Go watch a movie!

[AB26]

Hi All,

Something I just wish to share with all of you:
When last did you watch a movie? Have you ever checked by whom the lighting was done?

Lately I have been watching movies from the perspective of a still photographer realising that all the scenes in the movie have been shot using artificial lighting. No movie is shot using available light only. There is a professional lighting team on the set of each movie.

Looking at the lighting in movies can help you a great deal in better understanding the term “seeing the light”.
Watch a movie by a good director and see how light is handled by these professionals. The same principles can be applied in still photography.

Have you ever done it and tried to apply what you see in the movies, to still photography?

[TonyW]

Not so much movies in the theatre, but since thinking more seriously about photographs I have also looked more critically at the photography in the TV shows. Mostly, it is remarkably good, for lighting, composition and colours.

[Manfred M]

Andre - I assume you are referring to feature films when you refer to movies?

First of all, no, they are not done with 100%; but yes the majority are. As an example, the establishing shot at the beginning of a scene, especially if it is done outdoors are generally shot existing light; those large vistas taken from a crane or airplane are most certainly done this way. The same thing goes for large crowd scenes or battle scenes shot outdoors.

Once you get into closeups of the actors, yes, these are generally lit, especially if these are done in a studio or on a sound stage. Location lighting, whether indoors or out will also be lit. These shots all go through a post-processing step that is usually referred to a colour timing; where all the shots in a scene are processed to look the same.

The scenes are all editing; watch how the editor mixes different levels of coverage to tell the story; I find that even more interesting than the lighting. The camera angles, the long shots, closeups and extreme closeups are all cleverly mixed to present a particular point of view to the viewer.

I was told the in photography; the strength of the image is all about the composition, but in video or film, the strength is all about the edit.

[Shadowman]

Been doing that for years. Take a look at the lighting used in earlier westerns ala John Ford which was adopted by Clint Eastwood in some of his features or Michael Mann who has a distinct love of color.

[wmoore]

Here is a short film that totally used natural light. It was shot on a Canon 7D DSLR.
http://vimeo.com/marlontorres/bridge

Another well known feature film that used natural light in the majority of scenes was Terrence Malick's 'Days of Heaven.'

[Manfred M]

Here is a short film that totally used natural light. It was shot on a Canon 7D DSLR.
http://vimeo.com/marlontorres/bridge

Another well known feature film that used natural light in the majority of scenes was Terrence Malick's 'Days of Heaven.'

Just because someone did it, doesn't mean it is a commonly accepted or a mainstream approach. The fact that it was shot on a 7D, rather on a regular video or film camera merely confirms this. I am certainly not putting down either the camera or technique.

Film makers (especially indie productions, not run by one of the major studios) will make artistic choices like this and will shoot a feature film using non-traditional techniques, such as using natural light, shooting in B&W, using a DSLR as a main cam or using handheld shots (Blair Witch Project). These tend to be the exceptions, certainly not the rule.

[chauncey]

To answer the question...all the time.
To learn lighting...all the film noir category as in "DOA"
Digital...none better "The life of Pi"

[inkista]

Oh, I always take note of the cinematographer's name these days in the opening credits (aka Director of Photography aka Lighting Cameraman) of any movie or tv show I watch. Once your eyes have been opened to, say, the work of Vittorio Storaro, Jack Cardiff, or Gregg Toland, there's no going back.

Remember when the Strobist was helping us all to bankrupt the Rosco folks by asking for those gel sample packs? I remember laughing off my butt when I saw that all the most deeply saturated gels were part of Rosco's "Storaro" series. Of course, I thought. Of course.

OTOH, I probably spend TOO much attention on credits overall, since I used to enter data into the IMDb. It got to the point where I'd lecture people at the drop of a hat on the difference between "&" and "and" in the writing credits... (collaboration vs. rewrite. "and" separates (credited) drafts in order. You see more than one "and" and chances are the movie's gonna be pretty bad). If you don't know a gaffer or best boy from a key grip or dolly grip, btw, the IMDb has a very handy glossary.

[travis4567]

The best filmed movie I have ever seen is Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon". I think it was made around 1975 or so. He used available light only. It is an absolutely gorgeous film to watch. The scenes in candlelite are covered with grain which to me adds to the films affect. Check it out

[rpcrowe]

Andre, some of the very best lighting was done in the high-end B&W movies of the 1950's and 1960's.

My wife hates B&W movies but, I can watch an entire film just for the lighting.

I was on several Hollywood sets during the mid-1960's and many of the old professional cinematographers regretted the general passing of B&W movies stating that it took more skill to light a B&W movie than to light a color movie...

[Shadowman]

Oh, I always take note of the cinematographer's name these days in the opening credits (aka Director of Photography aka Lighting Cameraman) of any movie or tv show I watch. Once your eyes have been opened to, say, the work of Vittorio Storaro, Jack Cardiff, or Gregg Toland, there's no going back.

Remember when the Strobist was helping us all to bankrupt the Rosco folks by asking for those gel sample packs? I remember laughing off my butt when I saw that all the most deeply saturated gels were part of Rosco's "Storaro" series. Of course, I thought. Of course.

OTOH, I probably spend TOO much attention on credits overall, since I used to enter data into the IMDb. It got to the point where I'd lecture people at the drop of a hat on the difference between "&" and "and" in the writing credits... (collaboration vs. rewrite. "and" separates (credited) drafts in order. You see more than one "and" and chances are the movie's gonna be pretty bad). If you don't know a gaffer or best boy from a key grip or dolly grip, btw, the IMDb has a very handy glossary.

That was you (on imdb)?

[Shadowman]

Andre, some of the very best lighting was done in the high-end B&W movies of the 1950's and 1960's.

My wife hates B&W movies but, I can watch an entire film just for the lighting.

I was on several Hollywood sets during the mid-1960's and many of the old professional cinematographers regretted the general passing of B&W movies stating that it took more skill to light a B&W movie than to light a color movie...

There's just something sinister about black blood.

[inkista]

That was you (on imdb)?

[snicker]. For a while there, I was in the stats (back when they kept stats on who entered the most stuff). Of course, this was in the days before Amazon bought it, and Col Needham and the rest of the crew in Cardiff were admining it as a hobby that eventually swallowed their day jobs, and all data entry was done by volunteers via the email interface. Verrry long time ago.

Hell, I was there when the IMDb was born. (It all started on rec.arts.movies as an "if you could bang any actress you wanted..." thread.) Ah, the mysterious ways of the internet to turn seemingly-useless messageboard discussions into crowd-sourced information resources....

[Shadowman]

[snicker]. For a while there, I was in the stats (back when they kept stats on who entered the most stuff). Of course, this was in the days before Amazon bought it, and Col Needham and the rest of the crew in Cardiff were admining it as a hobby that eventually swallowed their day jobs, and all data entry was done by volunteers via the email interface. Verrry long time ago.

Hell, I was there when the IMDb was born. (It all started on rec.arts.movies as an "if you could bang any actress you wanted..." thread.) Ah, the mysterious ways of the internet to turn seemingly-useless messageboard discussions into crowd-sourced information resources....

It can get pretty heated on those boards which is why I rarely comment anymore, it did used to be fun though.

[benm]

The best filmed movie I have ever seen is Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon". I think it was made around 1975 or so. He used available light only. It is an absolutely gorgeous film to watch. The scenes in candlelite are covered with grain which to me adds to the films affect. Check it out

Some of the scenes were shot with a Carl Zeiss f/0.7 lens.

[AB26]

I wish to thank you all for the replies.

Yes I will accept that not 100% of scenes and productions are shot using artificial lighting. The point is that most scenes where the light is absolutely stunning is shot using alternative lighting. It is from these scenes that I can learn a lot about lighting.
I now no longer just watch a movie, I look at the lighting and try to figure out how it was done. It is fantastic to see how these experts use light to create different moods.

For those eager to step up on lighting skills I think it is a worth watching what these guys do and learning from them might just help with your efforts in taking better pictures.

[Manfred M]

Andre - just remember that lighting in a movie is different than lighting a photo.

Trying to light something that is moving is considerably different than lighting something that is (relatively) still. I've never seen much more than a keylight used on an actor, but a lot of lighting on the set to add to the mood. While this can be done in photos, we tend to light the subject only, and sometimes do a bit of lighting on the background.