Why lighting matters.
- Thread starter cameragod
- Start date
adam
Well-known member
Ouch, that's a bit of a blow to the ego.
Ellen is 52! She looks great on her show so there must be something to it.
I used to work at 30 Rock for NBC and we would occasionally shoot some self-promoting story about Dateline. When we went to interview Stone Phillips or Jane Pauly or whoever the correspondents were it was unquestioned that their people would do the lighting. It was fun to watch because there was (as the should be) a recipe for lighting each one of them.
Ellen is 52! She looks great on her show so there must be something to it.
I used to work at 30 Rock for NBC and we would occasionally shoot some self-promoting story about Dateline. When we went to interview Stone Phillips or Jane Pauly or whoever the correspondents were it was unquestioned that their people would do the lighting. It was fun to watch because there was (as the should be) a recipe for lighting each one of them.
Hiding Under Here
Well-known member
Having worked with and lit both Stone Phillips and Jane Pauley I can tell you one thing: the only lighting recipe they required was good lighting. Never once did either of them ask for anything specific, like having a light on the floor or an eye light. But it was expected that those who lit them understood how to make a star journalist look "right".
In fact, Jane Pauley is one of the most telegenic subjects at whom I have ever pointed a lens. And I would bet that anyone else who writes here who worked with her would say the same thing. Her face, with only natural sources, lit up the camera. So she was easy to light in the studio -- as most of these folks are due to their unique looks.
As for Ellen Degeneres, I agree with her. She has looked lousy on Idol. I hate that set with the blue waves behind them. It's too close and it looks like a bad Miss America set or something. I respect her more now for noticing the problem and doing what she must to address it.
A final story. I knew a network crew who were doing an interview with Barbara Streisand. They went to her house (as instructed) and pre-lit the next day's interview. When they returned the following morning, the diva had rearranged her lighting. And (if memory serves me) the crew was impressed. Babs knew her stuff and she improved what the crew had been willing to submit.
In fact, Jane Pauley is one of the most telegenic subjects at whom I have ever pointed a lens. And I would bet that anyone else who writes here who worked with her would say the same thing. Her face, with only natural sources, lit up the camera. So she was easy to light in the studio -- as most of these folks are due to their unique looks.
As for Ellen Degeneres, I agree with her. She has looked lousy on Idol. I hate that set with the blue waves behind them. It's too close and it looks like a bad Miss America set or something. I respect her more now for noticing the problem and doing what she must to address it.
A final story. I knew a network crew who were doing an interview with Barbara Streisand. They went to her house (as instructed) and pre-lit the next day's interview. When they returned the following morning, the diva had rearranged her lighting. And (if memory serves me) the crew was impressed. Babs knew her stuff and she improved what the crew had been willing to submit.
adam
Well-known member
I didn't mean to make it sound like they demanded their own people light them, just that their studio guys were cool and whipped up the lighting. It was fun to watch because the were each very different and the lighting director knew the dimmer settings right off the top of his head.
It just shows you that you can't just cut and paste key/fill/back/floor recipe and get the same results for Ellen as you can for Paula Abdul etc.
It just shows you that you can't just cut and paste key/fill/back/floor recipe and get the same results for Ellen as you can for Paula Abdul etc.
Hiding Under Here
Well-known member
I wasn't intending to be prickly about the subject of lighting "stars". Certainly there are some talent who know, in a relative way, what they want for lighting. They know -- because they start to develop a comparative memory of what looked good and what didn't -- what kind of lights they want to see pointed at their face to be reassured that the lighting might turn out okay. But stars also leave a lot of the lighting to the various professionals who DP their shoots. They have to have some trust otherwise they would be worried about how they might look when they should be focusing on the interview or the standup.
Most high level television journalists want to see their shot. And it's certainly a nice affirmation to have them approve when they look at the monitor. A good DP develops a basic technique for lighting faces. Then they vamp off of that technique, making the necessary adjustments for the particular person they are lighting. For instance, some DPs use a 650 fresnel with Opal frost pointed directly at an aging female reporter's face as the key light. That technique -- because the light is harder and used pointed straight on -- is a method for dealing with wrinkles. Older people tend to have more wrinkles. But the 650 fresnel isn't the best light for everyone. It's a hard light. Most faces look best when they are shot with a big, soft source.
One funny thing I have noticed about shooting start journalists -- or anyone for that matter. When you light a subject they are rarely on location to stand in for their lighting. So we pull in crew people to sit in the chairs to get the lights as right as we can. All of a sudden the talent walks in and we have no time to tweak. But when they sit in that chair, most of them are so interesting and unusual looking that they look great with the lighting at 85% to 90%. When a beautiful female network anchor sits in a chair that has been lit on location, it's a wonderful sight to behold. The lighting looks as good as it gets -- given the compromises you make setting it -- in those situations.
Most high level television journalists want to see their shot. And it's certainly a nice affirmation to have them approve when they look at the monitor. A good DP develops a basic technique for lighting faces. Then they vamp off of that technique, making the necessary adjustments for the particular person they are lighting. For instance, some DPs use a 650 fresnel with Opal frost pointed directly at an aging female reporter's face as the key light. That technique -- because the light is harder and used pointed straight on -- is a method for dealing with wrinkles. Older people tend to have more wrinkles. But the 650 fresnel isn't the best light for everyone. It's a hard light. Most faces look best when they are shot with a big, soft source.
One funny thing I have noticed about shooting start journalists -- or anyone for that matter. When you light a subject they are rarely on location to stand in for their lighting. So we pull in crew people to sit in the chairs to get the lights as right as we can. All of a sudden the talent walks in and we have no time to tweak. But when they sit in that chair, most of them are so interesting and unusual looking that they look great with the lighting at 85% to 90%. When a beautiful female network anchor sits in a chair that has been lit on location, it's a wonderful sight to behold. The lighting looks as good as it gets -- given the compromises you make setting it -- in those situations.