Hi all. I'm testing my lighting kit and honing my lighting skills. Please let me know your critiques, suggestions, likes and dislikes. New to lighting, but realize it is what' going to make the difference for me.

This is just a set up involving my wife, who is sick of me saying "all you have to do is sit there" and then blinding her for 2 hours of adjusting and readjusting.;)

Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

thanks,

Mike

Lighting looks very natural. I would consider pulling the key light up a bit higher and farther to the left (but it's probably a personal aesthetic thing on my part). The higher will serve to allow her to lift her head up slightly which will pull the neck a bit tighter (portraiture trick), and raise the eye catch light a bit making her look more cheery. To the left will give a more severe "short lighting" setup which I feel adds more dimension to the face. I liked the way the background light feeds into the hair light, nice effect that makes the hair light feel very natural.

What that struck me at first were the strong shadows on the wall, which I thought were distracting. The next thing I saw was how bright the unshadowed part of the background was. Only then did I really see your subject.

Lighting on the subject seems a little weak, but maybe only because it's not as vivd as the background. Maybe a bit of fill from the right would help, but I think the main criticism would have to be that the background lighting grabs the eye and then everything else looks drab by comparison. Partly a problem with the amount of light on the background and partly a problem with the strong color that tends to pull color out of the foreground subject leaving her a bit washed out looking.

Just to check, I copied just her face and opened it in Photoshop and looked at it without the distracting background.

Even without the background the face didn't have enough contrast or light intensity. When I lightened it in Photoshop, things improved, but the difference between the lighting on the face and on the arms was a bit much.

A little fill to de-emphasize the shadows under the chin would be nice.

Catchlights in the eyes add a nice sparkle.

Hope this helps and apologies if it sounds too critical. I really mean it in the spirit of what you asked for.

The visual psychology of imaging tell us to keep the most important part of the image lighter than the rest, this will attract the viewer’s eye to the center of attention, in this case the face of the subject. Also separate the different planes in the image. In this case the background is way too bright in respect to the subject and way too close.

Watch out for composition. Any lines coming into the image should lead to the main point of interest; the background light should be coming from the other direction with the oblique lines leading to the subject. Also never start an oblique line from the corner of an image; this will visually split the image, have the lines start either above or below the corner.

Conflicting light sources. Always try to give the illusion that there’s only one main (key) light, in this case the key light is coming from one side while the background from the opposite side, try to avoid this.

Raise your camera, especially for subject that are overweight or those with double chin. You are shooting right into her chin making it very prominent, (see attached samples).

Adjust the key light so you will have modeling on the face; also learn about the 3 basic key light positions and angles "front, 45 degree and split or 90 degree light". Proper light placement is another trick to make heavier people look thinner; what’s not important make it dark. People look at eyes and mouth, cheeks and ears are not important (see attached samples).

Posing; do not cross the arms, this will make the person look bulkier.

Avoid a high back chair or one that cuts in the middle of the head.

There are techniques to pose and light subjects that will make them look much thinner that they really are. Once you learn those you'll be a hero.

Hi Mike,

I'm new to the lighting world as well; and learning alot on these forums. I'd also like to strenghten my interview lighting skills. Just a few comments...

I agree with Jim that when I first saw the pic, the shadows on the wall are what struck me first; and also, that the key is a bit weak (compared to the background).

Best,

Hi Nino,

Great comments and critique, as always. Learning a ton from you, man! Keep up the good work.

Best,

Very interesting discussion thus far.

There are many different thoughts and styles on lighting. I've found one of the biggest bones of contentions is the lighting levels between subject and background. Several here have said the "key was weak", and that the background was brighter than the subject. I think the background was simply to close and was distracting. But I'll offer a quote here:

"We'd make a big, very soft source, which looks great on a woman's face... The trick is to make sure the faces were never brighter than the background... If your face is the brightest thing in the shot, you're probably in trouble."

-John Thomas, ASC
DP, Sex and the City Movie
American Cinematographer, June 2008, p.62

Given this man's talent for making these middle-aged women look beautiful, I think his words have some merit. I think one of the things I see more often in amateur video than in Hollywood is the amount of light falling on talent in relation to the background. In scenes with windows, the talent is not the brightest thing in the shot. And why should it be? Why would the motivated source of the light be dimmer than what it's lighting? In scenes without a window, it seems somewhat odd to have the talent be lit out of character with the surroundings unless it's specifically for effect.

I also note that some have offered to have more modeling on the face. Again, from my work in portraiture, and from studying the cinematographers who make women look beautiful, this is also an issue of contention. Lighting women nearly flat smooths the lines and wrinkles. Using a nicely diffused, large light source is kind to their faces. Less modeling seems to be the order of the day unless you are working with 17 year old supermodels.

Again, I am no professional. I am just a guy learning how to shoot. But reaching back to the 30s and 40s, all the way through today, I see women lit very flat when you are trying to show them at their best.

Just what I've seen.

Hi Perrone,

Interesting comments. I can think of a lot of situations where I'd light something with a really light - maybe almost blown out background with strong shadows across it. Done right it can be very effective in calling attention to the subject - particularly when done in black and white. But it would be rather dramatic.

I think in fact the biggest issue with this sample is as you say the lack of separation between subject and background, whether the separation is by distance, by lighting, or both.

Also the strong color of the background I think is an issue here, as is the placement of the shadows.

I tried to eliminate these from the equation by cutting just the portion with the face in Photoshop, but even so the lighting was lacking something. Again I can go with high key contrasty or low key soft lighting, but I think in this case the lighting was neither one.

Maybe the real issue is that the lighting doesn't seem to be done in service to a clear concept of what is wanted.

Makes me think of a quote attributed to Ansel Adams which I saw painted on the side of a building in of all places a Tokyo back street. Something to the effect that there is nothing worse than a beautiful photograph of a fuzzy concept.

I'm not so judgemental as to say that there was no concept behind this shot, but the lighting doesn't make clear what the concept was.

The thing I always do with these type of 'tests' is look quickly and see what my eye is drawn to. In this case, it's the background. The assumption is the brightest part of an image may well be the most important. So the wife came in second here! She's actually well lit, but the background , while interesting, is a distraction that needs sorting. There's a picture on the table, but again, it presumably isn't important as it's not lit either. Me, I'd have lifted the face with a stronger key - looking at her nose, there aren't any shadows I can see apart from on her left, so her face looks a little flat. Just an opinion.

...there is nothing worse than a beautiful photograph of a fuzzy concept.

I'm not so judgemental as to say that there was no concept behind this shot, but the lighting doesn't make clear what the concept was.

I think this is the nail on the head right there.

She is lit "flat" but the motivated lighting is very dramatic and directional, and it seems VERY fake. Like a bad greenscreen. Like you say, a "fuzzy concept".

This is just a set up involving my wife, who is sick of me

Hi Mike,

For me the forground is too dark whilst the background is light(er) which is "the wrong way around". My suggestions would be to increase the light levels for the foreground and to seperate your wife from the seat more by adding more light on her right shoulder.

I've doctored your image a bit, redistributing the shadows, and the skintones aren't perfect but you can tell the key was a bit hard. Disregarding the wall the rest of the image gained color and detail and your wife is now more 'in the foreground'. It is probably not 'the look' you were aiming for, but just me (trying) to make a point.

I have no problem with a contrasty background; as long as the subject is seperated properly that is where you'll focus.

George/

P.S. Apologies of me having fun with the quote ;-)

to all who have given the free advice. It is all very much appreciated.

The basic thought behind the test, was to help me learn how to use a lighting kit I have been putting together over the past few months, and to get familiar with the functions of each unit. I'm still green to the lighting process, and feel a little limited by the space to set up lights, reflectors and camera in my home, and still live (peaceably) with my family.8)

I noticed the background was too close, and would appreciate any tricks other than 35mm adapters, to making distance less of an issue. I guess I could over light the subject, then flip on the ND filter, and crank the iris.

Also, I don't have soft boxes for my fresnels(older century 750w and 2000w fixtures) and am currently poor-boying it with parchment paper clipped to the front of the barn door for diffusion on the key light. Is there a more efficient method until I can afford a soft box? Would I be better off to use one of my 1000tota lights for a key?

Maybe I could use some advice on how to best utilize my kit for interview set-ups.

My kit includes the following:

3 - 750W 6" Century Fresnels w/bdoors
1 - 1000w 8" Century Fresnel w/bdoors
1 - 2000w 8" Century Fresnel w/bdoors
2 tota lights: 1-750w, 1-1000w
4 750w smith victor floods with barn doors Model 710
1 3" 150w fresnel
1 42" 5 in one reflector.

Any advice on my next light-related purchase would be great also.

I appreciate the advice offered by those who carry much more experience, than I, with video and lighting, and greatly appreciate those who have taken and will take the time to post your comments.

Please keep them coming, and thanks again!!

Mike Watkins

I noticed the background was too close, and would appreciate any tricks other than 35mm adapters, to making distance less of an issue. I guess I could over light the subject, then flip on the ND filter, and crank the iris.

You're missing the obvious solution, which is to physically move the subject away from the background. Pick up the chair and move it :)

Granted there will be times when you have no choice, but I don't think this is one of those situations. You generally want to avoid having someone close to a wall as a general rule, just because of the shadow liability that you have. Just making sure you know there is a way to do what you want without using any adapters or camera trickery.

I was thinking the same thing. I seem to remember you saying that you were in a confined space, but I think if you make a tighter pose (ie head and shoulder only) you'll be able to move the chair closer to the camera.

Not sure if depth of field will be enough to help, butin any case, with this particular colored background, I think you want to let it go as darkas possible.

Having more distance between wall and subject will also help make it easier to keep more light off the wall.

The visual psychology of imaging tell us to keep the most important part of the image lighter than the rest, this will attract the viewer’s eye to the center of attention, in this case the face of the subject. Also separate the different planes in the image. In this case the background is way too bright in respect to the subject and way too close.

Watch out for composition. Any lines coming into the image should lead to the main point of interest; the background light should be coming from the other direction with the oblique lines leading to the subject. Also never start an oblique line from the corner of an image; this will visually split the image, have the lines start either above or below the corner.

Conflicting light sources. Always try to give the illusion that there’s only one main (key) light, in this case the key light is coming from one side while the background from the opposite side, try to avoid this.

Raise your camera, especially for subject that are overweight or those with double chin. You are shooting right into her chin making it very prominent, (see attached samples).

Adjust the key light so you will have modeling on the face; also learn about the 3 basic key light positions and angles "front, 45 degree and split or 90 degree light". Proper light placement is another trick to make heavier people look thinner; what’s not important make it dark. People look at eyes and mouth, cheeks and ears are not important (see attached samples).

Posing; do not cross the arms, this will make the person look bulkier.

Avoid a high back chair or one that cuts in the middle of the head.

There are techniques to pose and light subjects that will make them look much thinner that they really are. Once you learn those you'll be a hero.

What a terrific analysis Nino. I'm such a rookie that as I read your critique, I realized that I spotted only 1-2 of the things you pointed out. Great job.

Mike:

One of the hard skills to master is putting light where you want it, and keeping it off where you don't.

As Nino noted, the Chimera or soft box is your friend. That should be one of your next purchases, along with a fabric grid to keep the light from spreading all over the place. I'd get a least one for the 750 and one for the 1000 watt light. I'd also like to see a couple of 300 watt fixtures in that kit.

Now, in your lighting scenario, you've already gotten most of the best advice, but it bears repeating.

1. Always keep as much depth behind your subject as possible. This not only lets you have more room to play with separating your light sources, it also allows you to back up a bit and use a longer focal length to get a little video bokeh with the softer focus background.

2. I sort of liked the pattern on the wall. I'd back off the color intensity a bit, and cut about 2/3 of the light intensity, as well.

3. The key just plain needed more presence. Without the soft boxes, use your barndoors to make a reasonably small aperture, and then layer several thickness of diffusion to cut back on the shadows. Some folks would shoot the 1000 or 2000 watt light into a white bounce board and use that for the key, but in those tight quarters, you'd spray light everywhere & lose most of your back wall lighting. Also, here's a trick for your key to get it placed in the right spot and angle: turn off all the lights except for the key. Light the face so (in your case) the screen right cheekbone is just at the edge of the light, and the cheekbone casts a shadow behind itself. Toplight the hair and the shoulders. If the face shadow is too dramatic for your project, use a bounce board off to the right and redirect just a little of the key light to fill back in behind the cheekbone shadow. Works like a charm nearly every time.

I've tried to implement all of your much appreciated advice. Please offer your critiques on the lighting in these screen grabs. I shot this yesterday for the reenactment group that my parents and siblings are involved in.

I'm revising a video I did for them, earlier this year, to tell a little more about their group.

I was able to pick up a light with a soft box for this shoot, and am very pleased with the results.

Any comments and advice are still greatly longed for. I would like to know if this quality of shot would be acceptable for a demo reel in the future, and if not, what can be done to improve.

Thanks,

Mike Watkins

Not sure what parchment paper is? but it's a common trick with redheads to use the clips on the barndoors to hold a big sheet of diffuser - Lee and Rosco have suitable stuff - the heavy frosts or spun work pretty well, and you can use sheets of colour temp conversion in the same clips - I've never felt a need for a 'proper' sotfbox as the redhead is such a vesatile piece of kit. With some CT and diffuser in the box, most jobs can be managed quite well.

Mike,

This looks very nice indeed. Probably my only comment is that it seems customary to place the camera on the opposite side from the key light, and in this case it ssems as you've put the camera and the key on the same side. This is not to say it doesn't look good, because it does.

I might have used a bit more fill on the females but if you are trying for a consistent look, you got it. Great stuff.



I've tried to implement all of your much appreciated advice. Please offer your critiques on the lighting in these screen grabs. I shot this yesterday for the reenactment group that my parents and siblings are involved in.

I'm revising a video I did for them, earlier this year, to tell a little more about their group.

I was able to pick up a light with a soft box for this shoot, and am very pleased with the results.

Any comments and advice are still greatly longed for. I would like to know if this quality of shot would be acceptable for a demo reel in the future, and if not, what can be done to improve.

Thanks,

Mike Watkins

Mike,

Much improved over the first shot. It's looking.

I also picked up on the camera and key being on the same side and I still have some quibbles with the background.

The shadow of the coyote tells me that the light is coming from the left, but the facial shadows tell me it is coming from the right, which I think is a bit confusing.

I think in the one close up you shared, the background is much softer and it looks better, to me at least.

The coyote shadow is a sharp high contrast element in the shot, which I think is also making it compete with the subject for your attention. I think the eye tends to go first to the area of highest contrast which means that the coyote gets more attention than I think is wanted.

I'd still suggest trying to get the perception of more separation between subject and backround either by physical distance/depth of field, or softer more diffuse and lower intensity lighting on the background.

Maybe a bit more fill on the faces would be good, but on the whole I think the facial lighting shows a vast improvement from your initial example.

Not sure what parchment paper is? but it's a common trick with redheads to use the clips on the barndoors to hold a big sheet of diffuser - - I've never felt a need for a 'proper' sotfbox as the redhead is such a vesatile piece of kit. With some CT and diffuser in the box, most jobs can be managed quite well.
Paul:

I use diffusion on barn doors frequently, as well. The problem I find is that, while it can make for a nice soft light approximating the quality of light from a Chimera, the light tends to spread all over the place. That's why I'm a big fan of the fabric grids in these kinds of lighting situations.

Mike:

You're getting there! The second picture (la.png) is starting to get the right amount of key light on the face. The others are still too dark for me, compared to the background. Couple of suggestions:

1. Don't key and back light from the same side--especially if you're not going to fill in the dark side a little. You've got both lights coming in from screen right, and no fill on the left...so it's a pretty unflattering nose shadow. As a general rule, the talent should be facing into the key. So if they are on screen right, with the open side to screen left, the key should be coming from the left side of the camera.

2. Key cool, back light warm. In this Western scenario, if all you have are incandescent (3200) fixtures, I'd do this: nice strong key with soft, but white diffusion. Backlight gets just a slight warming gel, maybe a piece of frost. The coyote/wolf gets a background light with at least a half CTO or other fairly warm/orange/straw gel on it. Be sure to white balance your camera with only the white key light, then add the other, warmer lights after the balance.

3. The other thing to consider in the background is following the shadow. You've lit the stuffed animal from the left, and gotten a really cool pattern on the stone fireplace. But notice: the snout shadow is projecting into the frame and onto the very light stonework. If you have enough room to pull that background light over to the right side of the fireplace, you can get the same patterns on the stonework, but the shadow falls away from the animal, off to the edge of the screen and into the darker part of the room, where it may disappear. A lighting purist might insist that the key and the background light appear to be from the same source...but I always check the shadows first, and see if they are leading into the frame and distracting.

Completely agree.

Mike, did you happen to take notes on any of the following:

Frame rate and shutter settings?
Iris position?
Distance of camera to subject and/or subject to background?
Lighting levels on the subject and lighting levels on the background?

I think in the instance of these shots Jim is giving more subtle details that will really begin to make this stuff look good.

Maintaining the directionalty of the shadows will help with the realism. To that end, I think the key is lighting to augment what is naturally there rather than lighting "to light". If that makes sense. If the room has a big window with nice soft light, then simply augment that rather than fight it. If you are in a room with no light, then imagine what the room would look like in nature, and build around it to create the look.

Depth of field is still a bit too much. What this seems to indicate to me is that your iris is too closed F5.6 or higher, and you really want to be working near F2 or more open for interviews. This will cause the background to soften up, and not draw attention away from your subjects.

Third, a bounce off a white card a couple of feet away would have taken a bit of the edge off and maybe softened some of the facial lines. I guess as I age, I am more sensitive to those kinds of things. And why I mentioned metering, is that you'd like the lighting in the background to fall off a bit. The coyote is as bright as the actors in the scene. Put enough light to suggest what it is, but not enough to make us stare at it.

One thing that strikes me in this is the framing. It's VERY good. Headroom is excellent. Laying the subjects on thirds is very good too. I might offer that if this is going to go into a longer piece, that you not place everyone in exactly the same place. Meaning that if you have 8 interviews and they are all in the same room, that you shift the background so that it doesn't look like you shot it on an assembly line. Moving the camera 5 feet left or right should do enough.

But again, this is 100% improvement over the first stuff, and now we're nitpicking. :)





The shadow of the coyote tells me that the light is coming from the left, but the facial shadows tell me it is coming from the right, which I think is a bit confusing.

I'd still suggest trying to get the perception of more separation between subject and backround either by physical distance/depth of field, or softer more diffuse and lower intensity lighting on the background.

Maybe a bit more fill on the faces would be good, but on the whole I think the facial lighting shows a vast improvement from your initial example.

You are back to your old tricks again.

The background is competing for attention, is too bright, too much in focus and too close to the subject. Back off you subject from the background by a lot. Place the camera in the next room if you have to and shoot thru the doorway. This problem of too much depth is worse on smaller chips camera such as the 1/3 chips, you really have to compensate by creating more distance. By increasing the distance of the different planes in the image you will also minimize the effect of light spills.

You still have the key and the background light coming from different directions, you always must give the illusion that there’s only one main light source. Also soften the background light when you have something casting shadows.

Placing the key light on the broad side of the face will work in some occasions but not with ladies, particularly not with overweight ladies. As you can see it’s not too offensive on the men. Again, the psychology of lighting will attract and make stand out the lighter portions of the image, we want to viewer’s attention to fall on the eyes and mouth, this are the area that the key light should be concentrated. Cheeks, ears and chins are not important, Place the key light on the short side of the face, that’s the side facing away from the camera; easy to remember, the side where the camera can’t see the ear.

Raise your key light; the cheeks are casting shadows below the eyes, that’s a no-no. This technique is called theatrical light; this is when you want to make someone look sinister. See the basic light positions below; remember that the best way to see if the light is well positioned is by studying the shadow it casts and particularly the shadow on the side of the nose. See the attached images.

Raise you camera, you are way too low, you are shooting up the nostrils. The starting rule should be that the camera lens should be at the subject eye level, you will then have to tilt down to frame it. For overweight people even higher is better. First you will not shoot into their double chin, second a higher camera angle will force the subject to raise her head, this will stretch the extra skin below the chin and make any double chin disappear or make it unnoticeable. Try it at home in front of a mirror.

When a person wears a hat you might have to use a different lighting technique, use a 90 degree light, only half of the face should be lit and no light at all on the shadow side of the face. Keep the key light at low height so the visor will not cast a shadow on the eyes, but be careful, don’t place the light below the face or you’ll end up with the sinister look. Compensate the shadow area with a good and soft fill. See the second pix of coach Gruden below.

Nino:

I don't know what camera/lense Mike is using, but I'd say the subject is not too close to the background--there seems to be plenty of separation. As you noted, however; the camera is too close to the subject, and the focal length is too wide and sharp through the image. Back up, zoom in. Always a good idea.

Mike: another thought occurs to me as I look at the images. Are these Western re-enactment folks? If so, the framed pictures handing on the wall to the left kind of detract from the ambience.

In this location, it might not hurt to slide the talent chair and the camera to the left a bit, and try to keep the edges of the video frame at or inside the edges of the fireplace stone. Slide the stuffed animal to the right to keep it pleasantly framed in the open area.

I am truly impressed with the ability of the people on this forum to offer such great advice and do so in a constructive manner.

Paul: Parchment paper is used for cooking, as a barrier between the pan and the food. I picked it up as a cheap diffusion material on a DIY website. I've been using it like you suggest, but find that it broadcasts light all over the place.

Perrone: I did in fact place the camera and key on the same side. To my eye it seemed more pleasing for this shot(I may be totally off on my analysis). I am using a canon xh-a1, and these shots were at 24p 1/48 shutter. I believe aperture was around 3.7ish. Distance between camera and subject was approximately 18', subject to background approximately 20'. Thanks for the tips and advice!

Bill: Thanks for the rules of thumb on the backing and key from the same side, I wasn't aware of this method. Also, I'll try gelling the background a bit next time. Too bad this was a one time setup in this location, and moving the coyote and rearranging the background for a reshoot won't likely be able to happen.

Nino:

Thanks again for your comments. They are much appreciated and informative. I think I was better on distance from the background, and that the problem is camera placement. I had room for another 10 or 12 feet of separation from camera to subject and probably should have used it. I'm finding that the XHA1 requires a good bit of separation to narrow the depth of field. Also, I just purchased the key light, used, and it was lamped with only a 500watt lamp. I am ordering a 1000w, which I believe will help.


So from a professional point of view, would these shots be acceptable, or would they fail the test? I plan on making this a side business, but don't want to get out there and begin promoting a sloppy product.

Again thanks for the advice and comments. Any additional comments are still very welcome and desired. My family and friends are too supportive(and inexperienced) to offer any criticism.

Thanks,

Mike

Mike,

I think a real pro would ding you for the these we are. I am nothing but a rank amateur when it comes to this stuff, but I have been on the learning curve a bit longer than you I guess. I think when you can get lighting on the subject and they don't look "lit", that's when you should start with the demo reel.

There are many ways to light. Many styles. Everything from Film Noir (watch some old Bogart movies or Edward G. Robinson), to really natural lighting (watch Kurasawa movies for example) to movies that emphasize glamour like the new Sex and the City. If you can get a copy of The Other Boleyn Girl, watch that.

You'll find that generally Hollywood likes punch color and contrast. Asian movies tend to use more diffused and natural light. Really depends on the subject matter. Try to rent or buy movies that have master cinematographers. No Country for Old men is a GREAT example. I'd recommend The Assassination of Jesse James as another (same guy, Roger Deakins) but it's a HARD movie to watch. Rent Raging Bull to see an extreme example the other direction. Freeze frame these on closeups and mid shots to see what the lighting is doing both on the principle and the background. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a masterpiece when it comes to that.

Something in your last comment struck me. You have significant subject to camera distance, but nearly equal subject to background distance. Your focus will hold WELL past the subject. So if you have to put the principle nearer the camera and further from the camera, do that. And use enough neutral density filtering to get that lens open. Even if you have to play with shutter speeds. For interviews it just wont matter that much.

I also noted that you lit these folks with some fairly strong lights. The trick to that game is not more light, its to move the fixture closer. If you watched some lighting setups for soft interview lighting, you might be surprised how close the lighting and fill are. I'll find a link to something I have in mind that should give you an idea.

[Edit 1]

Look at this focus test I shot with my light meter: http://www.vimeo.com/1370136

Pause it at about 6 seconds. You'll see the the manufacturer name in sharp focus but the neck strap is not. The neck strap is only about 8" behind the meter. The closer you can get the camera to the subject and zoomed in to frame, the more you can throw the background out of focus.

-P



So from a professional point of view, would these shots be acceptable, or would they fail the test? I plan on making this a side business, but don't want to get out there and begin promoting a sloppy product.

Let’s start with the: “if you are good enough” to start marketing you services. Today everything goes, I seen people getting paid for stuff that ten years ago you couldn’t even show to you brother in law. A lot depends how the rest of your shooting and editing goes. Exactly what type of work do you intend to offer.

Interviews are an important part of any production especially features because most of the time the program hinge around interviews. Also people are accustomed to see interviews everywhere on TV or on the web and they can tell the difference between good and bad interviews. For many clients the quality of the interviews is a gauge to indicate of how good the shooter is and how he/she compares to other shooters.

If you have the room use it to increase the subject-background distance instead of the distance between camera/subject. If you put the camera too far from the subject you will end up compressing the image and you will lose the illusion of depth. I wouldn’t place the camera more than 8 to 10 feet from the subject.

Don’t up-lamp your key light unless you run out of F stop and the image is still dark. Open you lens and adjust the light for the exposure. Try to shoot at least at F2.8 open more if the lens has it. With a smaller chip camera shoot wide open and adjust you lights to get the proper exposure.

Lower the intensity of your background light; you want it to be underexposed by at least one to two stops in respect to the subject. Direct the background light behind the subject almost as a glow behind and let the light gradually drop toward the edges of the background. Remember that we are not there to take pictures of backgrounds.

Sometime less is more and better. I don’t always have two or three hours to set up an interview, often I have 20 minutes to get it done but it still has to look decent. I have added a few shots below done with one 650w open face light as a key shined thru a large diffuser, one small 250w Lowel Pro light mounted on a XXsmall soft box and another 250w Lowel Pro to just bring up the background. That’s it, 3 lights.

And when you put the subject closer to the camera, watch out for exaggerated perspective if you're shooting at the wide end of your zoom.

Re separation of subject and background, maybe focusing a bit in front of the subject so they're toward the back of the zone of sharp focus (hyperfocal distance) would help. A tad of softness on a face never hurt anything - particularly in HD where there's more resolution than most people's complexions can take.

Mike,

Found what I wanted you to take a look at.

Look at the first two example videos here:

http://poweroflighting.com/videos.html

Note in the first video especially, the distance of the lights to the talent. And what that large, soft source does for them. In the second video, you see much the same thing outside.

Note that this gear doesn't have to be costly. I built some 3x3 and 4x4 silks out of window screen materials purchased at Home Depot. Total costs with fabrics was less than $20 each. Foamcore is 3 sheets for $15 at Office Depot.

Mike:

Compared to some of the stuff out there in the DV world, you're already a leg up on the competition.

Nino just gave you a great graphic example a 3-light set-up. I use that same 3-light method nearly all the time, unless there are a bunch of "product" highlights that need to be emphasized.

Re: parchment paper. Find one of the video gear houses or grip supply houses in your area, and buy some lighting diffusion--frost or pearl or whatever else they have--until you get your softboxes. With 650+ watt light heads, it's only a matter of time before you burn through a diffuser not made for lighting.

Nothing says "I'm a professional" like running around the set with a flaming light on a stand!

one small 250w Lowel Pro light mounted on a XXsmall soft box
Is this the Chimera XX-Small video soft box?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/257334-REG/Chimera_8104_Video_Pro_Plus_1.html

What speed ring do you use for this?
Thank you!

Is this the Chimera XX-Small video soft box?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/257334-REG/Chimera_8104_Video_Pro_Plus_1.html

What speed ring do you use for this?
Thank you!

That's the one. Lowel also make a speed ring that goes for about $40.
I use this light mostly in my travel kit so everything has to be lightweight. Instead of a boom or gobo arm I use a 1/2"x3' aluminum tubing available at any home improvement store and a standard grip head.

I'm trying to tone the intensity of my backgrounds. I think I might have it this time. I really appreciate all of your time taken to give your suggestions.

I'm realizing how much more there is to what I'm watching on t.v.

Anyway, here is a different set up in my living room(same space as original posted pic), and I've once again tried to follow the given advice. I'm about 11' from subject with the camera, and about 10' between subject and background. all at 24p, 1/48, aperture wide open. Red gel thrown on backlight.

again, hit me with it...

Thanks,

Mike Watkins

Vast improvement!!! Are you sure you're the same guy who posted the original shots:<)

Just for fun, you should stick the original side by side with the latest shots.

Wow, look at that...

Soft background, modeling on the face, kiss of hair light, good framing...

Yep... starting to come together!


More critique eh? Alright.

So now you've suppressed the background. I'm guessing you don't have a light meter. Spend some time looking at your favorite TV dramas or evening interview shows. Look at the light ratio between the background and the foreground. Generally, the foreground has prominence, and the background is just hinted at. It's like you can tell what's back there, it has shape and tonality, but it's not competing for interest with the foreground.

In terms of framing, one other thing that I learned in portraiture. Try to get the talent on an angle. In other words, don't frame them so that they are as wide as possible. It makes the shoulders and the person look disproportionately wide. Especially women.

There are some who believe that the lighting on women should be less modeled than wit ha man. I tend to agree. I prefer women softly lit. Not necessarily flat, but the ratio of key to fill is very close. But that is a matter of style and preference. If everyone I put in frame was under 25, and had a face like Jessica Alba, I might think differently. But when you shoot women "of a certain age", and who don't have professional hair and makeup people to tend to them before shooting, I try to help them as much as possible. A large softbox or a silk will do WONDERS for taking out wrinkles and lines. Give that a shot in your next setup.

Getting there.

I can still see the inside her nostrils, raise the camera more. Also raise your key, everything in the face is flat, shadows are just as important as the light; you need to see the separation between chin and neck. See the demo below and look at the shadow below the nose and below the chin. If you feel that the shadows are too prominent then use a small fill light.

If you are going to use front key instead of 45 then move it in front, the in-between little shadow on the side of the nose is not very flattering, also see the sample below. If you do this in most cases you will not need a fill, looks like you are using a side reflector, place the key properly and you will not need one.

Start using a back or hair light above the subject, this will give you separation without having to worry too much about the background light. Again see sample below.

The correct position for the backlight should be apx. 4' above and at a 45 degree angle behind, pointed toward the back of the head and placed directly in the back center opposite from the direction of where the subject is looking to.

Also rotate slightly the subject more toward the camera so she doesn't have to turn her head or turn her eyes. Looks like her eyes are constantly focused to the right (her left)
The added rotation will also make the face appear slimmer. The basic rule is that you shouldn't be able to see both ears.

Keep up the good work.

Mike:

Way to go! Much better...now, split the difference between the light intensity on the earlier efforts and this latest pic.

Nino:

Nice idea with the light weight aluminum tube. Think it'd support an ARRI 300 light?

A great wrinkle and eye-bag remover is a large white bounce card (foamcore, beadboard) in front of the subject, below the line of the lens. If you can work it close enough to the subject you won't need to add any light to it, it works as a passive fill and serves to smooth out the lines in the face. It will lift up the exposure under the chin, so if this is an area that one is trying to hide it will help to raise the key somewhat and possibly raise the camera as well. Start with it at around 45 degrees and rotate from there until it achieves maximum effect. The closer and/or bigger the card, the more effect it will have.

Nino:

Nice idea with the light weight aluminum tube. Think it'd support an ARRI 300 light?

Although I never put them on a scale the combined weight of the Lowel Pro Light with the speed ring and the Chimera box is probably the equivalent and an Arri 300 but to be on the safe side I would get an aluminum rod instead of a tube. I think it will depend more on the stand than on the boom. If the stand flexes too much because of the weight you might have some stability problems, sandbag the bottom well and you'll be OK.

I feel like I'm getting closer on the interview set ups. I'd appreciate some feedback on the footage I'm linking to.

Thanks,

Mike Watkins

30 second teaser for dvinfo.net documentary contest (http://www.w5digital.com/Site/The_Only_Thing_Constant.html)

Very nice Mike! Looks like you've learned. Only two small criticisms is one of the interviewees is still a bit close to a wall with no breakup, and the last person seemed to have a bit of a hotspot on them.

But looks good!

Thanks Perrone.

I've been trying to put to practice all of the advice. Also I've been doing alot more shooting lately and I think this has been a big help, but not quite as much as the good advice given here on the forum.

I did notice the hotspot and closeness on the last interviewee, but it was in the edit bay when I really noticed It was a rushed set up for that interview.

Thanks for the comments.

Mike Watkins

Re separation of subject and background, maybe focusing a bit in front of the subject so they're toward the back of the zone of sharp focus (hyperfocal distance) would help.

Jim makes a valuable point; it can make a significant difference.

I think the only thing I would add to what everyone else has contributed is:

1. Note the difference of the apparent brightness of the hairlight on the men and women: it appears inordinately bright and sparkly on the women's hair for the mood you're trying to create. On the men, the clothing mutes this. The cheapest and easiest solution is probably a dimmer, such as this nifty tool Harbor Freight Tools - Quality Tools at the Lowest Prices (http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=43060). Note that the color temp of your lamp will warm as you dim it. If necessary, a gel will cool it down.

2. As one who many years ago had to ask for a $15 photo umbrella for Christmas for financial reasons, I join many here in empathy for your doing things on the cheap. You can clamp a $4 extendable curtain rod, the cheap white or brass kind that weigh almost nothing, to a stand and use wooden clothes pins or stronger spring clamps to hang white translucent fabric of your choice from the fabric store, and light through or bounce. If you can afford it, buy some ripstop nylon, aka sail cloth, grid cloth, etc. Check the remnants tables for extra bargains.

Again, watch your background, viewers will see bad composition before they see bad lighting. Your lighting is good, keep making small adjustments as you go along but look at those backgrounds.

The first shot of the boy, good lighting but there's something that looks like a cable TV box growing out of his face.

Second shot of the man in front a dark background, don't change a thing, that's the best of the bunch.

Third of the woman, I believe that's your wife? First avoid vertical lines splitting the image, there are two different pictures into one. Don't paste your subject against the background put as much distance as you can, unless for some reason the background is part of the story. Probably you are using a small 1/3 chip camera and with those you'll have difficulties reducing the depth of field in order to create good separation, use distance and darker background to give the illusion of depth.

Same for the last shot, too close to the background and same light value. Just like the shot above the background is competing with the subject. Also when you have something like a picture frame in the image make sure it's not crooked, in this case probably your camera wasn't leveled.

Your lighting is good, just fine tune it and don't go crazy yet it will get better with time and experience, work on the rest of the composition, that's more important.