Jump to content


Photo

How important is motivated light?

lighting motivation

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Joshua Jones

Joshua Jones

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 June 2014 - 01:53 AM

Hi guys, 

 

How important is motivated light in your work? I often plague myself with trying to create logic around my light sources. However, I watch a lot of b-roll footage of movies, tv shows, etc. and it seems a lot of the lighting has very little logic. I don't think this a bad thing. I am just very conscious about keeping the audiences attention on the story as opposed to what I am doing. It seems by doing this I shoot myself in the foot a lot. I feel if I just lit the way I wanted, without obsessing about it's logic, I sometimes think my work would be better. 

 

What do you guys think? I would love to here from David Mullen on this! 

 

Thank you very much,

 

Joshua Jones


  • 0

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11939 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 June 2014 - 04:00 AM

Hollywood doesn't seem to care much. On the odd occasion I give lectures on this stuff, I use as an example a scene from Pleasantville, set in a school gymnasium, in which two people who are facing each other and having a conversation are both beautifully backlit.

 

A consistent appearance results, and that's at least as important as having it be logically consistent - which is a motivation all of its own.

 

P


  • 0

#3 Jon Rosenbloom

Jon Rosenbloom
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 713 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 June 2014 - 08:16 AM

Relax. It's not really important, as long as the lighting is consistent with the setting and the time of day. (A DAY-INT can't have black outside the windows.) The need to see actors' faces kind of over-rides any concern about sources or directions of lights.


  • 0

#4 Michael LaVoie

Michael LaVoie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 04 June 2014 - 08:24 AM

There is often logic to unmotivated lighting when you're doing family films, comedies, TV, and those sort of "made for everyone" type of films and shows.  They tend to be overlit and "by the book".  Logic is to light according to what an audience is used to.

 

Light a comedy as if it were a horror film and the audience will feel like something is off in the tone of the picture and it might affect how "funny" it seems.  Unless it were a spoof film like Scary Movie or Shaun of the Dead.  Those are the exceptions to this cause they are paying homage to a different genre so they're lit accordingly.  

 

When you look at drama and action films, you tend to find lighting that's much more motivated and realistic.  Characters can be silhouetted at times, they can be in darkness on purpose, like in Die Hard, Fight Club.   And finally there's horror, suspense thrillers which tend to be a bit more low key.  Hostel, Saw, etc.

 

So from light to dark, that's what you'll notice.  Always exceptions but in Hollywood, I think degrees of motivating light can often be genre specific.  But I agree, that Mr. Mullen would definitely be more of an authority here on this one.


Edited by Michael LaVoie, 04 June 2014 - 08:27 AM.

  • 0

#5 Ravi Kiran

Ravi Kiran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 June 2014 - 05:41 PM

Hollywood doesn't seem to care much. On the odd occasion I give lectures on this stuff, I use as an example a scene from Pleasantville, set in a school gymnasium, in which two people who are facing each other and having a conversation are both beautifully backlit.

 

A consistent appearance results, and that's at least as important as having it be logically consistent - which is a motivation all of its own.

 

P

 

Ah, yes, the ever-present backlight :-)

 

Night driving scenes are often lit so that the characters' faces are visible, but in reality you'd barely be able to see them, if at all. Most dashboard lights aren't THAT bright.

 

Depending on the style of the film you can get away with fudging the lighting motivation if it lends the images a certain mood.

 

Look at this shot from Bigger than Life:

 

biggerthanlife1.jpg

 

I doubt anyone's living room in real life would ever be lit to create such hard shadows from a low angle. But it works because it heightens the mood of the scene and projects the inner monster of James Mason's character.


Edited by Ravi Kiran, 04 June 2014 - 05:41 PM.

  • 0

#6 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 04 June 2014 - 07:40 PM

 

Ah, yes, the ever-present backlight :-)

 

Night driving scenes are often lit so that the characters' faces are visible, but in reality you'd barely be able to see them, if at all. Most dashboard lights aren't THAT bright.

 

Depending on the style of the film you can get away with fudging the lighting motivation if it lends the images a certain mood.

 

Look at this shot from Bigger than Life:

 

biggerthanlife1.jpg

 

I doubt anyone's living room in real life would ever be lit to create such hard shadows from a low angle. But it works because it heightens the mood of the scene and projects the inner monster of James Mason's character.

 

 

This film is from 1956, where somewhat of a completely different set of aesthetics were in operation. 10-15 years later, and the 'explosion' of location shooting pretty much ended this sort of stylistic studio setups.

 

Here is a shot from "A Serious Man"(2009) of a 'family interior setting'... There may be some cheats involved, but most of the lighting looks to be motivated  by sources that one has in every day experience. (In addition to the story being quite different than the above example...).

 

 

a-serious-family.jpg

 

Even in a more noir setting... still motivated...

 

vlcsnap-2012-04-07-15h04m05s243.png


Edited by jeclark2006, 04 June 2014 - 07:43 PM.

  • 0

#7 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 June 2014 - 09:13 PM

jeclark2006, how is it that Tim Tyler made an exception to the real name rule for you?


  • 0

#8 Josh Bass

Josh Bass
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Other

Posted 04 June 2014 - 11:23 PM

The one I always have trouble with is when people are supposed to be in total darkness are there are pools of light or a key light from nowhere.


  • 1

#9 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1051 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Australia/Wherever The Wind Takes Me

Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:54 AM

The value of lighting 'motivation' obviously varies hugely from person to person. Personally, I find it really important to my work - as I think believable lighting is a key element in maintaining the suspension of disbelief with your audience. But I can't say that approach causes me any real grief - the very nature of our work lies in creating a heightened reality, so the challenge (and pleasure) I find in it, lies in creating beautiful lighting within the constraints of plausibly motivated sources.


  • 0

#10 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 June 2014 - 10:58 AM

The value of lighting 'motivation' obviously varies hugely from person to person. Personally, I find it really important to my work - as I think believable lighting is a key element in maintaining the suspension of disbelief with your audience. But I can't say that approach causes me any real grief - the very nature of our work lies in creating a heightened reality, so the challenge (and pleasure) I find in it, lies in creating beautiful lighting within the constraints of plausibly motivated sources.

I know we like to think it matters but I honestly cannot recall ever sitting down with family and watching a movie and hearing "you know, I really just cant get into this movie because the lighting doesn't seem believable."


  • 0

#11 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 846 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 05 June 2014 - 11:13 AM

jeclark2006, how is it that Tim Tyler made an exception to the real name rule for you?

 

jeclark is my name, perhaps not formated with spaces. And since there are about 20 milion of us with that name, 2006 makes it far more unique than a name with spaces and no 'unusual' numbers.

 

If the administrator/owner of the site wants me to change that, then they can suggest an alternative that is my real name with spaces, and unique enough to disallow someone from mistaking me for some other poster.


  • 0

#12 Joshua Jones

Joshua Jones

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 June 2014 - 12:42 PM

Thank you for all the responses!

 

It's an interesting question. Some cinematographers, such as Roger Deakins, disguise their work so well that it's extremely difficult to tell what is natural and what is artificial. I am member of Mr. Deakins website (as is jeclark2006; that's right, I see you man!) and I can't tell you how many times their have been questions how he lit something and his response is that he didn't. The same is true vice versa. 

 

On the other hand, someone like Robert Richardson is overtly stylish and his sources are rarely motivated. I love his work though and many of the films he's worked on are classics. Given, many of his films are overtly stylish in nature, but there are a number of scenes that the motivation is questionable and yet it doesn't seem to matter. 

 

I am proud of my work and see growth with every venture, I was just curious to see how you all felt. The DP of LOTR, Andrew Lesnie, was once questioned on a light's motivation and is quoted as saying, "the lighting comes from the same place as the music". That's pretty hilarious. If people aren't distracted by the music, then why should they be by light motivation? haha 


  • 0

#13 Michael LaVoie

Michael LaVoie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 June 2014 - 02:42 PM

As a DP, I try to work from the principle that nothing should appear as though it's been "lit".  Whether that's motivated or not. I want the lighting on the whole to go unnoticed if possible.  A friend of mine told me at a screening of one of my features that he tried to pay attention to the cinematography but after a few minutes he forgot about it and just got sucked into the story.   I still consider that one of the best compliments I ever got about my work.  That it went unnoticed.


  • 0

#14 Joshua Jones

Joshua Jones

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:12 PM

!!!


Edited by Joshua Jones, 05 June 2014 - 05:15 PM.

  • 0

#15 Joshua Jones

Joshua Jones

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:19 PM

Deakins himself commented on this question on his website:

 

file:///Users/joshuajones/Desktop/Screen%20Shot%202014-06-05%20at%203.08.02%20PM.png


  • 0

#16 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:49 PM

As a relatively technique-savvy audience member, unmotivated lighting annoys me.

 

The DP of LOTR, Andrew Lesnie, was once questioned on a light's motivation and is quoted as saying, "the lighting comes from the same place as the music". That's pretty hilarious. If people aren't distracted by the music, then why should they be by light motivation? haha 

 

Sound is analyzed much less consciously than visuals. Richardson pulls it off, though. :)


  • 0

#17 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 June 2014 - 05:57 PM

As a relatively technique-savvy audience member, unmotivated lighting annoys me.

 

 

You are in the group that are called "film snobs." Very few filmmakers really care about pleasing that group because it is the hardest group to please and carries the least amount of benefit to pleasing.

 

I stand by the fact that, if the story is good, the cinematography shouldnt matter as long as it isnt so bad as to be distracting. Audio is much more of an issue to get well since people need to be able to hear it clearly to follow what is going on.


  • 0

#18 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1051 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Australia/Wherever The Wind Takes Me

Posted 05 June 2014 - 06:14 PM

I know we like to think it matters but I honestly cannot recall ever sitting down with family and watching a movie and hearing "you know, I really just cant get into this movie because the lighting doesn't seem believable."


With modern films/TV shows certainly. It's all pretty well hidden these days (the soft nature of modern lighting seems to help that a lot), but go back to older films (and you don't need to go back further than the 80s) and you can find plenty of films where story isn't quite enough to keep the lighting from feeling 'off' to modern viewers. I've sat and watched films with several people who have noted as much.

Viewers' sensibilities seem to have matured in-line with the technical sophistication of our lighting, so whilst I agree there's absolutely a minimum level of believability at which people simply don't care - our lighting still has to at least reach that level.
  • 0

#19 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 June 2014 - 06:21 PM

You are in the group that are called "film snobs." Very few filmmakers really care about pleasing that group because it is the hardest group to please and carries the least amount of benefit to pleasing.

 

Hee hee. It's just personal preference. :)


  • 0

#20 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 June 2014 - 06:39 PM

With modern films/TV shows certainly. It's all pretty well hidden these days (the soft nature of modern lighting seems to help that a lot), but go back to older films (and you don't need to go back further than the 80s) and you can find plenty of films where story isn't quite enough to keep the lighting from feeling 'off' to modern viewers. I've sat and watched films with several people who have noted as much.

Viewers' sensibilities seem to have matured in-line with the technical sophistication of our lighting, so whilst I agree there's absolutely a minimum level of believability at which people simply don't care - our lighting still has to at least reach that level.

Instead of speaking generally, why not mention a particular film or show which you mean by this? Was it shot on film or was it bad video? I cannot recall any older films that had lighting so bad to distract from viewing but feel free to enlighten me.


  • 0



rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

CineLab

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Opal

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

The Slider

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio