Lighting by Example!

[knightly]

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)


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

 

[clive]

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

 

[knightly]

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.

 

[jansik]

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.

 

[jansik]

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

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.

 

[John@Bophe]

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.

 

[jansik]

Candle Light

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

 

[jansik]

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.

 

[jansik]

Candle

Candle Light

- Key
- Backlight
- Background
- Touch of Ambiance

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

 

[freezer]

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.

 

[knightly]

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.

 

[jansik]

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.

 

[knightly]

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.

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

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.

 

[jansik]

Candle

... 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

 

[knightly]

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.

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

single candle test

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.

 

[knightly]

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).

 

[oakstreetphotovideo]

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.

 

[jansik]

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.

 

[freezer]

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.
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:

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):

The setup: