Movie lighting vs Still photography lighting

[EdwardKaraa]

Plus, in cinematography, the subject has the huge advantage of being able to talk. So one can just watch his silhouette while listening to what he has to say.

 

[Jamie123]

Huh? If any, strobes are per se softer, being the domain of softboxes etc. Cinematographic lighting makes up for that by sheer mass - with a staff of 30 lighting technicians and several hundred lights, you can control every inch of the set, and don't need soft lights.

That's not true. Strobes in general are sharper than continuous lights of any sort. A strobe with a standard reflector aimed at something will produce much sharper details than a high powered HMI.

And HMI's aren't the only lights used in movies. KinoFlos are especially soft but you can use softboxes etc. on HMI's, too (though they have to be special heat resistant ones). However, the most common diffuser to use with HMI's or Tungsten lights is what we call a 'butterfly' around here (a large metal frame with a diffusion cloth). Don't know if that's the international name for it. You can also use them to bounce light off from them.
On a photoshoot I once assisted for we used a large light balloon. It's basically a helium balloon made out of white translucent material with a daylight balanced bulb in the middle. It's usually used for movies or outdoor events at night. Produces an awesome soft white light and looks a bit like a UFO from afar 🙂

 

[Jamie123]

Yes, you can definitely choose to shoot stills with cinematic lighting. Actually that's what I really like to look at, but you don't see this very often in still photography.

I think you just don't notice it. Believe me A LOT of photographers use continuous lighting for stills. But they're still making stills so that's what they're lighting for.

 

[Jamie123]

- Since cont lights use more energy (especially tungsten), they also are going heat up a room and make things uncomfortable for your subject. Unless you have lots of A/C.

True, although it's still manageable. A while ago I did a shoot where I aimed two 2k tungsten Fresnels at a model for a portrait shoot. The trick is to be done before she starts sweating. Which is easier said than done, especially if you're shooting 4x5 🙂

 

[Araakii]

I think you just don't notice it. Believe me A LOT of photographers use continuous lighting for stills. But they're still making stills so that's what they're lighting for.

It's not so much the difference between continuous lighting and flashes. I am just concerned with the way how subjects are relatively brightly lit in stills vs. a more natural lighting in movies.

What you guys said about narratives, mood and all the other stuff all make sense. Thanks for all the inputs.

 

[Tim Gray]

It's not so much the difference between continuous lighting and flashes. I am just concerned with the way how subjects are relatively brightly lit in stills vs. a more natural lighting in movies.

The funny thing is that on set of a movie, the lighting isn't natural at all.

But I know what you mean. I'd chalk it up mostly due to aesthetics, with a helping of different technologies and needs. More or less what everyone else said.

 

[Araakii]

The reason I asked this question is because I've been wondering if I should have added "more light" to my subjects in a couple recent shots I did:

For me these lights are what were available at the time and they look natural. However, they are not the kind of bright portraits that you often see in more professional work.

 

[Araakii]

The funny thing is that on set of a movie, the lighting isn't natural at all.

But I know what you mean. I'd chalk it up mostly due to aesthetics, with a helping of different technologies and needs. More or less what everyone else said.

Ya, I know the lighting is not natural, but it looks like it.

 

[Mr_Toad]

It would be nifty if Sir Roger Hicks were to add a comment or two to this thread.

Since he wrote some wonderful books on lighting...especially on how to get the Hollywood Glamour looks of the 30s, 40s, 50s....

Of course, their touch-up artists were as responsible for the quality of these images.

Robt.

 

[Jamie123]

The reason I asked this question is because I've been wondering if I should have added "more light" to my subjects in a couple recent shots I did:

For me these lights are what were available at the time and they look natural. However, they are not the kind of bright portraits that you often see in more professional work.

These look like perfectly normal portraits to me. A lot of fine art and documentary work is shot like this (diffused cloudy sky, low saturation neg film). Look at the work of Alec Soth for example.

What you're probably talking about is the somewhat more commercial look where the subject 'pops' more due to the use of flash. That's got more to do with the aesthetics of commercial photography than with film vs. still.

 

[filmtwit]

Try bounce boards and c-stands.

 

[Jamie123]

Try bounce boards and c-stands.

Or just someone else holding a reflector. No need to make it complicated.

 

[Araakii]

Or just someone else holding a reflector. No need to make it complicated.

not sure how a reflector could've helped in this case where the sun was already in the direction of the subject's face but hidden behind heavy clouds.

 

[Araakii]

What you're probably talking about is the somewhat more commercial look where the subject 'pops' more due to the use of flash. That's got more to do with the aesthetics of commercial photography than with film vs. still.

Not really just commercial work, but also in a lot of documentary or fine art stuff:

for example (from Intended Consequences)

 

[Jamie123]

not sure how a reflector could've helped in this case where the sun was already in the direction of the subject's face but hidden behind heavy clouds.

A reflector from slightly below the subjects' face would've helped to open up those shadows under the nose and chin and just generally make the illumination a bit more even.

 

[Araakii]

A reflector from slightly below the subjects' face would've helped to open up those shadows under the nose and chin and just generally make the illumination a bit more even.

I see - that's true

 

[Jamie123]

Not really just commercial work, but also in a lot of documentary or fine art stuff:

for example (from Intended Consequences)

This kind of lighting (slightly underxposed ambient, subject exposed with flash) is a very popular means to make the subject stand out. It's not supposed to look natural. It's not exclusive to commercial photography but there it is used a lot (think corporate portraiture). Doesn't mean that non-commercial photographers can't use that technique.

but what I meant was that shooting with only available light in flat lighting is anything but uncommon, but it is a bit less popular in the commercial realm than it is in the non-commercial one.

 

[Dan]

A reflector from slightly below the subjects' face would've helped to open up those shadows under the nose and chin and just generally make the illumination a bit more even.

That is not at all needed by those two portraits. If anything, reducing or eliminating the shadow under the nose and jawline in the second shot would destroy the delicate modeling that gives her face form and volume.

 

[Rico]

It's not so much the difference between continuous lighting and flashes. I am just concerned with the way how subjects are relatively brightly lit in stills vs. a more natural lighting in movies.

First a disclaimer: I find the current trend in film/TV rather depressing, with dingy lighting and ugly color casts. Of course, there are certain standouts in color creativity like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and in retro recreation like "Mad Men". The classic movies like Lang's "Rancho Notorious" and those by Douglas Sirk (with cinematographer Russell Metty) look awesome with thorough attention to lighting.

As a medium, movies progress frame-by-frame and it's permitted to have shots where pure white or black is absent. Think of Clint Eastwood looking right into the sun in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". If a movie lacked enough black or white overall, I'd say there was an exposure problem.

Conversely, a still photo is generally viewed as a complete package and, as such, should exhibit some black (even if high key), and similarly for white. Legitimate arguments may arise for triptychs and other closely-grouped stills.

Equipment-wise, I don't see much change brought about by the digital era, or by digicams with movie mode. Strobe light is king for stills because of its instant exposure, power, and color purity. The use of film/theater lighting fixtures for still is nothing new, and continues today. I'm using two such fixtures right now: follow spot and Dedolight fresnel (both Profoto branded and armed with flash tube and modelling light). An example from yesterday:

This is the Dedolight (aka Profoto MultiSpot), with V-flat fill.