Tell me everything you know about lighting plz. THX.

get it from three angles to reduce shadow.

Or one angle, to increase shadow

It needs to be BRIGHT, turn down the gain in your camera and make the lights bright, that gives you better quality.

Get home depot lights, the yellow and black 500 watt halogen ones. They're bright, cheap, and easy to use.

can these tell me everything questions please stop????

quote:

---

Originally posted by the parnell:
can these tell me everything questions please stop????

---

Haha, yeah.
Seriously though, Kyle, check out some books and learn the basics, and then start asking some specific questions, otherwise much of what I could tell you won't make any sense.

Come on guys! I think he's going to a series of them. I'm looking forward to "everything you know about sound," "everything you know about editing," etc.

Actually Kyle, you may get more helpful answers if you have specific questions in mind

Im looking forward to "everything you know about kissing asses to get that job"

no seriously, kyle, if you look through the thousands of topics on this site, you generally will end up with a good idea about how to do stuff.

I will probably be the only person to say this, but lighting is a complete waste of your time (IMO)! That's my personal opinion of course, but it seems like way too many films spend so much time lighting and trying to add production value and make it look "professional." Instead I woould say take the time to get a good performance out of your actors etc... cause all the lighting in the world doesn't mean **** without the story, and you can't say the same for the other way around. Shadows don't matter and none of those other nitpicks things. I make obvious mistakes early in my work (poor lighting, a boom in the shot when I never even used one for production just to **** up) to get people who just want to disect my film in a technical sense and are too "intellectual" to pay any attention to the story and what matters, I want these people to stop watching my films cause I'm not into **** waving with my witty pop culture QT/Smith writing and "cinematography." I try to show what I see as real life, and in real life I see bad shadows all the time. It's kinda like that quote from Stanley Kubrick about how for "Paths of Glory" they tried to make fake rocks, but they looked stupid and fuct up. so they used real rocks instead. Fake rocks don't look real because they aren't ****ing rocks! Why don't any other filmmakers see things this way?

stanley kubrick would also spend days lighting a shot and would do the same take over and over no matter whether the actor was good or not if everything easn't exactly perfect.

people mispell and misuse words all the time in real life, but doing it in a book is annoying.

I think the reason that most other filmmakers don't see things this way is because they're all trying to entertain people. Isn't that the ultimate goal of making a movie in the first place? Entertainment? I mean, sure, if you have some social issue of problem you want to address, you can use film as a medium to share that belief, but if the movie looks like crap, it's going to distract the viewer and they probably won't like it. I want my films to look the best the can. Is that wrong? I mean, I understand what you are saying, but it just seems really illogical and far-fetched. Not many people think the way you do. To make a movie and to make it look good, to make the acting good, to make the writing good is the goal of the filmmaker. Why stop at acting and writing when you could make EVERYTHING the best you can make it?

i think thats why they have whats known as a cinematographer- lighting and camera all they look after.

To be honest (as an aspiring cinematographer myself) i believe lighting on ANY production is extremely important. I dont value lighting above acting performance, i believe that they all play their roles, but i enjoy lighting over dealing with actors, and therefore i dont want to be a director, and usualy get someone else to direct actors for me while i look after the technical side of things.

quote:

---

I want my films to look the best the can. Is that wrong? I mean, I understand what you are saying, but it just seems really illogical and far-fetched. Not many people think the way you do. To make a movie and to make it look good, to make the acting good, to make the writing good is the goal of the filmmaker. Why stop at acting and writing when you could make EVERYTHING the best you can make it?

---

Of course there is nothing wrong with good lighting, I'm just like this cause I'm in a film program at college and all we hear about in one class is all lighting ****. But we never take things from the other point of view, to what lighting can take away. Bad lighting may be distracting to some people, but so are subtitles. But that won't keep me from watching a Fellini film because to have it dubbed would be an injustice. I think walking out of a film because of bad lighting or film quality says alot about the viewer and where their values lie. Sure film can be entertainment, but it's become to much of a golden rule, and whenever someone shoots 16mm or digital low budget it gets labelled as going for the "documentary" look when its just using a little less makeup to cover up blemishes that are important because they are more real than all the controlled variables in film. I don't see anything wrong with good lighting, but it's gotten to the point where anything poorly lit or out of focus is treated like amatuer work. This has mostly stemed from comments made on my film "Entre to Exis" where I used nightshot for alot of scenes in order to create the right mood for the actors who were supposed to be in total darkness and unable to see each other, but I was accused of doing this to avoid doing real lighting. I mean, I didn't take it personally, I just felt misunderstood. But I do understand what you're saying.

Lighting IS important. Lighting tells the story, it creates the mood, the tone for the picture. And it does not distract from directing the actors because lighting a set should never be the directors job...

The only good advise I can give you for lighting is to light a set realistic, using existing or imaginery lightsources to explain the lighting. The second most important rule is to break the first rule when you believe you need changes to enhance the mood and effect that is important for the story.

ah yea...something else, Depth is more important than realism

But I could go on and on and I am sure some people will probably disagree with me.

Lighting is just as important as the other aspects in filmmaking. A good film uses all those aspects.

Lighting is so underrated and even forgotten in most student films and that's what makes them look terrible. It is very distracting to what could be a very well thought out story.

There is some truth to the notion of using the real light, to make it look more real. Certain kinds of light, usually natural light coming in through windows in a very large enclosed space, or early or late sunlight outdoors, looks great on camera. However, the camera is basically blind in light levels where the human eye can still see quite well.

So the theory of shooting what we're seeing doesn't hold together all the time. When we're seeing a beautiful, dim scene, the camera is seeing a grayish square of noise.

Ok since this group doesn't like brawd questions, i shall, althought i cannot promise to make my questions more specific. So for starters i have very little cash right now, and i need to lightin, now i know about hard, and soft light, and reflectors, not a lot but enought to know what your talking about. So firstly, what i want to know is, what would be a cheap lighting system, that is still effective/efficient. Secondly, what are some effects i can achieve with lighting, that won't cost me that much. Two what are some interesting reflector effects, like white cardboard just shoots the light back softer, i think, so what are some other effects. So i hope this is more specific, and i look forward to your response. THX.

Ok. Here's the cheap techniques I know:

HOME DEPOT LIGHTS! They are just awesome. And dirt cheap.

Reflectors made with aluminum foil on cardboard.

A bunch of christmas lights behind the camera to make an actor's face look soft, and put a sparkle in their eyes. Good for magical, special moments. I haven't tried this one, but I've heard good things about it.

Flashlights in a room full of fog look good. In fact, ANYTHING that makes light looks good in a room full of fog Get a fog machine!

What are the effects for using reflectors of aluminum, and also, what lights specificly? THX.

Its just a brighter version of the white-board reflector. The lamps I'm speaking so highly of are essentaily like this. They are sold at both home depot and lowes. And I'll give a dollar to anyone who can find them on one of those company's websites within ten minutes

Really, you don't even have to use lights THAT good if you have an extremely low budget. Just get a few of those garage lights. Your dad probably has some in the garage or basement right now. They're the ones that have the hook on the top and they just hang from a ceiling or car hood. They're cheap, but they can light a room pretty good. I used them for my last film and it turned out perfectly.