Hi Folks,

I am curious if there are any films out there released in the mainstream that aren't documentaries, but were filmed entirely with natural lighting and ambient room lighting with nothing added? Is it even possible? If there are movies where this has been done, I am curious to check them out to see how they pulled it off.

Thanks,

Brian

"Mainstream" as in mainstream theatrical narratives? I doubt it. Light always has to be manipulated over the course of the take, even when shooting with the sun - You have to use fill and bounce. I know that some SCENES are shot with natural light... but I doubt entire movies would be.

I recall the candlelight in "Barry Lyndon" was all natural, impressive stuff.

I suppose the Dogme fills would be all natural, but I hardly consider those mainstream.

Thanks Richard,

I figured there are either none or perhaps just a well known few. Is it because a camera simply can't capture and reproduce what the eye can naturally see, or is it more complicated than that?

I am sure there are myriads of indie films shot in all natural light simply out of cost/resources. That's why I asked about mainstream (i.e. a filmmaker who could afford lighting, but artistically chose not to use any artificial lighting).

Maybe it's never been well done (i.e. well enough to be released to movie screens in shopping malls). Maybe it's a challenge for a creative filmmaker out there.

Brian

I have worked on some films where this has happened to a certain degree. "American History X" was probably the simplest lit film I've been on; I don't think we ever used any supplemental lighting or bounce/fill for day exteriors, and absolute minimum for interiors. Often there would be a single light bounced off the ceiling, and the windows would just blow out.

It's not that uncommon for day exteriors to be shot au natural. Twice I've operated Steadicam for the legendary Roger Deakins, and both times not a single piece of gear was used for supplemental lighting. He did have very specific times of day chosen to shoot those scenes, though.

Charles...not to make this thread all about your experience, but what about a film like Session 9? Was that lit very heavily?

I thought it had a good natural look to it (considering it was on HD at what I can only assume was a modest budget)

Just curious.

I have read Andrew Laszlo's book, "Every Frame a Rembrandt" and he says that the majority of the swamp scenes in "Southern Comfort" are done with existing light and reflectors. He is available on a web site I frequent and I asked him about this....

His response:

"Basically, the purpose of not using lights in the swamp was to make the film more believable. If the shots, particularly the close-ups were photographed with studio lighting techniques, all the film would have ended up looking like a studio photographed film. This is not to say that I did not use a bit of help by adding light here and there. The guide was to use minimal amount of lighting, and keep it at a level wher it would not be noticeable. My credo as applied to lighting and special effects was always that "it was good if you didn't see it."
"

Great responses guys! Kudo's to the folks here who have obviously made this such a top notch community. We have a busy music site and I know how hard it is to keep things intelligent and productive.

Charles: I'll check that out and see how it came out.

Scott: Tell Andrew thanks for this thoughts! Very interesting.

Anyone else have interesting examples?

Brian

PS: Charles, a direct question: Is it impossible for a camera to reproduce what the eye sees or can it be done with enough skill? If I am in a dimly lit house, is there any way a camera can see it the same way my naked eye does? I am sure that's an obvious question for all you guys, but I wonder if technology will produce gear that can eventually do that so that massive lighting may not be as neccessary in the future?

I believe all "Dogme" films are 100% natural. I'm not to knowledgeable about them, but I read an article recently and the basis for "Dogme" was to strip away the conventions of filmmaking to its purest form. I believe natural lighting is a requirement?

EDIT:
http://www.dogme95.dk/the_vow/vow.html

Chris,

Yeah, that's my understanding too, regarding the dogme films.

Brian, neither video nor film has the same built in responsiveness and immediate 'color correcting' features as the combination human eye/brain. Remember when you are talking about 'what the eye sees' you are really talking about what the 'brain processes'.

You can choose some filmstocks, that will see MORE than what the human eye sees... IE:Infrared. You can choose extremely low light filmstocks, that will appear 'grainy' but will 'see' into extreme low light conditions. Likewise, the camera lens has a great deal to do with how much light is collected in a given situation. (Along with the shutter speed of course).

Just as what you see is determined by how sensitive YOUR retina is, how wide YOUR pupil opens, how sharp YOUR lens is, and how well your visual cortex is working... so too, much depends on the filmstock, shutter speed, lens acuity and aperture, etc. (We all know people with great night vision, and poor night vision for example)

But, the answer I think you want to hear, is that generally speaking, film is 'slower' than the human eye/brain. But not always.

To see what I consider a masterly use of natural light (and artificial as well) check out "Girl with a Pearl Earring". Much better on the wide screen of course, but I felt like I was WATCHING a Vermeer painting... fantastic stuff.

Luis:

"Session 9" was lit pretty minimally, not just because of the low budget but partially for the look. The DP wanted to experiment with not "protecting" the HD image; letting backgrounds blow out rather than controlling them. I think it was largely successful.

Brian:

It's getting there, but not there yet, especially when it comes to highlights in digital. Even at the point when the sensitivity of the medium will allow us to shoot in what we consider "dimly lit" by visual standards, the question is: is that effective filmmaking? It may be real, but is it visually captivating, or will it appear flat and muddy? The best way to think of it is with still photography: by increasing the exposure time, you can capture an image in virtually any level of light. However, the results are not necessarily what the eye sees--what starts off as too dark will evolve (as the exposure time is increased) into a "proper" exposure according to the meter, but the resulting image will look brighter than what the eye sees. If one is to then take this image and print it down, it may work OK, or it might lose its snap and look dull (if there are highlights present, i.e. at least one area of good contrast in the frame, you can more easily get away with this).

Interesting discussion!

Steven Soderberg shot Full Frontal with only ambient light on Canon XL-2's and it was commercially released.

Charles, thanks for the insight.

I think part of the allure to shooting with natural light (at least in my low budget world) is the allure of shooting with less gear and hence lower costs. One thing I think is important to stress is that to get good results it seems you're trading the gear for time. As long as you have the luxury of time, that's alright. But often times people think that less gear equals faster shooting.

I handled the post on a feature shot on HDCam a few years ago, and had the good fortune to be on set everyday because the director wanted me there to consult with him on coverage. He shot all the exteriors with natural light, and even though they had a good amount of grip equipment (silks, reflectors, etc), there was still a lot of time spent waiting on clouds, waiting on the sun, etc.

There were also many moments when, while shooting an interior scene, the entire production was moved outside to 'grab' and exterior while the light was right (the DP was always irked by that phrase, as if they were just 'grabbing' a shot with no effort on his part). These sorts of moves took a lot of time.

Reading up some stuff just now on Session 9 it seems that Brad Anderson and the DP spent a lot of preproduction time scouting out the location, taking photographs, and seeing how each location looked at different times of the day to get the look they wanted.

I'm not saying it isn't worth it, and in fact sometimes it's not a choice but a limitation dictated by the budget...but it seems you're trading one hurdle for another. What you gain financially you lose in control and time.

Then again, at the budget level I work at, that's still a good trade off.

Patrick,

The XL-2 wasn't around for Full Frontal. Must have been Xl 1s.

Didn't Nestor Almendros rely on natural light for much of his work?
I think I remember reading that Days of Heaven was shot primarily using available light....although I may just be confusing that with the fact that it was shot mostly at 'magic hour.'


OH, and to add to the list, the japanese film "Nobody Knows" was shot primarily with available light on Super 16. There was a short article about it in the February issue of American Cinematographer (not sure if the article in online).
Fittingly, the DP (Yamazaki Yutaka) spent most of his career shooting documenatries. According to the article, he only used lights (40 watt Kinos) for a nightime exterior in an apartment where there wasn't enough available light to get a proper exposure for the 'candlelit' scene they were doing.

Of course, to shoot this way is also an artistic choice which should match the material and subject matter you're covering.

That is true it was the XL1s and it was all done in under 2 mill or somthing like that. Crazy, also he did all of the shooting in somthing like 19 days (or around there)

I learned something really important during a film lighting class I took a few years ago.

The main thing with any production is to always think it like planting a stake. Before you even shoot decide what the overall tone will be and when you plan your lighting...stick with that no matter what. For example...if you happen to get an offer for an incredible light kit (for like 1 day) during a production where you've used minimal light...it's just not a good idea to use it. It could take the entire movie audience experience and mess it up. It can jar them out of the "suspention of disbelief". It's better not to spend 5 days getting that unbelieveable scene on the mountain during the golden hour (that looks like you paid a million dollars for it) if the rest of your movie has a reality television feel to it and was shot with $1000. Everyone on the film benefits from knowing where that "stake" is planted upfront too.

If you make a line that represents your movie on a piece of paper...and it's going up a little...then down, then all of a sudden you have this money shot that jumps off the paper it's just not part of the WHOLE film. This is all opinion of course, but the guys who taught the class made such good sense when they explained it. I'm probably not making alot of sense. I even remembering the teacher explaining how he got "one of the greatest shots I've ever captured on film" during a commercial shoot. Apparently, it had the coolest sunset or something happening with the sun and the subject of the commercial. But, in the end he said it was actually TO GOOD! Can you believe that? He said the rest of the commercial looked HORRIBLE compared to this one shot....so, they couldn't use it. Once they took it out...the rest of the commercial looked great again. Weird, but it's something to think about when lighting!

They did sum it all up by giving an interesting example that I personally think about all the time now. If you want to make movies...make sure you're not a "High School Art" moviemaker. Meaning...some kid creates this masterpiece over in the corner one day and everyone is amazed. The kid is a star for the week. But, the next week he can't reproduce another masterpiece. So...he's "High School Art". True professional artistry means you can re-create your masterpieces...and that means the overall work is more important then that one shot with the best lighting job ever.

I'm sorta going on and off topic! But, this lighting question has brought back that memory and it's such a good lesson. I think so anyway. Hope it makes sense!

The 1984 Forman film Amadeus was shot entirely with natural light and is quite extraordinary in that regard.

I suppose if this discussion is to have merit, a definition for the term 'natural light' should be set out. Perhaps by defining what is 'un-natural light'?

For instance, in shooting exteriors during daylight... the sun is the natural source. Using 2k's for fill, would not be using 'natural light'. However, using scrims and bounce boards for fill and backlight, is using a natural source, for an enhanced image. Would this then be "natural light". Because the image that the camera sees is NOT the natural lighting on the source at the given moment.

Likewise interriors. By 'natural' are you implying that only sunlight through open doors and windows is used? Or just using the "practicals' that exist on the set, in their original locations? (dogme). If you replace the practical fifty watt bulb in the lamp on the desk, with a balanced 200 watt... is it no longer 'natural'? If you gel the light comming in through the window to match the practicals on the set... is it still 'natural'? So is "natural interrior" lighting, only lighting that has a practical source, regardless of what bulb is in it?

And of course, any lights turned on at all at night time... are they 'natural'?

Just trying to get everyone on the same page. It's as hard to define as "organic" in food packaging.

The 1984 Forman film Amadeus was shot entirely with natural light and is quite extraordinary in that regard.

WHAT? Is that true?
First time I've heard that.


Richard -

I was going with the assumption that "natural" light meant "available" light. Working within and shaping the light that is naturally available at the location. Meaning that no additional lighting instruments were used on set other than what is already at a practical location.

This would mean the use of reflectors/silks/flags/gels is fine, but no added instruments that actually generate light. Using practicals would still be well within that definition, in my mind. As would switching out or dimming the existing bulbs for color temp matching.

I figure most people mean no actual "lights" were brought on set, bulbs maybe, dimmers maybe, grip gear definitely, but no instruments that generate additional light.

I don't know that we need to truly define it to that sort of minutiae...
but it is good to make sure everyone is on the same page.

To me it means bounced existing light for fill would still be natural. Also, I'd think throwing photofloods (or daylight flos) in practicals would still count as natural. I don't think that fits the dogme strictures but if I did something following the above criteria I would have no problem saying I used only "natural" light. This is just me though. I would say that if you pulled off all your lighting without plugging a light that wasn't already there, that's about as natural as you can get. The word natural is about as subjective as you can get though.

Luis,
You typed faster than me. Anyhow, I remember hearing Amadeus was shot using only natural light, and check on IMDB confirmed it. I'll try to find specifically what they mean in this instance.

The only thing I can find is this from the Amadeus website:

"The filming of Amadeus consumed over 27,000 candles, of which 6,000 were burned in the Tyl Theater. The chandeliers, over 20, used in both the Tyl Theater and Schikaneder’s Theater, were designed and built expressly for Amadeus."

The only other reference I can find is in the trivia section of its IMDB listing. Pretty impressive if all those huge interiors were lit with nothing but candles.

Okay, I can get behind the term natural/ambient as requiring no lighting beyond practicals. We'll let swapping out bulbs get by on that one. But say, you've got a character sitting at his desk, lit by the lamp... got that 'noir' thing going - IF you put an inky on the doorframe to throw a bit of rimlight on his shoulders... you've broken the rule... IF you put the standing floor lamp behind him off screen to get the same effect (or near enough).. then its still 'natural/ambient' lighting.

ANy use of scrims, bounce cards, flags etc., falls under the heading of 'shaping' the ambient light. Ditto gels on windows to match colortemps.

(You see how much work can go into getting un 'unlit' look?)

Barry Lyndon probably still fits that definition.

The exterior scenes were against sunlight.

The interior scenes either by window source or by candle-light. He had new lenses made for his cameras because of this restriction.

I love the natural, unlit look. That's why I have no problem with mixing ambient light with lights I brought to the set with me to achieve it:)

I love using sunlight but not without some fill however I achieve it because DV simply won't look like what the eye can see in harsh sunlight without a lot of fill. I guess I'm not dogme level purist.

I love a noir look too, but I'd argue that noir is one of the more "lit" looking styles of film because of the effort put into using hardlit shadows which rarely ever look so cleany delineated in real life. It's great though.

Keith,

I recall at the time, what a big deal the 'natural lighting' was on Barry Lyndon. How many candles they went through... etc.

So yeah, I guess we're a couple of 'old farts' to remember that one!

I'm not THAT old Richard. I've only seen it on DVD, VHS and TV.

OOOHHH! Im DYING here...... (I saw it in Cinerama)

Great discussion everyone.. I am really enjoying it.

Since I started this, I guess to me natural light would be working with whatever was there before you got there and will still be there after you leave.

If there's a street lamp outside in your location, that is natural lighting. If there are desk lamps and ceiling lamps and window sunlight in a room, that's also natural lighting. If you're in a theater with a zillion fixtures for candles, then I'll accept that as natural. If on the other hand, you bring it in off your truck and point a light somewhere or at something that wasn't there when you got there and won't be there when you leave, it's not natural.

For the purposes of this question, I also include doing things to enhance the existing light as violating the natural lighting rule (i.e. reflectors etc.). I understand the practical need of doing this 99% of the time, but from the simple definition of what "all natural lighting" would mean to me.. you show up with your camera, talent and story and shoot with whatever is in the room when you get there (in any direction, angle or position you can point what is in the room already). That would be all natural.

But I differ to all of you who collectively probably have forgotten more about filmmaking and lighting since you started reading this post than I've probably ever known. But I sure enjoy learning from everyone.

= )

Brian

It's getting there, but not there yet, especially when it comes to highlights in digital. Even at the point when the sensitivity of the medium will allow us to shoot in what we consider "dimly lit" by visual standards, the question is: is that effective filmmaking? It may be real, but is it visually captivating, or will it appear flat and muddy? The best way to think of it is with still photography: by increasing the exposure time, you can capture an image in virtually any level of light. However, the results are not necessarily what the eye sees--what starts off as too dark will evolve (as the exposure time is increased) into a "proper" exposure according to the meter, but the resulting image will look brighter than what the eye sees. If one is to then take this image and print it down, it may work OK, or it might lose its snap and look dull (if there are highlights present, i.e. at least one area of good contrast in the frame, you can more easily get away with this).

I think more and more digital blowout is becoming an aesthetic decision or at least a viable solution, which wasn't some years ago. I've heard DPs say they can today get away with things they would have gotten fired on the spot for a few decades ago in Hollywood. One can look at some films using the guerilla look, like Traffic which I beleive has some great looking overexposed scenes. I wonder just how much TV, or rather films seen on TV, has been influencial with this tendency. Because some 35mm films that still have appreciable details in the highlights are completely blown out when seen on TV, cable or DVDs, which compresses the dynamic range even further. The most obvious scenes where this occurs is daylight in-car scenes where the background appears at or past the clipping threshold, but just fine in theaters. Certain shows like CSI will sometimes play with that almost blown out look.

As for dimly lit situations, I consider it works great for dramatic sequences. I can think of certain sequences in The Element of Crime and Apocalypse Now! that are great lighting work because they force you to focus extremely hard to decode what is happening and it increases dramatic tension. I remember the first time I saw The Element of Crime it was on an old VHS copy of a copy of a copy. It was so contrasty, dark and redish that you could barely see what was happening, but that look to me made the experience that more enjoyable, increasing the mysterious and abstract quality of the image. Of course, those sequences, although very dimly lit, were by no mean flat. Great lighting is independent from technological possibilities and in that sense, it's not because it approximates the sensibility of the eye better that it's interesting to watch.

Brian,

Your definition is more like the 'dogme' approach. Practicals with NO manipulation. In that sense, then I'd have to say no... no major features were shot in that fashion. That's really more like newsgathering or perhaps documentary run-and-gun sort of stuff.

And even those who make the choice to use 'natural' lighting, will spend a great deal of time and care to get it right. Waiting for 'the golden hour' or the sun to come back out, buying thousands of candles (and paying candle wranglers to keep them lit, replaced, and at the right height to match continuity), etc. So in that sense, natural lighting can take MORE time than lighting a set in the 'traditional' way... it's not necessarily quicker, just an artistic choice.

Regarding the acceptance of "blow outs"... I think what we are seeing is a shift in aesthetics in veiwers. The more they are exposed to what might be called "poor quality" camera work, the more they accept it as normal. Think of it... My parents certainly grew up being exposed to classic hollywood images, and the occasional newsreel. Home movies were for the rich... and often looked 'amateurish' because they were shaky and poorly exposed. I grew up watching television, carefully manipulated in a studio for the most part. And STILL watched film on the news. (Film at Eleven) Hell, my first job as a TV cameraman in '74 -'75, the GE cameras we used in studio were enormous five tube monsters, and when I left, they were JUST introducing ENG cams. I paid two grand for my first vhs camera (and they called it portable). BUT people began to buy and shoot Super 8... Home movies were more widespread. The seed was planted for home video.

News shows and home video, allowed for shaky cam and blow out. We would endure it to see the criminal get caught, or little Suzi's first steps... the CONTENT and immediacy superceded the quality of the image.. untill the very nature of the footage became a distinctive quality all its own.

So to leapfrog to the conclusion... a generation that's been weened on video and video games and computer screens, is more accepting of an image with video like qualities... its' film that looks funny to them. So in my opinion, the date at which HD will 'replace' film, goes beyond when the technology supports the same resolution and lattitude... it goes to when the kids who want to be DP's now, replace the old guard. How long??? Twenty years maybe?

Just some morning ramblings over coffee.... fun thread guys.

...a generation that's been weened on video and video games and computer screens, is more accepting of an image with video like qualities... its' film that looks funny to them. So in my opinion, the date at which HD will 'replace' film, goes beyond when the technology supports the same resolution and lattitude... it goes to when the kids who want to be DP's now, replace the old guard. How long??? Twenty years maybe?

And for those who have grown up with video games, there are even more aesthetics. More consideration for First Person perspective, for example, playing with time (bullet-time - Matrix). Establishing shots that no one over a few million dollar budget would ever consider. If you look at the shots coming out of E3 you may wonder if it is now going in a different direction where the audience expects every shot to be a wow shot because it is easier to compose in 3D.

Hi All,

Doing a little more research, I found some statements that Director Peter Hyams uses little to no extra lighting on his movies. It went on to say that he's been regularly criticized about that because his movies come off poorly lit. He's directed Capricorn One, 2010, Running Scared, The Presidio, Narrow Margin, Timecop, The Relic, End of Days and has a new movie coming out called A Sound Of Thunder that looks visually interesting (though lots of CGI it seems).

Is anyone else familiar with his work/techniques? I watched Capricorn One (coincidentally it was on Cable last night) and I can see that the lighting is dim compared to most movies and I wasn't sure if it all looked dated because the movie is from 1978, or if that is the case in all his films.

Thoughts?

Brian

2010 uses no extra lighting????

I am stating what I heard second hand. There was a statement posted that he's known for avoiding using any extra lighting and working with natural or existing man made light sources. I can't vouch for it being true or false, though I did notice that the scenes in Capricorn One last night did seem like they could have used very little light enhancements.

If anyone knows if this is true or false, speak up. I'd think any movie like 2010 would have to use extra lighting.. but who knows?

Brian

Since half of "2010" was shot on a soundstage or was an FX shot (i.e. in space) that statement is hard to believe. He also made "Outland", another movie set entirely in space.

I don't remember Capricorn One that much but every other one of the movies in that list are major FX-laden and sound-stage shot movies. Maybe selected scenes from these movies used available light but you would think someone who likes shooting like that would stay away from science fiction. :)

you would think someone who likes shooting like that would stay away from science fiction. :)

You would...
but then again 2010 and Capricorn One are nothing to write home about.
:)

"Oh my god, it's full of stars!"

It is surely well unknown by most of us, but the french movie "Un crabe dans la tete (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0284214/)", shot by the french canadian André Turpin, was entierly shot in natural lighting (i.e. no additionnal lighting outdoor other than reflexion / only available light indoor on location). This film was considered mainstream for our market, it have been presented in many theaters and won several cinematography awards.

It is surely well unknown by most of us, but the french movie "Un crabe dans la tete (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0284214/)", shot by the french canadian André Turpin, was entierly shot in natural lighting (i.e. no additionnal lighting outdoor other than reflexion / only available light indoor on location). This film was considered mainstream for our market, it have been presented in many theaters and won several cinematography awards.

André is a great DP there's no denying that. Just goes to prove you can make anything look good when you know what you're doing. Light is light. Everything else is skills (I know, over-simplification, but not far off nonetheless).

Jean-Phillippe,

Is that available on DVD?

Brian

Brian,

Sure, here in Canada, almost all place that sells DVDs have it. In the united states, Amazon.com have it listed
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002M5IY4/qid=1116044196/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl74/103-7527505-5575828?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846

But it is currently unavalaible. You should be able to find it somewhere.

Shooting "mainstream movies" without using traditional lightlng is a lot more common than most realize, usually refered to as "using available light"

Sophia Coppola, in her indiewire.com interview, talks about shooting "Lost in Translation" with a small, handheld camera using only available light. This let her shoot on the Tokyo subway, (not allowed) and in bars and clubs without attracting any undue attention. She decribes it as "documentary style".
When watching this movie, you can see the lighting is nautral. Scenes shot under fluorescent lights have an obvius green cast to them. ("Translation" was shot using a fast *sensitive* film stock, not in HiDef video)

Robert Rodriguez shoots a lot of his works with minimal use of extra lighting.
In his book "Rebel without a Crew" he discusses shooting most of "El Mariachi" in 16mm film, using only available light, and how a very few interior scenes were shot lit with a single photoflood bulb screwed into a nearby light fixture. The result is a gorgeous film with highly saturated colors, something Rodriguez is noted for. He has since made the switch to HiDef video, something he famously advocates. HiDef video requires less extra lighting and captures detail and color (His "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" for example) that is so often lost in modern film.

Bob Wilkins

Thanks Bob..interesting examples. I liked the "look" of lost in translation a lot. I thought the city was as much a character in the movie as the actors and the way it looked was a big part of that.

Brian