-
Lighting Interiors for Video
-
Yeah, It’s not me that I’m sweating… but my customers. Having good views from inside is a must. I’ll probably spend time in editing too, which is no news to me.
I plan to shoot with the BlackMagic Camera so that will give me a little leverage in pulling the views better. Probably I’ll get two 1200W chinese ones for about $2.5k both, which is a pretty sweet deal I guess, and then, when all this starts to be positive as a ca$hflow, will get more…
Thanks everybody for the guidance!
-
Look, I’ve done quite a bit of lecture and consulting work with the two largest professional photography groups in my town over the past few years (most of them are trying to do what you’re trying to do – add video to their services since the same cameras can do both)
Here’s the issue.
You’ve had a tool for your entire career that has NO equivalent on the video side.
A photographic flash can generate INSANE amounts of light for a fraction of a second. Synced to the lens speed, that will POP any subject. So that’s what photographers do. They use light to highlight and focus the vewer’s eye and attention.
Video is an entirely different beast. We don’t need light for fractions of a second, we need it for MINUTES if not HOURS.
To get the same amount of light tossed on a scene that one of my Canon Flashes (580 and 430 EX’s) let alone a Studio Strobe generates – I’d need a BIG HMI and an electrical panel patch or generator rig to power it.
A couple of important skills translate from still shooting to video. Composition. Appreciation of light. People skills. All that gives you a leg up. But there are other areas where the first time video shooter coming from photography is honestly no better situated to do good video (sound, motivated camera movement, scene blocking, etc. etc.) than anyone else.
I have massive respect for quality still shooters who’ve honed their craft over decades. You need the same for video. It’s not so much that it’s more difficult than still work – it’s just that it’s typically more complex and requires many more compromises to efficiently create moving pictures compared to still shots.
It’s best to come toward video with the same attitude of respect and “starting from scratch” that you’d apply to me if, as a long time video shooter, I showed up at your photo shoot and thought I could do your job. I just can’t. Not without lots of additional training and practice.
After 5+ years of pretty dedicated study and practice, I’m ready to call myself a mediocre working photographer – NOT a superior craftsman. And that’s bringing to the table 20 years of producing, directing and shooting video at a solid commercial level.)
Video is HARD to do well. So is still photography.
In reality, you’re kinda spoiled by strobes. Video doesn’t work that way. And you need to adjust to a new reality where lighting and composition are important, but not, perhaps, as much as, say, audio and performance.
Start studying video. You’ll be decent at it in about 5-7 years – and if you’re really lucky – great in 10-15. Just like any other craftsperson.
Welcome to the club!
FWIW.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
-
Thanks Bill! Really appreciated!
-
Got now a little question about usability of the HMIs…
From what I read about them you need to ignite the light, wait a few minutes until it gets into working mode, do your takes, shut it down, wait a few minutes to cool down, while not moving the light.
I want to insist a bit on the “not move the light while operating…
That means the light cant be moved a bit to change angles, height, stuff like that? It has to stay completely still? That could be a bit problematic for my usage…
-
Michael,
You can move the light while it’s burning; it’s just that there is often a tangle with the head feeder, ballast and extension cord, such that you have to consider, like a chess move, where your next placement will be.
Some lights more than others have “hot restrike” issues such that if you do turn them off, move and try to reignite, they might not strike until they cool off a little.
Considerations of how long the unit was on, ambient temperatures and the “personality” of the particular brand and/or model of the HMI light come into play.
JS
-
If the expense and hassle of HMI is going to make this impossible, why not combine video and stills?
I have a friend who shoots for high-end architectural magazines. His lighting is absolutely incredible; he makes the room look as if there is no artificial light at all, using window light and very judicious flash. As Bill Davis said, what you can do as a stills photographer for a fraction of a second is very difficult to achieve with the continuous lighting which video requires.
Suggestion: Shoot video where it’s easy and makes a difference (dolly shots would be great), but use your electronic flash to shoot wide-angle, high-resolution stills for the rooms which demand flash, then take the results into After Effects and do your pan/tilts there.
-
[Bob Cole] “Suggestion: Shoot video where it’s easy and makes a difference (dolly shots would be great), but use your electronic flash to shoot wide-angle, high-resolution stills for the rooms which demand flash, then take the results into After Effects and do your pan/tilts there.
“One of the most interesting things during my study of still photography over the past few years was getting a chance to learn from a few still guys who do high level architectural photos.
What I saw them do was this…
They carefully framed and “locked down” for the shot of, say, a home exterior and shot a plate with remote strobes inside exposed to illuminate the interior space views from the exterior. Then they exposed the same shot for the exterior setting and ignored the window exposures – they already HAD that from the first shot. Compositing those would give them a “nice” exterior environment shot – WITH a properly exposed interior views – which would be pretty OK but not particularly spectacular – THEN they had an assistant literally walk around the exterior of the home – and said assistant would fire a strobe at details of the exterior landscaping – lighting up a bush here – a tree there – the brickwork over there.
Many of those “detail photos” had the assistant with the remote strobe totally visible in the shot. Then the real magic happens when whole sequence of shots goes back into Photoshop where they could composite the perfectly lit shrub area from shot 15 onto the base plate, subbing the EXCELLENT shrub for the OK one on the base. And so forth.
Working that way they could build a single PERFECT photo frame out of 20 less than perfect shots.
I came out of those situations SO jealous of the ability to composite-create images that looked perfect in a frame. And knowing why my video shots would NEVER look like an excellent still.
A still and a video are two TOTALLY different realities. To the audience, they’re both forms of pictures. But they just DO NOT work by the same rules at all!
And the HUGE problem arises when the commissioning party thinks that having their still shooter do their video will result in video that looks a whole lot more like their BROCHURE shots.
Yeah, right.
FWIW.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
Yes Bob, that’s pretty much what I do. I am an architectural photographer…
I wish I could do the same for video. Unfortunately not possible under normal circumstances… hmmm, while writing this reply I just got an idea…
Take a look at this last shot I did last week. Client was the Architecture Company that did a restoration of an Historic building on Coronado island
https://www.michaelasgian.com/temp/adella/
-
Very nice work! When I see a gifted photographer, it makes me a little jealous, not just of your eye, but of the photographer’s ability to manipulate light. There are a number of shots there which you could probably shoot with a video camera and minimal lighting – but there are several which would be a bear to shoot as well on video.
Even more than before, I recommend that you avoid buying tons of video lighting (and other) gear, and adopt a hybrid approach: shoot video when you can use existing light, and shoot stills for everything else.
Stills photographers can do so much with time exposure, multiple exposures (essentially what Bill D described), that video folks have to bend themselves into pretzels to emulate – and why bother?
In your situation, since you’re an ace photographer, I’d still recommend that you leverage your still photography skills and the flexibility of still photography to the hilt. Buy a slider, and shoot some video that is obviously a “moving picture” because you’re moving past a tree or down a hallway; and then cut to a still that you’ve animated with After Effects (or even inside your NLE) to create a zoom, tilt, or pan – or all three.
NO, it won’t be exactly the same; it will feel a little “flat” compared to an authentic video move. But I’d rather see the beautiful still, than the crappily-lit video clip.
btw – there’s more to good video camera work than the continuous lighting – it takes awhile (and an expensive tripod head) to learn how to make smooth, well-considered camera moves. Whereas, if you shoot a beautiful still, you can animate it all sorts of ways in post.
About buying “budget” HMI equipment: I don’t know about the pluses and minuses of budget HMI gear, but I suspect that the reliable brands of HMI are expensive for good reasons. Sorta the difference, in still cameras, between Hasselblad and … Instamatic?
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up