How was Deep Focus achieved in film Noir and low light situations?

[gibbo]

Doesn anyone know how Deep Focus was achieved in the low light situations of a lot of the early film noir movies and other movies?

In particular, the high contrast low key lighting of film noir movies sometimes used only one key light but somehow managed to achieve deep focus (foreground midground and background in focus).

I'm struggling to understand how this was achieved, especially since technology then was not as advanced and not as good in low light. The only way I can think of with my limited knowledge is to open the aperture as wide as it will go and use an extremely wide angle lense and use the hyperfocal/infinity focus, but there is no distortion evident in the shots, I would think that they may use a more 'normal' focal length to minimise barrel distortion but that doesn't make sense because in some shots the foreground is very close, too close for infinity focus.

The the only other way I can think of would be to stop it right down to allow for deep DOF, but this isn't feesible as there isn't enough light to support that, and even if there were focusing on something that close might not have the deep focus effect.

A few reference shots:

Deep focus:
http://images.suite101.com/2791790_COM_kane_boy_window.jpg

Very low light but all in focus:
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/app/webroot/content/2010_images/2006/08/21/citizen_kane_5.jpg

Notice how close the glass is
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/app/webroot/content/2010_images/2006/08/21/citizen_kane_3.jpg

I would love to be able to use this technique at home and would make some shots so much easier!

So what am I missing? It's obviously something!

 

[PaulGriffith]

Actually, none of that was low light. There was a lot, lot, lot of light it was just designed and exposed to look dark.

For how close that glass is, i'm sure there's some trickery going on too. False walls, false floors, force perspective and other techniques make for some great shots that look normal to the naked eye.

 

[brianluce]

I'm guessing, but I agree with Paul. They'd blast a lot of light but control it strategically. I'm thinking they didn't shoot wide open either, since that would've shallowed up the focus.

 

[wheatgrinder]

I was watching "Serpico" the other night, in the early scenes you can clearly see that there is some kinds of special lens\or double expose trick to get the near and far subjects in perfect focus...

Its not from that movie, but in this frame from the untocuhables you can see the same kinda effect..

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

A split focus lens produces a pretty noticeable effect, it's not really the same effect as very deep DOF.

Remember that most of those old noir films were shot on studio sets or backlots. I'm sure there were very significant lighting set ups. Add a ton of light, then close down the aperture until things start to look slightly dark and you'll get the noir look with deep dof.

Remember that lighting isn't really about the amount of light in a scene - the classic noir look is about getting the right ratios between the lights.

 

[jax_rox]

Old lenses weren't very fast and old film stock wasn't very fast either, you wouldnt've found as many T1.3 lenses around as there are today. That's why Kubrick had to special order a T0.7 lens for some of his shots.
One light doesn't necessarily mean one low-powered light. They may have been using a 10k light for example, and whilst it may only be one light, it's still going to allow you to expose a scene right att 5.6 or 8.0. Film lighting was typically much higher powered as it needed to be, and there were typically many more lights than you might expect as everything was shot on a backlot or stage. You don't typically see real shallow depth of field in older movies either and that's typically because you physically couldn't open the aperture up to T1.3 and shoot at 800ISO in the middle of the night on an 85mm lens. There was a time when 50 speed stock was the fastest film stock you could get, and so you needed powerful lights to be able to get a proper exposure.

 

[directorik]

Old lenses weren't very fast and old film stock wasn't very fast either,

Exactly.

Those shots from "Kane" were shot with slow stock
and slow lenses. There is a LOT of light to get those.
Not at all a low light situation - just excellent lighting
by a master; Gregg Toland.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

In my somewhat limited experience that technique (A ton of light) really lends itself to noir as well. When you blast a lot of strong directional light at a scene then stop way down to properly expose the lit areas the contrast between the lit areas and the not lit areas becomes very dramatic. The ambient light and the spill are largely crushed out of existence.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

The ambient light and the spill are largely crushed out of existence

You actually need to be careful about this - watch a lot of classic noir and you'll be surprised at how much detail there can be in the shadows. They were never just blasting a single key light, they just maintain a large ratio between the key and fills - but rarely a large enough ratio to push the shadows to full black. On set I'd bet the lighting looked like very bright daylight.

 

[gibbo]

Thanks for the replies guys, I guess that makes sense, one light that is very very bright.


Still, I'm confused about stopping all the way down because it seems to me that it is infinity focus being used and not just a really small aperture. If they stopped all the way down and focused on something right in front of the lens the DOF would stop somewhere, especially because it's focused on something close which has inherrently less DOF than when focused on something a little further away, right?

I was watching "Serpico" the other night, in the early scenes you can clearly see that there is some kinds of special lens\or double expose trick to get the near and far subjects in perfect focus...

Its not from that movie, but in this frame from the untocuhables you can see the same kinda effect..

Yeah I was going to mention that effect, I've noticed it in a few movies and I dislike it. I think I remember seeing it in The Quick and The Dead also.

 

[chilipie]

I like these kinds of threads

The second image that you linked to used another trick that hasn't been mentioned yet.

This sequence was shot at light levels daringly low for the time. Then the film was "forced-developed" in the laboratory - that is, left in the chemicals a longer time than usual to increase the contrast. Forced-developing would ordinarily bring out graininess to an unacceptable degree, but with the tonal range in the scene already so high that effect was minimized.

Forced-developing (or "push processing") also increases the effective sensitivity of the film, so you end up with a picture that is brighter, more grainy and with increased contrast.

The frame grab that wheatgrinder posted is a very good demonstration of a split-diopter. These work in exactly the same way as reading glasses: they allow a lens to focus closer. A split-diopter is a piece of glass literally split down the middle. The area not covered by the diopter focuses at a normal distance and the area that is focuses much closer (exactly how close depends on the power of the diopter).

A split-diopter, yesterday.

Much of Citizen Kane was shot with a 24mm lens (a Cooke with a maximum aperture of f/2, if you're interested - "the fastest lens in common use at the time") stopped down to f/8 - sometimes even as far as f/11 or f/16 - which would require an enormous amount of light with the slow stocks of the time.

You're confusing the focus issue slightly. Depth of field is a result of lens focal length, aperture and subject distance, so of course the distance you're focused at matters… just as much as the f-stop and lens do.

By using a depth of field calculator, I know that a 24mm lens set to f/11 on a 35mm camera has a hyperfocal distance of 2.06m. That is to say that you could set the lens to focus at 2.06m and "all objects at distances from half of the hyperfocal distance [1.03m] out to infinity will be acceptably sharp".

The final method of achieving deep exposure - and perhaps the easiest to achieve on a budget without lots of light - is that of double exposure.

The famous multiplane composition revealing Susan's suicide attempt. Not an extreme deep-focus effect, as it is usually described, but an "in-camera matte." First the foreground was lighted and focused and shot with the background dark. Then the foreground was darkened, the background lighted, the lens refocused, the film rewound, and the scene reshot.

So, many different were combined elements to create deep focus shots - huge amounts of light, wide lenses, stopping down, split-diopters, push processing… and cheating, with double exposure.

In short, Gregg Toland was a bleedin' genius and a master of the craft.

Sources and further reading:
Robert L. Carringer, Orson Welles and Gregg Toland: Their Collaboration on "Citizen Kane" in Critical Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 4 (1982), pp. 651-674.
Robert L. Carringer, The Making of Citizen Kane, (University of California Press, 1996)

 

[gibbo]

Wow Chilipie, thanks! Great post....

I like these kinds of threads

The second image that you linked to used another trick that hasn't been mentioned yet.


Forced-developing (or "push processing") also increases the effective sensitivity of the film, so you end up with a picture that is brighter, more grainy and with increased contrast.

So basically over developing the film? As in shooting it quite underexposed and developing it for longer?

And the digital equivalent of that would be to simply raise the ISO?

The frame grab that wheatgrinder posted is a very good demonstration of a split-diopter. These work in exactly the same way as reading glasses: they allow a lens to focus closer. A split-diopter is a piece of glass literally split down the middle. The area not covered by the diopter focuses at a normal distance and the area that is focuses much closer (exactly how close depends on the power of the diopter).

A split-diopter, yesterday.

Cool, that's how they do that then. Just curious as to why they would do that over deep focus or something else to get a similar effect (deep focus plus in camera 3 times zoom to get the foreground REALLY close)

Much of Citizen Kane was shot with a 24mm lens (a Cooke with a maximum aperture of f/2, if you're interested - "the fastest lens in common use at the time") stopped down to f/8 - sometimes even as far as f/11 or f/16 - which would require an enormous amount of light with the slow stocks of the time.

Thank you, very interested actually. That certainly puts into perspective how much light would have been needed... it's just confusing because some scenes are so dark looking and my lecturer said that in general, these film noir movies and similar used not a lot of light.

You're confusing the focus issue slightly. Depth of field is a result of lens focal length, aperture and subject distance, so of course the distance you're focused at matters… just as much as the f-stop and lens do.

By using a depth of field calculator, I know that a 24mm lens set to f/16 on a 35mm camera has a hyperfocal distance of 2.06m. That is to say that you could set the lens to focus at 2.06m and "all objects at distances from half of the hyperfocal distance [1.03m] out to infinity will be acceptably sharp".

So I put those exact same figures into the DOF calculator and get different results, I get a hyperfocal distance of 1.22 metres

And why do you say that you can get subjects in focus at half the hyperfocal distance? I thought the start of the hyperfocal distance was the start of where the "in focus" field is?

EG: if I punch in: 24mm on a Canon t2i at f8 the hyperofocal distance is 3.81 metres, does that mean that I could move my subject to 1.9 metres and they would still be in focus?

Using the 35mm film, f16 and 24mm lens, my hyperfocal distance is 1.22, does that mean objects/subjects at 60cm would be in focus too?

Sorry for the ignorance, I'm just trying to learn as much as possible!

The final method of achieving deep exposure - and perhaps the easiest to achieve on a budget without lots of light - is that of double exposure.

Hmmm, that's something to look in to I think....

So, many different were combined elements to create deep focus shots - huge amounts of light, wide lenses, stopping down, split-diopters, push processing… and cheating, with double exposure.

In short, Gregg Toland was a bleedin' genius and a master of the craft.

Sources and further reading:
Robert L. Carringer, Orson Welles and Gregg Toland: Their Collaboration on "Citizen Kane" in Critical Inquiry, Vol. 8, No. 4 (1982), pp. 651-674.
Robert L. Carringer, The Making of Citizen Kane, (University of California Press, 1996)

Seriously, thank you again, awesome post! which of those two books would you say is better for this kind of info and other making off info?

I'm at my Uni library so I can borrow then out (assuming they have them, which they should)

 

[chilipie]

So basically over developing the film? As in shooting it quite underexposed and developing it for longer?

And the digital equivalent of that would be to simply raise the ISO?

Yes and yes! Although the digital equivalent tends to be less attractive, in my opinion (grainy film beats multi-coloured noise any day).

Cool, that's how they do that then. Just curious as to why they would do that over deep focus or something else to get a similar effect (deep focus plus in camera 3 times zoom to get the foreground REALLY close)

If they could have done it with the lens alone then they probably would have done, but there isn't enough light (or the lens can't physically stop down any further) then a split diopter is a very effective way to have something very close to the camera in focus.

You can also get hold of split diopters that are just a strip of glass down the centre of a filter, so you could have one person close to the camera in the centre of the frame and two people either side of them much further back. If you plan your shots carefully they can add an enormous amount of flexibility to the way you frame a scene.

Even if shooting with a relatively shallow depth of field, you could use them to cover a conversation between two people at different distances from the camera without distracting rack focusing back and forth.

Thank you, very interested actually. That certainly puts into perspective how much light would have been needed... it's just confusing because some scenes are so dark looking and my lecturer said that in general, these film noir movies and similar used not a lot of light.

I think one problem with super sensitive digital cameras is that a lot of the time we end up shooting with a minimum of light… and it's very easy to forget that the quantity of light you see with your eye does not necessarily correlate with what ends up on screen.

If you look at these photos by David Mullen ASC, you can see that if you underexpose a night exterior it looks like nighttime - and if you expose it normally, it looks just like day. While you can't do 30 second long exposures with motion pictures, the opposite certainly applies (you can underexpose with daytime levels of light to make it look like night).

So I put those exact same figures into the DOF calculator and get different results, I get a hyperfocal distance of 1.22 metres

Sorry, my fault - wrote f/16 when I meant to write f/11!

And why do you say that you can get subjects in focus at half the hyperfocal distance? I thought the start of the hyperfocal distance was the start of where the "in focus" field is?

EG: if I punch in: 24mm on a Canon t2i at f8 the hyperofocal distance is 3.81 metres, does that mean that I could move my subject to 1.9 metres and they would still be in focus?

Using the 35mm film, f16 and 24mm lens, my hyperfocal distance is 1.22, does that mean objects/subjects at 60cm would be in focus too?

There's a diagram at the bottom of the calculator (that I've only just noticed) which may help.

Focus at the hyperfocal distance, 2.06 m

Depth of field extends from 1.03 m to infinity

Let's say that Toland didn't have enough light for one scene and decided to push the 24mm lens to its limits - he's going to shoot at f/2. Orson Welles is sat 5m away from the camera. If we put those details into the DoF calculator, we see…

Depth of field
Near limit 3.49 m
Far limit 8.8 m
Total 5.31 m

In front of subject 1.51 m (28%)
Behind subject 3.8 m (72%)

So, we're focused at 5m and the depth of field extends from roughly a third in front to two thirds behind the subject. The same happens at the hyperfocal: the area in focus extends in front of and behind the distance at which we're focused.

I don't know if it helps, but the hyperfocal distance has two accepted definitions:

Definition 1: The hyperfocal distance is the closest distance at which a lens can be focused while keeping objects at infinity acceptably sharp. When the lens is focused at this distance, all objects at distances from half of the hyperfocal distance out to infinity will be acceptably sharp.
Definition 2: The hyperfocal distance is the distance beyond which all objects are acceptably sharp, for a lens focused at infinity.

I'm using the first, I think you're using the second - the result is practically the same but that may account for some if the confusion.

Seriously, thank you again, awesome post! which of those two books would you say is better for this kind of info and other making off info?

I'm at my Uni library so I can borrow then out (assuming they have them, which they should)

No worries, I quite enjoyed writing it If your uni has access to JSTOR then you should be able to access the article for free online: Orson Welles and Gregg Toland: Their Collaboration on "Citizen Kane". It's fairly short, so give it a read and if you're hungry for more try and find the book as well!

 

[gibbo]

Yes and yes! Although the digital equivalent tends to be less attractive, in my opinion (grainy film beats multi-coloured noise any day).

Definitely, I can't stand digital noise, unless it's shooting in B&W then it's OK. Film grain is lovely. If you haven't already you should check out Black Swan on Blu-ray - it looks amazing, some high res screenshots, lovely, probably my favourite looking BD:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Black-Swan-Blu-ray/20029/#Screenshots

I saw a test of the Sony F3 (or FS100) on Philip Bloom's blog and it went up to 20,000 ISO and was clean, probably not as clean without web compression but even Philip was amazed with it. I can't wait for a few years when the newer better stuff comes out.

If they could have done it with the lens alone then they probably would have done, but there isn't enough light (or the lens can't physically stop down any further) then a split diopter is a very effective way to have something very close to the camera in focus.

You can also get hold of split diopters that are just a strip of glass down the centre of a filter, so you could have one person close to the camera in the centre of the frame and two people either side of them much further back. If you plan your shots carefully they can add an enormous amount of flexibility to the way you frame a scene.

Even if shooting with a relatively shallow depth of field, you could use them to cover a conversation between two people at different distances from the camera without distracting rack focusing back and forth.

Cool thanks for that info. Couldn't they just add MORE (way more) light? I guess I just personally don't like that effect... I like the more "pure" deep focus look.

I think one problem with super sensitive digital cameras is that a lot of the time we end up shooting with a minimum of light… and it's very easy to forget that the quantity of light you see with your eye does not necessarily correlate with what ends up on screen.

Yep I'm slowly figuring that out, especially through the camera's little monitor. I was helping out on a Uni project last night and they were shooting on an F3 and it looked horrible on the camera's screen, but on the external monitor it was beautiful. Probably 10 times better on the big screen.

If you look at these photos by David Mullen ASC, you can see that if you underexpose a night exterior it looks like nighttime - and if you expose it normally, it looks just like day. While you can't do 30 second long exposures with motion pictures, the opposite certainly applies (you can underexpose with daytime levels of light to make it look like night).

That's interesting. Straight away I noticed how 'fake' (read: Day for night) that first pic looked but it's actually 'real' night, I blame movies and the way they light night scenes, it always takes me out of the movie, especially horror in the woods and there are these light coming from just off screen and you know there's a whole crew of people standing around.

Sorry, my fault - wrote f/16 when I meant to write f/11!



There's a diagram at the bottom of the calculator (that I've only just noticed) which may help.

Focus at the hyperfocal distance, 2.06 m

Depth of field extends from 1.03 m to infinity

Let's say that Toland didn't have enough light for one scene and decided to push the 24mm lens to its limits - he's going to shoot at f/2. Orson Welles is sat 5m away from the camera. If we put those details into the DoF calculator, we see…



So, we're focused at 5m and the depth of field extends from roughly a third in front to two thirds behind the subject. The same happens at the hyperfocal: the area in focus extends in front of and behind the distance at which we're focused.

I don't know if it helps, but the hyperfocal distance has two accepted definitions:



I'm using the first, I think you're using the second - the result is practically the same but that may account for some if the confusion.

Hmmm, I'm understanding a bit more thanks! Now time to experiment! I just love deep focus...

At the risk of sounding like a cynical newbie (is there anything worse?), I'm getting sick of all these rack focus and extreme shallow DOF shots for no reason, like they are just thrown in there because they can. Call me a newbie but, like everything else, it should only be used for a reason and not "just 'cuz"....

No worries, I quite enjoyed writing it If your uni has access to JSTOR then you should be able to access the article for free online: Orson Welles and Gregg Toland: Their Collaboration on "Citizen Kane". It's fairly short, so give it a read and if you're hungry for more try and find the book as well!

Damn it! I was walking past the library today and knew I had to go in for a reason but couldn't remember why! Tomorrow...

Thanks again!

 

[gibbo]

chilipie, I got that article from Uni and reading it article yesterday and found it fascinating!! Thanks for that recommendation.

Is that other book just as good?

 

[chilipie]

Definitely, I can't stand digital noise, unless it's shooting in B&W then it's OK. Film grain is lovely. If you haven't already you should check out Black Swan on Blu-ray - it looks amazing, some high res screenshots, lovely, probably my favourite looking BD:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Black-Swan-Blu-ray/20029/#Screenshots

Yeah, it looked fantastic in the cinema!

Cool thanks for that info. Couldn't they just add MORE (way more) light? I guess I just personally don't like that effect... I like the more "pure" deep focus look.

In theory yes, but probably not in practice. I wouldn't be surprised if it just wasn't physically possible to squeeze in more lights.

Added to which, once you stop down past a certain point, diffraction sets in and although depth of field increases, you lose sharpness.

That's interesting. Straight away I noticed how 'fake' (read: Day for night) that first pic looked but it's actually 'real' night, I blame movies and the way they light night scenes, it always takes me out of the movie, especially horror in the woods and there are these light coming from just off screen and you know there's a whole crew of people standing around.

Convincing night scenes are always tricky to do, although higher ISOs mean you need less light to get an exposure, which does make it easier. For simple lighting at night, I suggest using the three B's (I've just made this up, so bear with me ):

1. Blue. Partly psychological, partly reality. The way our eyes work means that we are much less sensitive to colour in dark conditions - everything looks desaturated and kind of grey. Blue is also a colour we tend to associate with the night (black and white films would often have the sections that took place at night dyed blue) and so it's what audiences have come to expect.
2. Backlight. Generally speaking, if "moonlight" is the primary source in a night scene it will come from behind. Frontal lighting at night generally makes things look a bit fake and flat. If you watch closely, you will often see the backlight flipping sides in a conversation held outside at night. If you want better lighting continuity, you could compromise and light both characters from the side.
3. Background. Light the space, not the actors. Well-lit people in a sea of darkness looks unrealistic (and often boring). Even a couple of cheap worklights can do wonders if used to pick out elements in the background (remembering to light them from behind).

It won't give you the most inspired-looking night scene of all time, but it will be reasonably convincing and simple to execute even on a modest budget.

Hmmm, I'm understanding a bit more thanks! Now time to experiment! I just love deep focus...

At the risk of sounding like a cynical newbie (is there anything worse?), I'm getting sick of all these rack focus and extreme shallow DOF shots for no reason, like they are just thrown in there because they can. Call me a newbie but, like everything else, it should only be used for a reason and not "just 'cuz"....

Give it 10 years and deep focus might be back in fashion again… and we'll all be reminiscing about the good old days of shallow focus

chilipie, I got that article from Uni and reading it article yesterday and found it fascinating!! Thanks for that recommendation.

Is that other book just as good?

Glad you enjoyed it! I think so, if you can borrow it for free then it's definitely worth a look. You might be able to find a free sample on Amazon/Google Books if it's difficult to get hold of a hard copy.

 

[gibbo]

Yeah, it looked fantastic in the cinema!

In theory yes, but probably not in practice. I wouldn't be surprised if it just wasn't physically possible to squeeze in more lights.

Added to which, once you stop down past a certain point, diffraction sets in and although depth of field increases, you lose sharpness.

Convincing night scenes are always tricky to do, although higher ISOs mean you need less light to get an exposure, which does make it easier. For simple lighting at night, I suggest using the three B's (I've just made this up, so bear with me ):

1. Blue. Partly psychological, partly reality. The way our eyes work means that we are much less sensitive to colour in dark conditions - everything looks desaturated and kind of grey. Blue is also a colour we tend to associate with the night (black and white films would often have the sections that took place at night dyed blue) and so it's what audiences have come to expect.
2. Backlight. Generally speaking, if "moonlight" is the primary source in a night scene it will come from behind. Frontal lighting at night generally makes things look a bit fake and flat. If you watch closely, you will often see the backlight flipping sides in a conversation held outside at night. If you want better lighting continuity, you could compromise and light both characters from the side.
3. Background. Light the space, not the actors. Well-lit people in a sea of darkness looks unrealistic (and often boring). Even a couple of cheap worklights can do wonders if used to pick out elements in the background (remembering to light them from behind).

It won't give you the most inspired-looking night scene of all time, but it will be reasonably convincing and simple to execute even on a modest budget.

Wow, cool tips mate! Thanks. Definitely keepers.

Give it 10 years and deep focus might be back in fashion again… and we'll all be reminiscing about the good old days of shallow focus

Haha yep maybe! Here's to more deep focus!

Glad you enjoyed it! I think so, if you can borrow it for free then it's definitely worth a look. You might be able to find a free sample on Amazon/Google Books if it's difficult to get hold of a hard copy.

My Uni library should have it, I would be surprised if they don't and the Creative Industries have a large budget to play with so they have asked for suggestions on what to buy, so I can get them to order it!

 

[Scoopicman]

I used to shoot on film and it's as simple as this:

Shallow Focus - Long lens (or zoomed in), wide open aperture (iris) and low light. (Computer out of focus.)

Deep Focus - Short lens (or Wide angle), narrow aperture (iris) and lots of light. (Everything in focus.)

Yes, those are pics of my filters. Here is the Split Filed filter, as shown in that UNTOUCHABLES pic:

Thanks to this thread, I gave it a try. Notice the blurry mirror and monitor in the background:

Now, with the filter rotated 180 degrees, the video monitor in the mirror comes into focus:

 

[Scoopicman]

I'm also a fan of deep focus:

Living Room pic.


We needed to transform my living room into a horror setting:

The girl in this video wanted to play an Elvira type of host, so in order to hide the normal surroundings I put a 1000 watt light on her from the front and then I hung a couple of scoop lights (Home Depot kind) right above her, to outline the couch. All that was left to do was to stop down the Iris, which made the background disappear. Here is the same room:

I also liked what Chillpie was saying about night lighting. I've done the blue gel on a solitary 1000 watt light. (I say solitary, because I wanted light from just one direction - from the supposed moon.) The fog in this scene helps "carry" the light throughout.

Blue gel, without fog:

I also tried it without the blue gel. In this shot, I wanted the motivation to be the outside street lamp, coming into the window:

Night lighting is all about........shadows. Obscure your light with branches, barn doors, flags (could be a square piece of wood, clamped to a stand placed in front of the light), window blinds, etc. A light shining through a cracked open doorway, or closet door could be what you want. Shadows, shadows, shadows.

 

[wheatgrinder]

its cool to see those pics Scoopicman .. Iv been in that room!

My short shooting June 1 (Yikes Im NOT READY) has two KEY night outdoor scenes.. I need to practice this at home.. thanks fro the the 3B's!