Recently I taught my first lighting class, for Abel Cine, at Sony DMPC in Culver City, California. It got me thinking about how I know what I know about lighting, and why I seem to be able to explain it.

One of the worst lessons I learned in film school was three-point lighting.

Read all about it: My First Lighting Class; or How I Learned to Light -- DV Info Net (http://www.dvinfo.net/article/production/lighting/my-first-lighting-class-or-how-i-learned-to-light.html)

Great little article. Excellent suggestions for newer shooters. For me, it's always been about figuring out what my heroes did (Dean Cundey in particular) to achieve their shots.

The one big thing I got out of that article was to stand on set and look at what light is coming in. In fact that seems like a good game to be playing all the time... wherever I am, I can think about what does my face look like right now due to the light I can see falling on it. Then I can pull out a mirror or iphone and see.

I agree - it was a good article. The rules like three point lighting can be a good standard starting point, kinda like a cookie cutter. Same goes for the rule of thirds. But when every picture is different one needs to think about what the message is and adjust accordingly.

It is obvious that Art Adams puts a lot of effort into how a scene should be lit and then he knows how to do it.

Chris: Thanks for the post and getting me to think more about my lighting.

It is indeed a good article.

Over the past five years or so technology has allowed more people with less experience to make better looking images. A log or raw camera is much more forgiving of exposure than one with 709 baked in...once-exotic "toys" have been emulated and cranked out into inexpensive indie versions...sophisticated color correction is available for all. But the one thing that has not become any easier to achieve is great lighting. The process is still the same: add or subtract light, one step at a time.

30 years ago while still a teenager I tackled my first lighting gig, a video for MADD. Someone was to walk through a door. I pulled out the two Smith Victor open face lights and put one in each corner of the room behind camera aimed at the door. Of course it looked terrible, two shadows opposing each other cascading down from the doorknob. I felt helpless as I couldn't figure out how to erase the shadows.

Over the next few years I watched and learned and slowly, it started to make sense. There's nothing quite like standing on a street in broad daylight and telling your gaffer that you want to put a condor with 18K by that building two blocks away, blondes coming off every other streetlight etc and then a few days later, seeing it all come to life and look just like you saw it in your head. But to get there, it takes a lot of experimentation and analyzing and really,being obssessed with lighting, for a good long while.

It's pretty much the most fun part of my job.

I enjoyed reading this very much as well.

Only one little thing bothered me - and only a tiny bit.

In a few places, the author seems to contrast video production with photography and perhaps subtly implies that the photographer has things "easier" somehow.

Actually, in some areas and ways this may be true. They are, after all, trying to capture a "moment" rather than a scene full of content. Also they have access to huge bursts of light via flash apparatus that can generate more than an HMI's output with a small battery powered device.

But I think we do both our industry and the photographic industry a disservice if we begin to think that our particular job is somehow more difficult to that of the still photographer simply because parts of ours may be less forgiving and more complex in some areas.

Remember, as hard as we work in motion content production, we typically sally forth with massive amounts of CONTROL in our hands. We rely on grip gear and generators and camera rigs and a thousand other tools to provide that control. We don't expect to be given a chance to perfect things at the time of image capture. But often, the still photographer has a fraction of a second to get everything from framing to exposure to focus PERFECT if they are to succeed.

I guess I'm sensitive to the idea that one art form is ever "easier" than another. Thousands shoot video and film. Thousands compose music or play instruments. Thousands try their hands at painting and sculpture and dance - but in the end, only a small fraction of practitioners of any art ever get near the top of the heap.

And I think that this reality is every bit as true for photographers as it is for those of us who are moving picture creators.

FWW.

Bill - I enjoyed reading YOUR post very much (as well). This (your post) has got me thinking and, frankly, I'm not sure which way to go on this so maybe I'll just ramble along with some thoughts.

In the olden days (my daughter might call them the prehistoric days), man took his horse-drawn wagon cart complete with darkroom out in the field to take pictures and develop them. Back then there was a Civil War going on in the US and the pictures had various names but one of them was tintypes. I'm not sure what they used for lighting (have to keep this on topic) but based on all the gear, from horses to horse tack, to tripod for the camera, developing tanks, etc., it must have been complicated. As an aside, many of those pictures survive even to today but with progress our digital media might not survive a single decade on a blu-ray disc.

The talent had to say perfectly still for the durration of the exposure back then so time was not of the essence and the photographer could plan everything out almost like an artist doing a portrait. Wonder if they had the discussion then about who's job was easier? Well, the artist could say "I do it in color!", I suppose.

Moving along (skipping earlier video and the Laurel & Hardey movies), it took quite awhile for 35mm to really kick in as a format. Even into the late 1950s and early 1960s, 4x5 was pretty much THE format for photography (press cameras) and to some extent even 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 was classified as "miniature" format. Hasselblad was one of the cameras to have or a twin-lens. Hollywood was using 35mm so in the early 60s it was common for photographers to buy 100-ft rolls of film and "roll their own" using a changer bag but the norm was for B&W film. In the mid/late '50s an amateur videographer used 8-mm (audio was rare) and the more professional videographer was into 16-mm (Bolex). The amateur videographer may have used one video light and Hollywood was where the big-time pros were at. Not sure of Art's age but he may have been born somewhere about this time.

A Sekonic (the light meter maker) "Elmatic 8" circa early 1960s: Home Page | Kitsap Video Club (http://silverheron.net/kvc/)
"Look Ma, no batteries!" Power was from a spring and the light meter ran off a solar cell.
The photographer was able to trade up from their 35mm Argus "the brick" and buy a Japanese-made SLR at the prosumer level. Exacta was a popular 35mm import. The purists were still using rangefinders (the mirror of the SLR caused camera shake) and if they were rich they had a Leica. A Weston light meter would help with exposure (no TTL yet). The US Navy photographers as recent as 1967 (and maybe later) were still using 4x5 formats with B&W film on a daily basis and I'm not sure how much effort they put into lighting. Basically, the standard lighting rig was a camera-mounted flash using single-use bulbs, press reporter style. Those who worked in the darkroom would learn to "paint with light" by blocking areas during the exposure process.

Hollywood made good use of lighting and I can see how Art could have picked this up as an interest. Even, maybe especially, the B&W movies used light effectively because of the monocrome format. Lighting really enhanced the dramatic look of a scene in these B&W movies. Hollywood, back then, probably had the best of the best lighting people and directors in the US movie industry. Europe, and especially Germany, was producing some technically great movies in the 1930s but in both areas there was a huge gap between the professional and the typical amateur.

Based on what I've seen in the movies, it looked to me like professional video in the movie industry was pretty well choreographed. They went from the storyboard to the shoot and everyone had their lines and knew what they were supposed to do up front, at least that is what it looked like to me. On a movie set, the difference between a still photographer and a videographer, then, seems to be more of a continuum.

What do we have today? On TV, a program called "The Amazing Race"? This one gives me a headache. There can be three shots in the blink of an eye. Much of it consists of jerky hand-held shots. Lighting? They probably have one. Just grab a bunch of footage, throw in some glitzy location scenes, and send it into be edited and presto! Now you have something you can sell to the advertisers. All I can say is, different strokes for different folks. Click. Next channel.

Getting back to the thread, though, Bill has a point. Both jobs can be difficult if one puts the effort into learning the craft and applying one's artistic abilities. Personally, I'd give the edge to videography as being the most difficult, and here's why.

In math one goes from one math level to another, addition & substraction to multiplication & division, to algebra, geometry, trig, calculus, differential equations, etc. Each level builds on the previous and expands on what can be computed. Then with physical bodies, there are "degrees of freedom". One can do statics in a single plane two-dimensional situation or dynamics in a spacial three-dimensional situation. Everything being equal, the three-dimensional situation is much more difficult situation.

Videography has the time element all the time while photography pretty much does not. In the case where one wants to capture a still picture of a moving object, that could be considered a grey area but mostly, with cameras made since the mid '60s, they have motor drives so one can just rattle off the frames.

One of the "tricks" with photography is to just take lots of pictures and out of the bunch select the best shot. Back when (late 50s), processing a color negative and a print was quite expensive so one had to be very careful with each shot, but not so today, especially with digital. The big expense with digital is storing all the files because it's soo easy to rattle the shots off and so hard to select which ones to delete!

In target practice, one has a stationary target. In skeet shooting the target moves and one knows where it is coming from and where it is going. But in hunting, there is definitely the moving target. One can be really good at shooting a stationary target but lousy at hunting. I would liken photography to the stationary target or perhaps skeet shooting, but videography to hunting. Videography is definitely like a moving target. Even with a storyboard it is more difficult than the skeet shooting analogy.

Degrees of freedom? Script writing, storyboarding, lighting, audio (remember, 2/3rds of good video is good audio!), talent, directing, editing, and .... oh yes, almost forgot, video.

Photography doesn't have any audio. None. Zero. Grip? what's that???

Thanks, Bill (and Chris), as you can see I really enjoyed this.

Back in the olden days when the 5D first broke (haha, oh so long ago), I did a number of jobs with Vincent Laforet. One was essentially a corporate and we did a number of interviews which I lit, and he would then shoot still portraits which he'd do with strobes. He used to comment that he found it interesting how I would light both the subject and the background, where he was used to just focusing on the subject. I in turn marveled that he could get it all done with the big strobe sources and no cutters or shaping. But of course I came from shooting most interviews on 2/3" cameras and the notion of the background falling out of focus so deeply that it just became a blur of tones was pretty unusual (although we'd try our hardest).

A very good article

One of the best studio photographers I know is Bret Lucas of F-Stop Studios in Auckland

Biography - Fstop Studios - light it right (http://www.fstopstudios.co.nz/biography/)

To say Bret is obsessed with light would be an understatement. He once told me a story about standing in the hallway of his home for twenty minutes trying to work out why the SET (Shadow Edge Transfer) was greater in one axis than the other. He worked out that it was because the main light source was a strip light that was obviously long and thin, so the SET would depend on the angle of the light to whatever he was looking at in the hallway.

I've run lighting workshops locally, attended by several of the local pro photographers, and have attended a two day lighting workshop run by Bret. He managed to teach me things I didn't know, and I was able to give him tips on some of the product photography I do commercially. Especially bottle shots that I do for the local wine and craft beer industry. It's a big subject, but IMO a lot of it boils down to understanding angles, and the 'family of angles' - as laid down in Fil Hunter's excellent book, 'Light Science & Magic'. Essential reading folk learning about product photography.

Is lighting a black art? I don't think so, but it can be complex, and even if you have a feel for it, there's a lot of 'job knowledge' involved. Getting back to Bret Lucas, he is a deep thinker who likes to know why things work. He is also a bit left field, and I've seen him set up his lighting in a way I've never seen anywhere else, but when you see it, you think 'Hey. What a great idea!'. Two of my favourite stills photographers are David Hobby (we'll try not to hold the Strobist movement against him) and Joe McNally. What I like about them is their ability to think on their feet, and overcome problems. I can remember being most impressed with David Hobby turning his camera upside down to make use of a faster than flash sync speed shutter.

Strobist: On Assignment: 50 Years (http://strobist.blogspot.co.nz/2008/08/on-assignment-50-years.html)

Hi all-

Sorry I didn't weigh in sooner, I'm getting the hang of the forums here on DVInfo. I check so much email every day that until I learn how to streamline something it takes me a while to get into the groove of a new information source.

I certainly didn't mean to belittle still photographers in general. There are many amazing still photographers who shooting stunning images that I couldn't come close to matching.

But...

Most of the still photographers I've run into tend to light big and broad and focus completely on the subject itself. They don't interpret it through lighting at all. They will interpret through framing, cropping, exposure, contrast, printing, etc. but many times the lighting is meant to illuminate a subject that is already pretty interesting on its own.

There are still photographers out there who do very dramatic work, but those don't seem to be the ones I run into. Especially rare are the few, like Vince LaForet, who can master both stills and motion. On a number of occasions I've worked with still photographers-turned-directors who just don't get motion at all. They come onto the set thinking they know 95% of what's going on because they've spent 20 years shooting stills, and they really only know 5%. Motion and stills work are very, very different, and it's really hard trying to teach them that. Generally they want to shoot fast and impulsively, and sometimes that works in motion... and other times it really, really doesn't.

The point I was trying to make is that, in my opinion, it's much easier to be right brain dominant in still photography because it's you and a camera and a subject, and the rest is up to your spontaneity and your vision. You can get engrossed in the complexities of lighting and craft a truly provocative and moving image, or you can do the same by shooting the right moment with the right subject from the right position. In motion we're thinking about continuity, telling a story sequentially, keeping lighting consistent, and crafting a mood. One still photo can stand on its own, and you can shoot lots and lots of shots to capture that one amazing image. When I go to work, on the other hand, every image has to be amazing and I generally have to know what it's going to look like in advance and then deliver. Sometimes I shoot entirely with natural light, but most times I have to make it.

So I'm not denigrating still photographers at all. Most can shoot rings around me when it comes to stills. I'm reasonably good at stills but not amazing. But... when I do shoot stills I light the heck out of them, and they look really good from that perspective. The still photographer whose studio I rent doesn't quite know what to make of me. I don't work the way he does. But then he doesn't have national spots on his reel and I don't have several hundred photo books about Burning Man adorning coffee tables across the U.S. the way he does. When he shoots those images it's just him and a camera, and he does amazing work... but he doesn't light them.

I do think that, to a certain extent, still photography is easier from a lighting perspective partially because many still photographers don't light, and when they do light they can carry the sun in a briefcase. And I think that, because of that simplicity, they tend to be a bit more right brain than a lot of cinematographers are, because we have to juggle a lot more to make our shots happen whereas they often don't. That's not saying still photographers are lesser artists because some aspects may not be as physically challenging... it's just different.

Still photography sets are very interesting places. The power structure is almost entirely vertical: typically there's a still photographer, a stylist and a bunch of PAs, and most of the action is around the still photographer and the model/models.

Personally I'd love to see Vince LaForet light a set. I'm sure I'd learn tons. He does amazing work.

An interesting take on the subject,, and I wonder how it pans out with other notable still photoghers who have gone the Motion route? Bill Simone has long been a favourite stills photographer of mine, and has a portfolio of dramtic images with that Dave Hill Chase Jarvis look. But the thing with a lot of their work is it that it constructed bit by bit and put together in post. Bill was an early Red user, and calls himself a DP nowadays, but I can't say as I've seen any of his moving pictures:

The Camera Log (http://billsimonephotography.com/cameralog/)

Just to add a few more thoughts...

I've actually been shooting as much in stills as video the past year. (Probably because my quite handsom adopted teenage son has a lot of friends of both sexes who are equally attractive, and when they found out I have a studio, they started asking me if I'd do portraits and portfolio shots for them - so I found myself with access to a free cadre of models and therefore, an easy way to study more photography. So I've been doing two to three studio still shoots a month for the past six months.

First, as a 20 year plus video guy, yep, I'm hugely envious that I can explode a ball of light in a fraction of a second that makes exposure and aperture manipulation trivial compared to video!

But it's also caused me to think quite a bit about how I work when I'm doing stills compared to how I work when I'm doing video.

And for me, the major difference is that with studio stills, it's a process of refinement and adjustment, trial and error that's incredibly focused and relentless - leading to the moment that I feel I've solved my technical problems. Then there's a kind of a wild freedom where I get to totally concentrate on directing my subject and trying to search out that decisive exposure. That process for me is very intense.

Actually MORE intense than rolling the camera in video. Maybe it's just because I've been shooting video so much longer. But I actually work a LOT harder when I'm shooting stills than I do when I'm shooting video. Well, not harder, but more intensely. It's like video is a distance run and stills are more a sprint for me.

But the funny thing is - when I'm done with a video shoot - I'm seldom as physically wiped out as I am when I finish a photo shoot. It's more like a long trot, rather than a series of sprints trying to manipulate everything to be perfectly ready when the model hits his or her stride and is exactly where I want to see them.

Is video more complex? Probably. But it's also strangely passive. You know there's no one decisive moment that you can easily miss. Just a whole performance that unfolds somewhat leisurely over time that needs to both advance the story and be more than solid enough technically to make work in post - where it will always be surrounded by other content.

But that still shot? I know it's destined to be be stared at, picked apart, scrutinized in a way the video really never will.

So I think in some ways, there's even more on the line.

Or maybe I'm over thinking this stuff. But it's how I see the two disciplines at the moment.

The more I shoot stills, the more I respect both crafts. And the more I realize that it's damn hard to reach excellence in either.

FWIW.

I am often asking myself why so many people don't just LOOK at the lighting and instead want to apply some formula to it.

I recently lit a studio set (green screen with two people talking) and a young colleague looked at the lights, counted them and said "so... you do a 6-point lighting here?" - and I wanted to say well, no, it is not really 6 points, because these two are an edge light and these two are fills and then there's this additional fill... but then I realized he wasn't gonna listen to it anyways and just memorize the angles and amounts of lights. What he wouldn't be memorizing at all was the intensity and softness/hardness of each light, which I didn't choose by some ratio from a book, but by looking at it. No meters, just looking.
Our own eyes are the best tools when it comes to lighting! :)


But that still shot? I know it's destined to be be stared at, picked apart, scrutinized in a way the video really never will.

That is totally true! A still shot needs to be really perfect because it is not going to go away after just a few seconds!

There are still photographers out there who do very dramatic work, but those don't seem to be the ones I run into.

Gregory Crewdson comes to mind... however he is probably more of a painter/set designer/lighting artist than a normal photographer. Anyways, he does these amazing stills:

GREGORY CREWDSON: BRIEF ENCOUNTERS Trailer on Vimeo
Creating "Hatch"--a clip from Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters on Vimeo
Shooting "The Madison"--a clip from GREGORY CREWDSON: BRIEF ENCOUNTERS. on Vimeo

Personally I'd love to see Vince LaForet light a set. I'm sure I'd learn tons. He does amazing work.

Vincent and I worked together on a few combined video/still jobs in the heyday of the DSLR era (whenever that was--2010 I guess). I'd light the video aspect and then he lit the still components, with strobes. I was always interested to watch that part of it because I've never worked with strobes myself. He used to marvel at the fact that I would shape the light all through the set because his MO was to find a decent background and then just light the foreground (since the background would generally just be soft anyway). He has a fantastic eye, of course, but meticulously lighting a set from front to back is not what he's most interested in--these days, it's mostly directing.

thanks for the link.

i try to read art adam's blog whenever he posts and i remember.

i am often impressed and sometimes left wondering, "oh, is that what he means?".

when i zoomed in on the accompanying photos within the article, it looked to my eyes that art was using mole-richardson tungsten instruments and bouncing the light in front of the "model".

in the image, the "model" looks over-exposed while on the monitor "she" looks great.

with all the talk of cool lights, i am often impressed there is still a place for "hot" moles and arri fresnels, especially with big sensor cameras who can do wonders with 300 watts of tungsten light in a medium close-up.

ymmv.

be well.

rob
smalltalk productions
nyc

Personally I'd love to see Vince LaForet light a set. I'm sure I'd learn tons. He does amazing work.

I'm asking because I honestly don't know, but has Vince actually shot video that has lighting he set up? Reverie was more event videography, and he didn't DP the C300 film (Mobius).

Gary, see my post above.

Rob, there is definitely a place still for hot lights, until LED's and other new technologies completely replace the tungsten units we are used to at a reasonable cost. I can't make room in my lighting budget for a 600w LED fresnel that costs four times the rental of it's tungsten equivalent. The LED source fours, for example, only have half the punch of the classic unit. And, we are only now starting to see LED units that approach the full-spectrum look of tungsten.

While it is certainly possible to light a medium closeup using a 300w unit on any EI800 camera, what if said closeup was part of a scene that had a master shot that showed the whole room. That head needs to be much further away, and thus may not have enough punch, especially if it is diffused. I still use plenty of big heads to get the job done. The sun is still as bright as it always was, so balancing to it requires just as much firepower, for example. Completely controlled sets can be orchestrated with smaller units, sure, but bear in mind that there are many reasons for lighting to a higher level than one might think. While the indie world embraces the fastest lenses possible, many high end sets are lit to a 4, give or take. You can always add ND or drop the EI on the camera if you want the shallower look. I have a scene coming up tomorrow that has some 120 fps work, so I will be lighting the set to around an 8 to give me enough stop for the high speed stuff, then adding scrim etc. to knock things down to a 2.8 2/3 for the main body of the work (could be done with ND's, we'll see what's the most efficient on the day).

Epic article Art, I liked 'Australian films were very strong compositionally and lit very simply'

That's because we didn't have enough lamps to go around, but it is getting better. lol.

Cheers.

Gary, see my post above.

Rob, there is definitely a place still for hot lights, until LED's and other new technologies completely replace the tungsten units we are used to at a reasonable cost. I can't make room in my lighting budget for a 600w LED fresnel that costs four times the rental of it's tungsten equivalent. The LED source fours, for example, only have half the punch of the classic unit. And, we are only now starting to see LED units that approach the full-spectrum look of tungsten.

While it is certainly possible to light a medium closeup using a 300w unit on any EI800 camera, what if said closeup was part of a scene that had a master shot that showed the whole room. That head needs to be much further away, and thus may not have enough punch, especially if it is diffused. I still use plenty of big heads to get the job done. The sun is still as bright as it always was, so balancing to it requires just as much firepower, for example. Completely controlled sets can be orchestrated with smaller units, sure, but bear in mind that there are many reasons for lighting to a higher level than one might think. While the indie world embraces the fastest lenses possible, many high end sets are lit to a 4, give or take. You can always add ND or drop the EI on the camera if you want the shallower look. I have a scene coming up tomorrow that has some 120 fps work, so I will be lighting the set to around an 8 to give me enough stop for the high speed stuff, then adding scrim etc. to knock things down to a 2.8 2/3 for the main body of the work (could be done with ND's, we'll see what's the most efficient on the day).

charles-

thank you for taking the time and interest to further the conversation.

as a relatively junior lighting person, my first inclination was to "learn the rules". three point lighting became the standard. and my efforts looked it. standard.

i went out and got a rifa lc55 softbox. wow. 45 degrees up. 45 degrees over. perfect soft nose shadow. chin shadow tucked under. i was learning more "rules" and my images looked it. standard.

now i must admit, i will gladly spend $100-ish for an afternoon lighting seminar. being in the nyc metro area, i have taken several from rather accomplished dps with various backgrounds-narrative, commercial, documentary, low budget. at these workshops, i am still listening for "rules". if i can take home one bit of knowledge, one true insight, one brand new way of looking/seeing then my time and money is well spent.

most of my work is making short docs for corporations, non-profits, unions. my ability to light a face in an interview setting and allow that lighting to evoke a spirit about those before my camera is my goal.

interesting enough, with all the technology pointing towards the use of "cool" lights, the last two workshops which i found really helpful spoke of "cool" lights but spent most of the time working with "hot" lights.

omg, can a chimera pancake make a woman look darn good!

and the source was just a 300 watt tota instrument put in the right spot.

double wow!

"rules" + lessons + new mistakes = my experience

thanks for sharing.

be well.

rob
smalltalk productions
nyc

now i must admit, i will gladly spend $100-ish for an afternoon lighting seminar. being in the nyc metro area, i have taken several from rather accomplished dps with various backgrounds-narrative, commercial, documentary, low budget. at these workshops, i am still listening for "rules". if i can take home one bit of knowledge, one true insight, one brand new way of looking/seeing then my time and money is well spent.

Rob, are you saying that of these classes you've taken, that so far you haven't really gotten that one bit of knowledge that you are looking for?

gary-

thank you for the question.

i have indeed learned much at the various lighting seminars i have attended.

lighting seminars are often in two categories: pros sharing and companies demo-ing new products.

the new product demos are mostly dog and pony shows but being in nyc i have access to many so i don't mind "wasting" a few hours to listen and watch a new light being put through it's capabilities. these gatherings are always free to attend.

the pro sessions i have attended are fee based. in order for me to allow myself to spend time and money at an event, i want to walk away with one (at least) kernal of knowledge that i did not have before that day.

frankly, i think my standard is rather low. but i attend these seminars to keep sharp my ability to listen/see/learn from others so i can translate those lessons to my own efforts.

i have learned much in the near 30 years i have been making films.

i know that i have much to learn in my film-making years ahead.

ymmv.

be well.

rob
smalltalk productions
nyc