Lighting Critique

[Baltimore's Finest Fotog]

Finally got on the AVID at work and was able to export some frames from what I felt were some of my recent lighting "victories." I'm looking for some feedback - particularly from those of you who were in on the "Balancing Outdoor and Indoor Light" thread. As far as my lightkit goes, I've got 3 omnis (2-300W lights and 1-500W light)...though I did just get a brand new pro light, but I didn't have that for these shots...

...Sorry if these are too big....

 

[Baltimore's Finest Fotog]

Here's one I was/still am particularly proud of because I went out on a limb with it, by using some different gels, black wrap/cinefoil, but most importantly, a monitor...

WB = 7.5K or thereabout on Filter 2. I'm sure there is a much different way many would go about getting the same look - for the record, I was trying to get that SportsCentury look. I had to wave the white flag on the background because this was shot in the basement of our bureau where there is nothing but filing cabinets.

 

[way kool productions]

I really like what you have done. I myself like soft lights. Your using hard lights (see shadows cast from chin, have a hard edge) Your have done well! A few things, picture one and two, my eye is drown to the candle sticks, maybe too much light on them, picture 3, maybe to hard of light off the wall, (eye is drown to that)... I really like the last two pictures. Nicely done. I learned from Bill Holshevnikoff's workshop. The power of lighting. You did a real nice job.....

 

[Lensmith]

I'm not sure why...but I'm unable to see any of the pics.

 

[Baltimore's Finest Fotog]

Strange. Anyone else having this problem?

 

[Infidel]

Log in

I did also until I logged in, give it a try.

 

[Lensmith]

I have no idea what changed...except now I"m looking at B-Roll Online on my PC instead of my MAC. I was logged on for both visits but the pics are here now for me to see!

Nice shots.

The woman in the first pic looks shiny. She could use some powder.

Just curious but...is all of your lighting work on the subject or do you also consider putting some light on the background that I just may be missing.

Lots of shooters think "lighting" and only light the subject, ignoring the background. I consider the frame as having several key elements. Subject, background and foreground. Each should be considered when lighting...if there is time.

Lighting is not only used to make the subject look nicer but to also help separate the subject from the background...at least that's my personal lighting theory. Another light used on the background would add an extra level of style to your product and help achieve better separation.

Even if the background is boring, like "just filing cabinets" you can throw a slash of light or do something else with an additional light to break up the background and let it be seen without distracting from the subject. To ignore it leaves you with a limbo look that...well...is kind of old style studio looking, which is fine if that is the effect you were looking for.

I can tell on the other shots it looks like you might have put a light on the background, but since it's coming from the same angle as your key light, it goes unnoticed, for the most part. MOre obvious with the young man who has the open shirt and a smile...but all the others not much different than if you had a big wide key or back light on the whole scene.

Consider being a little more creative with how you light your backgrounds in the future...without it taking away from the subject of your shot. All light does not have to come from above. I like to fool around with my background light. Shooting it from very low and harsher angels across the background to achieve a different look and additional visual seperation without being too obnoxiousl. Putting all light high up, to me, is like shooting an entire story from a tripod always at the same level. Different hieghts add to your creativity, making what you shoot just that much better than what others can do. Just like using the tripod at different heights for different shots.

Some of the older women look a little harshly lit. I understand wanting contrast but I can imagine many of them grimacing at seeing every nook and cranny of their faces in high contrast. A little fill would still give you some 3-D look without going flat. And it would be a little more flattering for those women to see and show to others.

How many lights? Two? Three? I understand one can only do so much with limited resources.

Just my quick thoughts. Thanks for letting us see what you're doing. It looks good.

 

[Sean-1966]

I think the last one looks too warm. The others are excellent.

 

[Baltimore's Finest Fotog]

Lensmith...Thanks for the feedback.

I used three lights in all of those shots: 300W Omni for key, 300W Omni for back/hair, 500W Omni for background. Unfortunately, I did not have a fourth light to use for fill - though as I said in my first post I now have a pro light that I'll likely use as my back/hair light and use the 300W Omni for fill from now on.

In the first two shots of the woman I threw my 500W Omni on the background - mostly the candles. And I used a dichroic filter since I had a lot of natural light coming in a patio door from behind her.

Obviously in the third shot the background light is on the picture frames on the wall behind the subject.

way kool, I agree with you completely about the brightness of the candles in the first two shots and the light on the wall in the third shot.

In the fourth and fifth shots, I tried to utilize the available natural light. In #4 I have the woman facing some windows and used one of my lights to fill in the remainder on the key side...In the background here I used my 500W with dichroic on a large china cabinet that had a bunch of windows on it - I thought it added a little texture to the background, almost like what others would do with a cookie. In #5 I turned the woman away from the windows and tried using them as more of a fill light since I didn't have that fourth light. I used the 500W with dichroic on the fake flowers in the background to add a little sparkle to the picture.

The last shot of the kid has a soft background light just thrown on the wall behind him. As I said before, there really wasn't a whole lot to be seen in the background other than some filing cabinets and a fire extinguisher, and I didn't really want to accentuate them.

One other thought...

I am always thinking in terms of subject and background, but I never really consider foreground. What do you do to address foreground? I mean I guess I can't picture how you might light a foreground without going too wide and possibly seeing the rest of your lighting setup.

Thanks again!!

 

[Hiding Under Here]

Just a few thoughts. I am going to be "critical" -- analysis of the faults and merits. If you don't want to read critical, move on to another comment.

In the first shot, the woman is looking too far off to the side. In the wide shot, the television shouldn't be in the shot. The candles are too bright and too prominent. They are distracting. The backlight in the first shot is too hard and too bright. The subject could also use powder.

In the second shot the angle is too low. But ignoring that for the sake of aesthetics, the subject also seems to be looking too far off camera. The background light is hard and bright, particularly the one in his talk space. The background light normally shouldn't be brighter than the key. Moreover, the multiple colored lights (background and backlight) are beginning to get distracting. Forget all this color show-off stuff. Make the image look unified. But on a positive note, the key-light in the second shot is your best.

On shot three, the best part about the image is how the background falls off. The backlight is waaaaay too bright and too much color.

Shot four. What the hell is that green blob in the background? Very distracting. This person at least seems to be looking in the right direction. Her backlight is too bright. The color of the backlight is all wrong. Her fill is too heavy and too hard.

The main positive thing is that you are working hard and using multiple lights. You need to develop a sense of proportion -- every light needs to have the proper VALUE in relation to other lights in the scene. That's not to say that you can't over-weight one light or another. Many many times you see the backlight (more often a cheek light) or a background light used at a much brighter level than the key-light. But the DPs do that when they have mastered a pretty full sense of control over their lighting.

The key-light is the most important light in the scene. Every other light is seen in proportion to the amount (and quality) of light falling on the subject's face. You should always set the key-light first and then place the other instruments. I think your key-lighting is a bit hard and you could soften it a bit. Softening your key would make the shadow on the fill side bigger and darker and you could do more creative things with a more modeled face.

Colored gels are great but if you look at top-end video photography, they are rarely used on the subject. Sure you see colors used on people at times but NEVER in mundane locations like home interiors. What motivates a red backlight in a house? Nothing. Gels are used in more creative environments and even then they are used sparingly on people. Most shooters I know use the same color temperature backlight as they do for a key-light.

 

[A Step Above Productions]

Lighting is not my srtongest point - but from what I see I like what I see. But there are a lot of good points others have brough up we all can learn from.

 

[Freddie Mercury]

I assume the critiques have been assuming plenty of time for the setup. For a day-of, we have 2 more stops after this kind of situation I would say you achieved a nice look where some might have flipped on the frezzi or dragged them outside.

I will put my 2 cents in on two things. I thought in at least the first couple of setups the backlight was too strong. I know you want it to show since you went through the trouble of putting it there, but back it off a little. Subtle is good. My dimmer is one of my best friends. I would also suggest, as others have, that you get some diffusion on that light. Spun glass, softbox, umbrella, whatever you can get your hands on. Break that light up and soften those shadows.

I applaud your caring. And who am I to give tips to Baltimore's Finest Fotog?

 

[Baltimore's Finest Fotog]

Freddie, thanks!

The first three frames were from a piece I shot on my day off and edited later - it was one of two pieces I shot that day.

The fourth and fifth were from the first of two packages I shot on another day. This particular package was held for the next day, though I did still have to turn the other one the same day.

...in other words, I had some time to set these up, but still had to keep it quick.

Also, I almost always use diffusion on my keylight. And I actually did have a dimmer on the hairlight. I think I may need to consider investing in a chimera/soft box/whatever to soften my shadows.

As for being the Finest. Not by a long shot. It's a play on words, er letters - the meaning behind my old station's call letters.

 

[TexasDave]

For a nice soft light, grab a tota and reflective umbrella. Easy to set up and cast a nice, soft light.

 

[Lensmith]

I assume the critiques have been assuming plenty of time for the setup.

This post is not aimed directly at you...just the basic assumption about setup time.

I find too many photogs use the excuse of too much setup time to completely ignore putting up even a single light.

There is a happy, creative mid-point.

I do plenty of day of stuff where I force the time to put up one or two lights into the equation.

I agree with TexasDave about the umbrella. You can do a very quick setup with a single umbrella light. Use available light or, better yet, learn to take more control and turn off lights in the room.

It does not take too much time to set up one light and make your work look better than others. Especially when in today's world those in charge are trying to decide who they want to keep around and who they don't.

I've gone through my own lazy phases. I got over that during my freelance years when every job counted and HAD to lead to more work.

Yes, many times we don't have time to do a full light show. I have a single light with an umbrella in a bag that I use quite a bit for the quick stuff. Combining it with available light in different situations has lead others to the erroneous conclusion I had set up lots more lights than I did.

So many people we deal with have only one or two moments in their lives when their image is seen by so many others. I've always felt an obligation to make them look their best, given the time available, no matter who they are. Sometimes we photogs get a little jaded and forget to care about others image unless they happen to arrive in the news car with us to a shoot.

A side note about HUH's comments about people looking too far off camera...I shoot a fair amount of interviews with a couple of experienced reporters at my current job who want two shots with them asking questions. They don't want to have just their backs shown on camera. They want to see some of their face. Thus some of my interviews, well lit as they are, would fail the "looking too far off to the side" issue. It's the way I have to shoot those interviews but...when I go in tighter for the response, the final framing is tighter than what was shown in the original pics. It's what has to be done when it's a single camera shoot and those in charge want reporter interaction during the interview.

Last thought...I have Frezzi with a dimmer switch built in that I use as a fill light. I adjust it just enough to fill in the craters on older folks faces yet not overpower the key light. It's not my first choice, but it's better than no fill at all.

 

[Chicago Dog]

I thought in at least the first couple of setups the backlight was too strong.

I'll add to that: the lighting on the subjects in the first three pictures looks a little too cool. If you switched up the two, the shots would be fine. Other than that, they look good! It's obvious you put a lot of thought and work into these interviews.

I'm surprised Nino hasn't chimed in on this thread yet!

 

[TXTechPhoto]

Hey I really liked those grabs. The lights are well balanced and sharp. The thing I like the most about all of them has very little to do with your light placement and that is your depth. I love the shollow depth of field you achieved in those. My one nitpick would be in the third grab with the son of Keller, it seems to be a little too moody and low key. Also the shadows on the backgournd are too well defined and harsh. But maybe that fits the story! Like others have said the gels may have been too much, but I can't fairly judge that without seeing the story. I like to keep all my lights within 1000 to 1500k of each other so it looks natural.

 

[Corporate Management]

The problem seems to be with Firefox...

 

[Freddie Mercury]

So many people we deal with have only one or two moments in their lives when their image is seen by so many others. I've always felt an obligation to make them look their best, given the time available, no matter who they are. Sometimes we photogs get a little jaded and forget to care about others image unless they happen to arrive in the news car with us to a shoot.

Well put. We owe it to our subjects to make it look as good as we can with the time we have. It's always good to have shortcuts in your bag of tricks. Yesterday I had an interview with a grieving mother. I wanted her to look good, but didn't want to spend a long time setting up and being intrusive. Her living room had a big window, so I let that provide the key light, I put my little backlight up and put a slash on the wall with another. Both were quick and made a nice shot with low impact.

A big hurdle to lighting can be the reporter. They love a good looking shot as much as we do, but some don't have much patience for the setup, even if there really isn't a rush. The good ones will pre-interview and mic them up while you work. The impatient ones will silently turn and watch you, quietly pressuring you to hurry up. In those cases, I will throw out my own questions and force the attention away from me. Some people need to be reminded we're on the same team.

 

[Hiding Under Here]

Set up time is irrelevant to mastering lighting in an interview situation. Surely time IS essential to what you are able to accomplish in any given situation. But given the choice between knowing a lot about lighting and having little time to light OR knowing little about lighting and having a lot of time to light, I'd prefer the former. I would rather know a lot and have less time because then I would be able to make my choices from a point of informed security, prioritizing what I can and cannot do as rationally as possible. Even shooters who have much knowledge about lighting find themselves in situations where they have very little time. For many of them that's when it gets fun. They get to let go of the conventions they have learned over the years and improvise.

Obviously there are many levels of lighting in the world of the motion picture, with Hollywood clearly at the top of the pyramid. Local news lighting has marked limitations that are solidified by the experience level of its practioners and the (yes) time they have to execute their understandings of the craft. Certainly availability of tools also plays a role in the local news shooter's capabilities. On a tradtiional level, though, local news shooting doesn't normally involve backlights and background lights. One rarely -- if ever -- sees those two lighting units employed in local news stories.

But they are there in the stills above. And because they are there, the lighting in those shots should be evaluated accordingly -- and against other examples of lighting of that style. Why would the lighter wish for anything else?

I think the most important component in improving is developing goals that motivate you to be a little more ambitious than feels comfortable. When you ask for an open-ended critique you are bound to run into critics who understand that affirmation and complacency are sometimes virtually indistinguishable. You have to push yourself in order to grow. And sometimes you have to be challenged to push yourself. When you challenge yourself by using challenging lights -- the backlight and the background light -- you will be challenged by others who enjoy similar challenges. In the end, the best critic you have should always be yourself. But if you are averse to challenges -- or criticism -- then it will be difficult to develop the skills neccessary to understand what is possible in a given situation and what is not.