

Er guys ... only anoraks go to the movies and try to figure out how many lights were used in a shot -- the audience wants to get involved in the story, they frankly could care less -- the purpose of good lighting is to be invisible -- it helps set mood and tone, but it's not a facet the audience should be aware of.

Now, if you think about sound usage in films the sound FX are rarely reproductions of the actual sounds -- they are designed to give a notion of -- if you listen to the gun shots in Sergio Leone films they in no way represent the real sound of a Colt Peacemaker -- they are there to create dramatic effect.

The same is true of lighting -- it's not about lighting from reality, it's about creating an illusion that is greater than reality -- a pseudo reality that the audience accepts as real.

So, within that framework, there is no right way to light a shot -- it's more a case of knowing enough to achieve the look that you set out to achieve.

If you want to get really picky about this, you only need to look at Dogma films, where one of the rules was -- only use the available light in the location.

What this tells me, is on a profound level lighting is not a massively important element in story telling -- it's nice to have good lighting, but actually only good story telling is truly important.

Now, baring in mind that most producers in the industry will tell you that 98% of all the scripts they see are unreadable -- not just unmakeable, but actually unreadable -- how important is it really that you can simulate candle light?

What I'm really trying to say is this -- when it comes to nit picking details of production -- we all need to LIGHTEN UP :lol:

does that make me an anorak? Whenever you learn something, it become the only thing you can notice. This happened to me when I learned to mix music, play guitar, sing, light, expose a camera correctly, frame a shot...etc. (ad naseum). The story is good when I don't notice everything in the production of the shot when I'm specifically looking for it.

according to the specular highlights in the left girls' eye, I think there might be a third light in the shot...and the shadow on the left is below the girls' heads.

Depending on the subject of the piece you're shooting, both lighting setups are valid. The first is more of a classic noir/horror look with the shadows drifting quickly to black. The second is more of a glamour lighting setup with (at least) 2 sources providing Key (the handle held by the girl) and fill (the candle held by the other girl).

The proximity of the light sources in the 2 shot gives a much softer light whereas the larger artificial light being farther away would give a harder edge to the light and over power the practical flame's luminance (easier to expose the flame within tolerance in this setup as well).

Again, both are equally valid lighting setups depending on the mood you're going for.
Bullseye Knightly... I am impressed !
Of course there is a third light in the glamour shot. It is a soft source that comes from low angle cam left. The softer look comes not necessarily because of the closeness of the candles but because there are two of them and they both eliminate each other shadow. Candle is still a very hard light no matter what distance. I agree with your assesment about Glamour and Noir rendition.

Er guys ... only anoraks go to the movies and try to figure out how many lights were used in a shot -- the audience wants to get involved in the story, they frankly could care less -- the purpose of good lighting is to be invisible -- it helps set mood and tone, but it's not a facet the audience should be aware of.

Now, if you think about sound usage in films the sound FX are rarely reproductions of the actual sounds -- they are designed to give a notion of -- if you listen to the gun shots in Sergio Leone films they in no way represent the real sound of a Colt Peacemaker -- they are there to create dramatic effect.

The same is true of lighting -- it's not about lighting from reality, it's about creating an illusion that is greater than reality -- a pseudo reality that the audience accepts as real.

So, within that framework, there is no right way to light a shot -- it's more a case of knowing enough to achieve the look that you set out to achieve.

If you want to get really picky about this, you only need to look at Dogma films, where one of the rules was -- only use the available light in the location.

What this tells me, is on a profound level lighting is not a massively important element in story telling -- it's nice to have good lighting, but actually only good story telling is truly important.

Now, baring in mind that most producers in the industry will tell you that 98% of all the scripts they see are unreadable -- not just unmakeable, but actually unreadable -- how important is it really that you can simulate candle light?

What I'm really trying to say is this -- when it comes to nit picking details of production -- we all need to LIGHTEN UP :lol:
If you dont mind...
Let us idulge... that is how people who light talk about what they do... Of course the audience doesnt care on the conscious level.
I dont think that any thinking Dir of Photo would have an issue with the fact that story is priority...
What is it actually that you are trying to say...
Light is important..., Light is not important...,
What you telling us is .... "Hush you guys I can do without you..." (?)...
Sure... we heard this all before...
One thing about Light though... You dont have capacity of of rendering it in quasi-realistic fashion unless you know the reality of it.

For our movie "Finger," I borrowed an old clamp-on work lamp from my dad's garage. It is very likely an antique--or close to it. It is a dented metal bowl about a foot wide, with a light socket in it. I unscrewed the clamp, took it off, and hung the bowl (by its wire) from the ceiling about 3 - 4 feet above the surface of the table. We put in a 25 watt soft white bulb, and turned off everything else. That's all we used for the attached screenshots.

This one is little fakey I admit..., and again... I dont think people should have problem buying it.
Typical Narrow Key setup -
- Two narrow crisscross 420W Fresnells
- One 1K Bounce for ambiance
- Something on the background

For our movie "Finger," I borrowed an old clamp-on work lamp from my dad's garage. It is very likely an antique--or close to it. It is a dented metal bowl about a foot wide, with a light socket in it. I unscrewed the clamp, took it off, and hung the bowl (by its wire) from the ceiling about 3 - 4 feet above the surface of the table. We put in a 25 watt soft white bulb, and turned off everything else. That's all we used for the attached screenshots.
Good job...
It shows that with light the simpler the better (I dont mean simplistic). Cant go wrong with single source if it is of right quality, distance and direction. Very nice.

Candle Light

- Key
- Backlight
- Background
- Touch of Ambiance

As always... Direction/Angle, Quality and Intensity of the Key of primary importance

according to the specular highlights in the left girls' eye, I think there might be a third light in the shot...and the shadow on the left is below the girls' heads.

Wrong - there are only two candles according to the subtext of the picture saying "Zwei Mädchen, beleuchtet von zwei Kerzen im ansonsten völlig verdunkelten Raum."
Translation: "Two girls lit by two candles in a completely dark room."

-> http://www.johannes-leckebusch.de/Licht/Lichttext.htm#Kerzenlicht

The shadow on the left is from the right candle and has been cast from the space between the shoulders of the two girls as you clearly can see when you compare the silhouettes.

I can see the shoulder strap on the wall...but am still curious about the third light point in the eye of the girl on the left.

Wrong - there are only two candles according to the subtext of the picture saying "Zwei Mädchen, beleuchtet von zwei Kerzen im ansonsten völlig verdunkelten Raum."
Translation: "Two girls lit by two candles in a completely dark room."

-> http://www.johannes-leckebusch.de/Licht/Lichttext.htm#Kerzenlicht

The shadow on the left is from the right candle and has been cast from the space between the shoulders of the two girls as you clearly can see when you compare the silhouettes.
This is fun guys... Lets surgery this thing...
Indeed ... very good example... thank you for the shot Freezer..
I must admit... lighting is not easy to be broken down in this one...
There are some indications that something is going on here....

Highlight in the eye being one of them... perhaps the other girl also has this highlight but it is not easy to determine as it is out of focus. To my understanding there is one other thing that would indicate existence of third light... that is the quality and the extention of the shoulder strap shadow of the girl on the right... To begin with, it is much softer that the part of it that is caused by her own candle. If anything, this shadow should be harder since the source is farther away... The position of this shadow seems to indicate existence of the camera left and low light source... something softer - as judged by shadow quality. If you look at the girl on the right and notice on her neck - underneath hair - a hard shadow of the other girl shoulder caused by the candle on the left... well that is the quality one would expect shadow under shoulder strap to be if it comes from the same source...
Having said all that though... what is still a mistery to me is tha fact that shadows on the wall dont seem to be coming from tha candles at all...?!...Why would they be cast to the left of frame if candles are straight on or maybe even slightly to the left... I think that the shadow on the wall behind the girl on the left is her own shadow as the shape of it seems to conform to her hair style... I do see the shadow starting at the frame edge on the left, and I admit... I dont know what that is.
But where is the shadow on the wall of the girl on the right...
I dont think that her candle would cast the shadow so far to the left...
One more thing that makes me believe there is an extra source is... Is it possible that two candles create so much ambiance... Yes, we can make it look like that with F-stop but then the flames would just go much more then they do in the picture. So keep the flames in... one would need to increase ambiance with light rather than the F-stop.

I think it's shot on film and scanned resulting in a much higher contrast range (to get the flames into range...also part of the reason the girls would be so bright in the image)...I think the camera is slightly to the left causing the shadows to skew left as the wall is not parallel/perpendicular in relation to the camera. This could be two lightsources...the cornea of the eye sticks out slightly, and could conceivably cause a third gling in the eye (I looked in a mirror). I would assume that a third soft lightsource would throw a much larger eye light. Shadows soften as they move away from the interupting source (subject) with the harder edges of the shadow being closest to the interupter.

All that said, it still feels like there are more lights on this picture, I just can't find ... or can explain away ... their existance.

The room may be small with highly reflective walls, and a mirror, or other very reflective object causing additional highlights. I can put a single light in a 4x4x4 white room, and it will be completely different than putting that same light into a large room, or a room with dark walls.

... wouldnt the flames go out much further if it were to be scanned to this level...
Camera is to the left... you right... quite significantly so... although I dont think this does have bearing on shadow position...
With the wall being croocked... this I also think wouldnt shift the shadow as it always projects in straight line from the source through the subject. You could move the couch but this does not apply either.
As far as quality of shadow in relation to subject distance... I thing you have it a bit upside down...
Shadow gets harder the closer the subjects gets to the surface rather then when Light is getting closer. The closer the light the softer the shadow... you know this.

But I would like to throw another radical idea...
If you look at my B&W shot... there is only one eyelight... this happens when you align your source with the candle... So what if this thing is lit with three separate lights... haha


I have no idea why this thumb does not want to show... the file size is 250KB... is it too large

yes, that's what I was saying about the shadow quality, but I was focusing on the light rays (application of physics - I'm a geek) rather than the source of the light.

The skewing of the camera angle wouldn't fundamentally affect physics (although that lens would sell alot!), but it will change the perception of shadow location relative to the subjects.

As for the scanning, you could get a much wider contrast range from scan than you'd be able to get with a video camera.

I took this, and I can prove it because I'm the ugly bastard featured in it. Sorry about the t-shirt, I was dressed for yardwork.

The source of light is a single candle. Otherwise, the room was dark. There were not even any windows. We focused teh camera with the lights on, turned them out, and shot by candle light only. This would be virtually impossible to do with video, unless you had a really fast lens (f1.2 minimum), but my point here was to show the appearance of the reflector in my eye. Also, notice that the shadows are a bit strange, also due to the reflector that is about 10 inches from the candle. If you can bounce light the light around enough, you can soften the affect of a single light source. It is generally pretty inconvenient to do this, but you can to a lot of things with still photography that would be impractical with video.

http://www.oakstreetphotovideo.com/images/candle_2.jpg

was this test done on your video camera? Shadows look similar and the eye gling from the candle looks the same as in th other picture (that part doesn't surprise me).

The test was done with a still camera. I'm pretty sure my video camera would have had serious trouble with a single candle light. I was mostly going for the look of the reflector (which was aluminum color, BTW, not a mirror). In retrospect, I wish I had set a mirror on the other side of me, to scatter some more light.

Camera: Nikon D70s, ISO 800, and a very slow shutter speed.

The test was done with a still camera. I'm pretty sure my video camera would have had serious trouble with a single candle light. I was mostly going for the look of the reflector (which was aluminum color, BTW, not a mirror). In retrospect, I wish I had set a mirror on the other side of me, to scatter some more light.

Camera: Nikon D70s, ISO 800, and a very slow shutter speed.
Hey Oak...
do you have any recollection of what was your shutter and F-stop ...?
seems to me that with 800 ASA at wide open ( F-2 ?), you'd have to be close to 1/2 sec of exp time to get this light...?
This would make it simply impossible on video on straight gain with open shutter. One could go SlowShut but this would not work for the movement.

I think it's shot on film and scanned resulting in a much higher contrast range (to get the flames into range...also part of the reason the girls would be so bright in the image)...I think the camera is slightly to the left causing the shadows to skew left as the wall is not parallel/perpendicular in relation to the camera. This could be two lightsources...the cornea of the eye sticks out slightly, and could conceivably cause a third gling in the eye (I looked in a mirror). I would assume that a third soft lightsource would throw a much larger eye light. Shadows soften as they move away from the interupting source (subject) with the harder edges of the shadow being closest to the interupter.

All that said, it still feels like there are more lights on this picture, I just can't find ... or can explain away ... their existance.

The photo was taken by a digital camera CANON EOS-300D, as noted on the homepage (http://www.johannes-leckebusch.de/CanonEOS300D/Portraitfoto/).
He used the RAW-Mode of the camera and pushed it further in post by tweaking the curves.

The models are sitting farther away from the background than it may seem in the picture.
I guess the soft extra light may come from the candle lights reflected in the white plankets he used to soften the halogene lights before. In this extremely pushed situation weak lights add up.


Have a look here, where he is testing a setup with halogene lights:

http://www.johannes-leckebusch.de/CanonEOS300D/Portraitfoto/Lichtaufbau1877FK.jpg

That would explain why the shadows are so skewed to the sides.

Another photo lit only by candles (but a lot more than the two before):

http://www.johannes-leckebusch.de/CanonEOS300D/Portraitfoto/CRW_1778_RT8Cut.jpg

The setup:
http://www.johannes-leckebusch.de/CanonEOS300D/Portraitfoto/Kerzenfeld102_1014.jpg

Jansik,

I didn't include F-stop and shutter speed because the lens I used would only open to F3.5 (still haven't gotten around to purchasing a $fast$ lens for the Nikon ... I still use my Canon 35mm when I need an F1.2 lens, for now).

So, the F-stop of 3.5 pushed me down to a shutter speed of 1/3 second, and I did note, in my original post, that this would be impractical (I don't like to say impossible, but it's not likely to look very good, anyway) with video or film at 24fps.

To reiterate my point, I was looking at the highlight in the eye, created by the reflected light source.

Jansik,

I didn't include F-stop and shutter speed because the lens I used would only open to F3.5 (still haven't gotten around to purchasing a $fast$ lens for the Nikon ... I still use my Canon 35mm when I need an F1.2 lens, for now).

So, the F-stop of 3.5 pushed me down to a shutter speed of 1/3 second, and I did note, in my original post, that this would be impractical (I don't like to say impossible, but it's not likely to look very good, anyway) with video or film at 24fps.

To reiterate my point, I was looking at the highlight in the eye, created by the reflected light source.
I am surprised you were able to milk this light with your setting 800-3.5-1/3... I though you would need to be slower than 1/3..

Agree with your take on the word "impossible" which I realize in our nomenclature is a "politically incorrect" verbalization... and correctly so. I have this (sometimes) bad habit of calling things by their names... hmm..
hope it does not come across as presumptuousness

There is nothing wrong with using the word "impossible", if you're prepared for an argument with someone who will tell you that it can be done, on the 2nd full moon in July of a leap year with a Sony ZX-25000 Super Betacam, equipped with an F0.8 lens, and using a 12db gain.

I prefer to avoid the arguments, and show some respect for those who like to do things under unnecessarily difficult circumstances just to prove it can be done and it will work "almost" as good as doing it the conventional way (notice I didn't say "the right way"). After all, someone has to reinvent the wheel.

I'd rather not argue the fringe possibilities, unless there has been a nuclear war, the electricity is off, and nuclear winter has blocked out the sun ... then we'd just have to make due with candles. Now I'm wondering if the high radiation levels (gamma rays and X-rays) would deteriorate the image on my magnetic tapes? The digital tapes could become unusable. Analog tapes might be a better bet, but the batteries aren't charged on my S-VHS camcorder! Oh, flock! I'd better get those charged, while the grid is still functioning.

p.s. Knightly, if you're still following this thread, I am getting ready for my trip to Minnesota. I just popped in to see if there was anything urgent in my e-mail.

There is nothing wrong with using the word "impossible", if you're prepared for an argument with someone who will tell you that it can be done, on the 2nd full moon in July of a leap year with a Sony ZX-25000 Super Betacam, equipped with an F0.8 lens, and using a 12db gain.

I prefer to avoid the arguments, and show some respect for those who like to do things under unnecessarily difficult circumstances just to prove it can be done and it will work "almost" as good as doing it the conventional way (notice I didn't say "the right way"). After all, someone has to reinvent the wheel.

I'd rather not argue the fringe possibilities, unless there has been a nuclear war, the electricity is off, and nuclear winter has blocked out the sun ... then we'd just have to make due with candles. Now I'm wondering if the high radiation levels (gamma rays and X-rays) would deteriorate the image on my magnetic tapes? The digital tapes could become unusable. Analog tapes might be a better bet, but the batteries aren't charged on my S-VHS camcorder! Oh, flock! I'd better get those charged, while the grid is still functioning.
F0.8/12Db... this would take care of business.

... I try never to set up an argument ... just not my cup of tee... but I do respond to one.

I took this shot about 10 years ago in my - then - Studio/Garage. This is 35mm copy of 4x5 transparency original. I took this shot few days after Shumaker/Levy Comet fragments bombarded surface of Jupiter (1994) making eleven craters of the size of Planet Earth each....Damned!... I thought... something like that could happen to us anytime...?!
Not having Strobes, I used Tungsten... as I recall this film took over 30min of combined exposure time. I remember standing there on Long Exposures and chasing mosquitos with the brush away from the subject. All in all it took 4 exposures - each one a different lighting setup - in following order...

1. Planet Earth
2. Metheorite
3. Fire
4. Stars

jansik,
would it be possible that you exchange your example images with JPEGs in better resolution? The GIF dithering destroys a lot of the quality and makes it harder to look at.

Hey Freezer...
This one is little bigger...
I dont like going too big because this is my home-made copy of 4x5 original and it does not look good when I enlarge it (sharpness, focus, color and all). And I dont have scan of 4x5.