Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
When I started out I would usually have a hair and make-up test day that gave me the chance to study an actor’s face. And, yes, I would move a key light around just to see what effect it might have. Bear in mind that John Alton was lighting with more direct sources than I or most contemporary cinematographers use today so having some test time was even more essential for his method of working.
To experiment in that way on set, on the day of the shoot, creates all sorts of problems. Even if you were allowed the time by a director, actors tend to arrive on set intent to shoot. A camera rehearsal is sometimes frowned upon. It makes the physical similarities of a stand-in even more important.
I don’t remember using a LUT on Jesse James or No Country for Old Men. Of course, I didn’t because I was shooting on film. Was the look of 1917 any different? Did the LUT make it look like it did?
HMIs are an alternative solution. And there are now plenty of Fresnel style LED lights that can run at a daylight setting, a tungsten setting or anywhere in between. Yes, you can gel a tungsten source but, if you mix it with other sources, the color never seems quite right to me.
I always make a diagram of how I wish a scene to be lit. Then I discuss the plan with my gaffer and we go from there. If I am uncertain a lamp will give me the required output I will consult a photometric chart but also my gaffer.
I have used an array of LED panels to produce a similar effect to a cove bounce source. Depends on the situation whether it is a preferred approach. It is never quite the same, just as a series of lamps projected through diffusion is different again. The differences may be subtle but light bounced of a white muslin cloth is softer and more evenly spread.
If I was shooting a scene and lighting it with a cove bounce source I would set for the wider shot first. I would only move the source in if I felt a need to soften the light on the subject a little more for a closer shot. A softer look on a closer shot seems quite natural to me and is more easily to accept than the reverse.
I think that is what you are trying to connect with – in the midst of all the technical aspects of being a cinematographer, the politics and the stress.
Those three shots were made in camera. The very distant details in the town were added later but nothing of consequence. True Grit was shot on film and these exteriors were exposed at around f 8/11 on the lens, probably a 27mm. Hence the depth of field.
My take is that I love being in the real world but practical considerations often prohibit that. Otherwise, anything to avoid a blue screen!
For a day scene I generally prefer to light through a window and let the exterior blow out. With a flat white beyond, a luminance key will easily create a matte line from a window frame or doorway for whatever might need to be inserted later.
For night work I have no problem with real ‘poor man’s process. Of course, it has its limitations but what is shot in camera can always be augmented in post if it is really needed.
I wonder if that 10K Fresnel was actually a Carbon Arc. The picture shows a lamp with a pretty large front. A Carbon Arc (Brute Arc) would probably give you the wider pattern of ‘sunlight’ that appears in the scene.
There was no fill light. The scene was lit with an array of double ended 500 watt globes that were rigged inside the boiler. The opening was designed to be the size and shape it appears so the light from the ‘fire’ would stretch across the scene. The globes were dimmed down to give the warmth you see in the shot and a slight random flicker change was added as if from flames. The globes were replaced with the fire you see in the shot as a post effect.
The third category – inspire and suggest emotions without looking for meaning – is that not what film can do at its best? I think that understanding should be your approach to where top put the camera or how to compose the shot. It’s what you feel it should be.
I am at a loss as to why a meter is not advantageous. It frees you from the monitor and all the complexities of false color, the LUT, etc.. One reading of the light and off you go. When you have practiced with a meter long enough you will find you don’t even need it. Your eye will tell you everything. That gives you real freedom.
I have often used mirrors to lengthen the distance between a light and a set but, as David says, there are always practical limitations. In one example, the distance between the set windows and the stage wall was around 10′. That was all the production designer could give me based on the director’s desire for the size of the set and the stage space available. The mirrors I used were 6′ x 4′. The lights (20K Fresnel lamps) sat on turtles on the studio floor and the mirrors were hung high against the backing above the windows. This all allowed for a semi-sharp pattern of light to reach the interior of the set but as the windows were quite wide and tall, the effect was not ideal. But when could we call anything we do ideal?
