Pro Lighting Opinion Needed!

[Dennis Size]

Until you tell us what the fluorescent fixtures you’re actually using are (and how they’re mounted) …. detailed advice can not be given.

DS

[Richard Herd]

I’m old school and cheap. I’d use a single photoflood (I like the lamp naked but a China Lantern is nice too) using Rembrandt lighting style.

Photoflood costs $9.00.
Foam core costs $1.50.

But that sweet arri…dude.

simple diagram here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rembrandt_lighting

When the focal length (ie “zoom”) is at 50mm equivalent or closer, you create intimacy, implying “Hello I’m friendly and we’re in the same room.” When you get to 85mm, the feeling becomes more “this is a portrait so watch me do stuff.”

The image looks soft to me. I surmise because you’re at f/1.9. Try stopping down to f/5.6. Lens manufacturing would start a whole new thread, but unless you’re using some really expensive glass, staying that open is a sure way to get softyfocus where you don’t want it–like on the darkside of his face.

[Dennis Size]

I shall anxiously be watching.
I always love what you and Chuck do with my old girlfriend “Babs”.
I know you’ll make her look spectacular — instead of an 80 year old _______ (fill in the blank)! 🙂

I know what you mean, the economy’s killing everything.
The ABC cutbacks — as well as all the other networks — have been absolutely absurd on the East Coast.

I’m also anxious to see the OSCARS with Roger at the helm this year.

DS

[John Sharaf]

Dennis,

Your remarks about cutbacks couldn’t be more true; in the time between my last post and your reply ABC canceled my return trip to Las Vegas for the completion of the Siegfried and Roy special. They’re “scaling back” meaning they don’t care about getting the job done right, just that it come in under budget. I’m having a problem getting paid from another account for a half day job last November from a company that has offices in NY, Chicago and LA, and has been in business for 27 years. What’s a fellow to do?

JS

[Dennis Size]

I feel your pain brother!

I’m surprised you do half-day billings. We’ve always avoided it (although the times may start to dictate otherwise).

In response to the terrible way this business has been going, a friend of mine recently told me he’s brushing up on the following line he may have to use with future clients….. “Would you like fries with that sir?”

DS

[Ryan Velazquez]

heyo,

I pulled the key around more frontal and raised it as well. i also strengthed the backlight/kicker (and messed with the prop light in the bg – but thats not too important):

https://rybo.tv/forum/blackcyc_1.jpg

I agree that it looks better… a lot more pleasant in the traditional way. however, there’s still something about having it set up with that previous sidelighting that was/is visually interesting to me.

but please, tell me what you think of how the setup looks now.

(one with less fill https://rybo.tv/forum/blackcyc_2.jpg)

sorry Dennis that I can’t give you more information about the lighting fixtures.

[Dennis Size]

It certainly looks better.
DS

[Ryan Velazquez]

Hey John,

I saw your work on the Barbara Walters special and it looked great. Do you mind if I ask what the lighting setup was for the different interviews?

For instance, I noticed on the Anne Hathaway interview that the shadows from the key were far sharper and less diffused on Anne than on Barbara. In fact, far sharper than on any of the other guests in the special. What was the reason for this? Obviously, the soft light flattered Barbara, but why the hard(er) light on Anne?

I’d be pretty curious to know how many lights went into the interview, and where they were set-up (i mean if you wouldn’t mind taking some time to explain, of course!). I’m eager to learn from such an outstanding professional such as yourself.

Thanks!
RV

[John Sharaf]

Ryan,

Thank you for watching the show.

Actually the lighting design for these shows is done by Chuck Lofthause who has been BW’s Lighting Director for many years and does not change from a specific plan.

As with all multicam interview setups it starts with boom arms (sometimes called menace arms by movie grips) which dangle the key light, backlight and sometimes setlights where a stand would otherwise be seen by the crossing cameras. This method puts the lights in the place where the two subjects (or more) are looking at the other person(s).

In a daylight setting the keylights would be 800 watt Jokers and in a low light day of night scene would be either Joker Black Jacks or 1K Babies. In bother cases a snoot made of foam core (with the black side in) is attached to control the spill off of the other person. Inside the snoot, the light will have white diffusion in various density based on the situation. At the end of the snoot there’s often black wrap “bottomers” to further control the spill.

Fill lights are some soft source, usually a 2K zip with Eggcrate or in daylight a 400w Joker with Chimera and louvers and a solid flag to the off camera side to again control the spill off of the unintended subject.

Finally the set itself is lit with source fours, Joker pars and even 4K, 6K or 12K HMI’s through windows, etc. Often with colored gels and shadow makers like gobos, cookies or actual bushes. Sometimes as many as 20-25 lighting units come into play, because great care is used in choosing extravagant and large sets, except when they’re forced into small hotel suites (like the Hugh Jackman interview in NY).

Now to your observations about the chin shadows; because the lighting is completely complimentary (the same on both people) the chin shadows should look the same. The Anne Hathaway interview was obviously a night interior and the room ambiance was less than the daytime sets, thus the shadow is more noticeable. Her key might have been less head-on that BW’s which would also accentuate the shaddow.

When I design the lighting I rarely use such hard light keys. My preference is to key with a 800 or 400 Joker in a Chimera, backlight with a 400 or 200 Joker in a Chimera and fill with a 400 or 200 Joker in Chimera if necessary. To me this creates a more natural, less theatrical looking scene, especially as regards the otherwise hard chin shaddows. This method also minimizes hand shadows if people “talk with their hands”. A lot of network shooters use Divas on boom arms in a similar plot. This is what makes horse races and any of the above schemes can look great with careful execution!

The determining factor in the successful lighting of these type interviews usually comes down to the choice of the set, the larger and more three dimensional the better. Perhaps some of you watching identified the location of the Anne Hathaway and Mickey Rourke interviews to be the Doheny Mansion in Beverly Hills, which was the original home of the American Film Institute (AFI) and is now actually a park owned by the City of BH and used in many movies, TV shows and commercials.

[Ryan Velazquez]

Hey John,

Thanks for the detailed response. It gave me a very clear idea of how the interviews were set up. I really appreciate you taking the time to explain everything.

I thought the Mickey Rourke and Anne Hathaway interviews looked really great. The first shots of Barbara Walters talking directly to camera looked a little off to me. I’m not sure if that’s the right word… maybe manufactured would be a better word. Since I’m working from my memory, I can’t really put my finger on it. It seems like the candles in the background, the really soft lighting and the way she was clipping her words, combined with odd visual edits/cuts, made everything seem a bit forced. I’m not sure. I think once the interviews started getting go, everything worked really well though.

Do you mind if I ask what your role was in this whole production?