“Natural” lighting continuity when a subject leave the “main light”

[Max A.]

Hello Mr. Deakins and all the cinematographers of this wonderful website. Long time since I don’t write and of course, I hope you Mr. Deakins, and Mrs. James are well.

In these months which I haven’t written here, I’ve read a lot of interesting topics and answers in the forum, and after a long time (2 years) I’ve shot again a narrative project, a short film totally self-produced by the director and me with almost no budget. It was tricky but, as always, also fascinating with a lot of tricky situations to “solve”.

But anyway, after this introduction that I wanted to share with you all, I would like to ask you Mr. Deakins (but also everyone that would join in this topic) a sort of “advice” about some situations that I find tricky to light in order to have first of all the “right” continuity toward the shots of a scene, but also maintain the “natural” feeling of lighting without being “visible” and “artificial”.
The situations that I mean, are those when the subject/s moves in a position where the light is not “obvious” anymore (a visible window, a chandelier, or a practical lamp to motivate, etc). Probably this question can appear silly and unclear (I try to attach stills frames for these kinds of situations), and I apologize for this, but in those situations where the staging of a scene lets the subjects walk from an “obvious light” seen in a wide shot to an “hybrid” position between light and shadow and there it’s need of a new shot, I feel it tricky and often I don’t like the result I get.

Considering that there is not “one right formula” to get the result, my question is not about “how to do it” but more “what I have to consider and then react” (considering maybe the angle and the texture of the “obvious light” where the subject/s stay before).

I remember an example (I attach the stills) from ‘Empire of Light’.
The subject is moving from the theater stage (which has “the light declared in the wide shot” into a position in which the light is dim (as spilling light from the center pool) when the edit cuts to “him”, he has a bit more amount of light of the previous shot but in a “natural way” that doesn’t break the continuity and of course don’t appear “artificially lit” by lights that are “outside the set”.

I apologize again if the question is silly or unclear(and maybe the example that I chose is inappropriate to motivate my question), I also apologize for my bad English.

As always, I want to thank you Mr. Deakins for your time and availability to share your giant amount of experience with us.

I wish you a peaceful day.
Max.

Ps. I attach the other two stills in a reply cause the forum blocks me if I add more than two images.

Topic

[Max A.]

[Roger Deakins]

Colin was moving through a darker area and that didn’t bother me. Does he have more light on him when he stops and looks back towards the stage? I probably raised the level of the overhead rig as it was important to see the character’s reaction at this moment. That is just the sort of ‘cheat’ that is done from shot to shot.

[LucaM]

I was wondering something similar, It’s an interesting question! I was thinking to a Tommy Lee Jones shot in No Country For Old Men, in which (i hope to remember correctly, i apologize if i am not correct) a close up of his face used a stronger light than the one that was used in the previous full shot, but the light remained of the same quality, so there was continuity. I think – but as always i’m the less experienced here – that perhaps it’s the quality of the light (soft vs hard, direction, temperature, etc) that creates the continuity, while there is a little more freedom with the quantity of light, given that the first comes from the source and the second from the distance from the source. But i’d like to do as you how a correct approach to the problem!

Congratulation for the new short! Is it available online? I’d like to watch it!

EDIT: to clarify my blabbings, i understood (i hope i’m correct, ah ah) that a warm soft light, for example, will stay so even from a distance, while the same will get weaker or stronger moving farer or closer to it, because inverse square law affecting the intenstity of light .

[dmullenasc]

How far you can cheat or adjust a light when moving into tighter coverage depends a lot on the change in shot size and the editing pattern.

If the shots only change from a waist-up to a chest-up, it will be harder to get away with any lighting changes compared to a bigger difference, like a knees-up versus a close-up. It also depends on the editing pattern, is it likely the editor will be cutting to a different direction/person/action between your two sizes of the main character.

[Max A.]

Thank you very much for your reply Mr. Deakins! It’s always fantastic for me read your words.

It’s interesting (and also a bit funny) how calm you are when you write “I probably raised the level of the overhead rig as it was important to see the character’s reaction at this moment“- I probably would swear to understand how I can bring a bit more light to the subject in a short amount of time and probably take the wrong decision to add a light from the ground and “destroy” the lighting world that is in the scene (starting also to fighting with cast shadow on the back wall).

Your words really calm me down very much, as when a master gives you the “tips” to think better. I will try to bring with me this kind of “calm” when I’m in “trouble” as if you Mr. Deakins are standing by me and we talk each other to facing the tricky situation 😁 this can sound weird I know but I think that often is a matter of staying calm and thinking well, as the set often starts to become frenetic and unfortunately losing mental clarity is very easy (at least for me). Especially when so many people start talking about the shot.

 

Luca, the short is not available yet because is in the editing process. Maybe when is ready I can give you the link to watch it. Maybe I can share the link in private cause I don’t want to appear as a “spammer” 😅.
I often suffer from impostor syndrome, so I can’t share calmly when I do something, it seems like I want to show off, but actually, I accept criticism if it’s constructive much more than any compliment (to which I don’t really know how to respond). I warn you, however, that, as always, I am not fully satisfied with my work – I have often understood it to be a question of “reaction” as well as “preparation” and I am not always able to make the correct decision. After calmly at home I think I would have I could have done differently but… it’s too late then.

[Max A.]

*, unfortunately, I can’t edit the post, I wanted to mean ‘sweat’ and not ‘swear’.

Thank you for your reply Mr. Mullen, it’s interesting this kind of tip. Of course, a big framing change can help to “cheat” the light. As I said, my “fear” is always to add something that “destroys” the original mood of the scene (as a light that can wash a wall that before was dimly lit), and of course often (this happened to me in my little experience) the “set” is more “impatient” when you are moving things inside a scene shot by shot. Is like the AD or Producer wants just to move the camera and “let’s start rolling”..

In my “vision” (if I can really talk about a vision, as I consider myself a Mr. nobody), I often search for “natural” effects in lighting (obviously the story is decisive in choosing the style of the image) so I try to think about “build” an atmosphere in which characters can stay and move, but often happen that when I move the camera the light is “off” so I have to adjust things, and doing it in the “natural” way that I was looking for often seems tricky to me.

Sorry for boring you with my long message 😅. I apologize for my bad English.

I wish you a peaceful day,
Max.

[Author]

Replies