Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
We would rarely shoot a whole scene in a conventional ‘master shot’. But that also varies depending on the scene as well. If it is of two people talking across a table then there is no reason not to cover the whole scene in your widest shot. Sometimes that is good for the actors to get ‘into’ the scene and prepare themselves for tehir closer coverage. But there is no one way to cover a scene and no ‘right’ way either.
I normally parked the mirror when I was lighting but it didn’t really bother me when it was rotating.
I have no formula! I would have to know the context and the location before deciding what I might do.
There was an additional tube on a stand to augment the cold kitchen light and I suspect I had a small Fresnel lamp adding to the warm light on the ceiling. It doesn’t look as if the hanging lamp would make that ‘pool’ of warm light behind the silhouette. This was a set and the practicals were set with all the scenes in mind but there is often a shot that needs a ‘tweak’.
Right! Interesting! Perhaps it was simply that the 50mm was easier to make. But for the movies wasn’t it also about projection? The viewer in the premium seat and their field of view being in sync with the camera on the set. I thought I read somewhere.
If I wanted the daylight and practical sources to be the same color temperature I would gel the window with CTO or use a daylight bulb in the lamps. I may have worked like that in the distant past but I more usually allow for some difference in color between light sources, as it more naturally appears to the eye. I just came from doing a remaster of ‘Thunderheart’, a film I shot many years ago now, and I noticed how I often used a bare tungsten bulb in locations that were primarily lit by the daylight coming through the window or doorway. I was bouncing tungsten sources off the ceiling or the wall to augment what the bare bulb was giving me and using the color variation as part of the ‘look’. My ‘moonlight’ was an HMI source, a Musco light, and I combined this with firelight allowing the color difference to be what it was, only using an 81EF on the camera to set the relationship in the middle as far as my tungsten balanced stock was seeing it.
I’m not someone who dwells too long on the question of what might be considered normal. However, if you look through a 35mm still camera and compare that image with what you see through your other eye, you can judge for yourself what appears to be ‘normal’.
The distance the bounce source is from the subject controls the ‘softness’ of the light but also the fall off. If you want the wall behind your subject to seem as brightly lit as they are then you have the bounce at some distance away but if you want to isolate a face you then move it close.
The curve I might put into an array of small bounce boards or muslins is to ‘funnel the light when I need to. It doesn’t affect the subject as much as it does the background.
The height of the bounce is a choice made when looking at the natural source you are adding to or emulating. You might also change the height depending on how the light falls on your subject, whether that is an object or a face.
I always control color temperature on set and definitely NOT in post. How to handle color temperature? Maybe that is all about observation of how natural light can change color during the progress of a day or how it varies from one artificial source to another.
