Creative Communities of the World Forums

The peer to peer support community for media production professionals.

  • Michael Sanders

    May 3, 2013 at 8:32 am

    Top end Graders have been saying this for years. A good DP will know what he can do in post and what can be done better in camera.

    Michael Sanders
    London Based DP/Editor

  • Brett Sherman

    May 3, 2013 at 12:50 pm

    Shooting with a C300, lighting has a slightly different role than it had in the past. I never use lights for anything except lighting podiums and interviews. For interviews I use lights to soften wrinkles, deal with excessive contrast with the background, or unflattering existing light (ceiling mounted flourescents). I use lights a lot less and am more confident when I don’t have the time to set one up.

    The lighting gear I use is different now and focused on speed of setup. Basically I use a battery powered softboxed LED for key. Every once in awhile if I have time I’ll use an LED backlight. But I’m finding I like the “hyped” look of that less and less. Like everything else, lighting style is constantly evolving. I look at stuff shot in the 90s or 00s that is tightly controlled with lots of backlight and think “ick.”

  • Walter Soyka

    May 3, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    [Franz Bieberkopf] “I have to say that I’m amazed at the low light stuff I’ve been working with off of Red Epic. Late dusk. Early dawn. And in slow motion … Really astounding stuff with great detail and low noise that just would not have been possible before.”

    I’d be curious to know if there’s some kind of Moore’s Law trend on sensor light sensitivity (which improves dynamic range, and which I think is ultimately more important than resolution).

    Walter Soyka
    Principal & Designer at Keen Live
    Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
    RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
    Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

  • Bill Davis

    May 3, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    Re: Light rings.

    It’s a specialized tool that does one thing incredibly well – provide multiple angle of incident facial soft lighting for close ups. If you look at magazine ads for makeup – you’ll often catch ring lights in the eye reflections of “whole face” shots. (if they haven’t been ‘shopped out!)

    But the soft effect disappears rapidily over distance, so using one at more than a foot or two from your subject is typically a waste of time – at even 4 feet, a 10″ ring light turns into a point source.

    Lighting is physics and geometry combined with a brain and eye which have each been trained to intuitively understand the combinations.

    This is why their will never be a single light – or even a single type of light – that will do all common lighting tasks well, IMO.

    On my shopping or learning list, ring lights would fall somewhere toward the bottom unless I’m shooting something like eyewear or makeup or dental topics.

    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.

  • Shawn Miller

    May 4, 2013 at 12:12 am

    [Walter Soyka] “I’d be curious to know if there’s some kind of Moore’s Law trend on sensor light sensitivity (which improves dynamic range, and which I think is ultimately more important than resolution).”

    I think it’s more a matter of will on the part of camera manufacturers. High dynamic range imaging for video has been possible for a number of years, but Canon, Sony, et al, have been focusing their marketing and development dollars on bigger sensors and proprietary, highly compressed formats. Even now, a lot of shooters are more concerned with full frame sensors and 4k images than really good latitude and open HDR formats. Hopefully this is trend is changing though. You’ll also find this to be true in the stills world, camera companies have focused their marketing efforts on selling megapixels and sensor size rather than high dynamic range. For many, 8bit images are just fine… as long as their proprietary raw pictures have more megapixels than everyone else’s. 🙂

    Shawn

  • Michael Gissing

    May 4, 2013 at 2:03 am

    I’ve been shooting lately on my Canon 5D and even with it set to flat contrast, it obviously doesn’t give me the grade range that I have enjoyed with RED & raw formats. I prefer to get lighting right on location where possible with the knowledge of what can be done in post. Tools like Color, da Vinci etc can be very useful to relight but they become very fiddly on moving shots or action within frame. So it is a balance between time spent on location or in post.

    Many DPs that I work with have tools like Color and da Vinci and often send their ideas of shot grades ahead of the grading session so most are aware of the balance between location lighting and post lighting fx. All prefer to control lighting on location as the primary and then know what post can do to add or enhance. Just shooting flat and lighting later will often give pleasing results but shooting flat and lighting on location gives the best result.

  • Herb Sevush

    May 4, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    [Brett Sherman] ” I look at stuff shot in the 90s or 00s that is tightly controlled with lots of backlight and think “ick.””

    And I look at a lot of the flat ugly natural lit stuff that is now in vogue and I think “there’s a shooter with no training or competence.”

    Interior “natural” lighting is mostly shit, unless your sitting by a window. Proper exterior lighting is totally hit or miss unless you really know what your doing. The lost art of lighting with today’s young DPs makes me want to cry.

    Herb Sevush
    Zebra Productions
    —————————
    nothin’ attached to nothin’
    “Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

  • Herb Sevush

    May 4, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    [David Lawrence] “I still prefer to get lighting right during the shoot whenever possible”

    Amen to that. what you can’t get in post is the directionality of the original lighting and the quality of the light.

    Herb Sevush
    Zebra Productions
    —————————
    nothin’ attached to nothin’
    “Deciding the spine is the process of editing” F. Bieberkopf

  • Tony West

    May 4, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    [Herb Sevush] “The lost art of lighting”

    I tend to agree here Herb

    The back light is a light that has gone by the waste side for many, but not me.

    I work with a talent with jet black hair. Her hair is beautiful, but with out a back light her head can look like a black hole on camera.

    No need for that. It takes extra time but it’s really worth it.

    I love to light in the field and will always make that my first move.

    It’s nice to have the option of saving flat lighting when you are forced to use it.

    Get in this locker room and get out!

  • Richard Herd

    May 4, 2013 at 11:19 pm

    [tony west] “Have you had good results with the ring light?”

    Haven’t tried it. But am always looking for input — and was hoping you had.

Page 2 of 2

We use anonymous cookies to give you the best experience we can.
Our Privacy policy | GDPR Policy