Movie lighting vs Still photography lighting

[Araakii]

In movies we often see scenes that are either dimly lit or backlit where the subjects are in the shadow or "underexposed" with a brighter background. However, in still photography, usually at least part of the main subject would be fully exposed with a somewhat darker background. Photos with flat lighting and underexposed subjects are considered poorly taken. I wonder if there's a particular reason why the light treatments are so different in the two cases?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Energy sources.


It requires less power to send one burst of bright light in 1/250th of a second for a photograph than for hours filming.

 

[Jamie123]

There are some differences between how movies are lit vs. how stills are lit that have to do with the difference between continuous lighting and strobe lights (although you can use continuous for stills, too.) And then there are differences between the two that have to do with what the purpose of the lighting is. In movie the lighting is most often used to create an authentic scene that fits the narrative whereas in still photography often the purpose is to show a subject (as, e.g. in a portrait comission for a magazine).
Also, in movies you can make something stand out throught movement, which is not possible to do with stills.

However, I don't think I quite agree with your premise that photos with underlit or backlit subjects are generally considered to be of poor quality in still photography. Care to show an example?

 

[Jamie123]

Energy sources.


It requires less power to send one burst of bright light in 1/250th of a second for a photograph than for hours filming.

That's the difference between continuous and strobe lighting but I know quite a few photographers who work primarily with movie lights like KinoFlos or Arri HMIs.

 

[sevo]

1. cinematography is for projection (and even secondary use is through self-illuminated TV screens), which is shadow-friendly where prints (colour even more so) have their strengths in the highlights.

2. contrast management in exposure, postproduction and printing has been developed into a science in cinematography. Few, if any (now that Annie L. is broke) still photographers can afford the amount of lights and lighting technicians to control scene lighting in a similar way - and things like pre-flashing cameras (or the accompanying sensitometry) don't exist for colour stills either.

That is, colour photography has to make do with no contrast management at all, and prints will attempt to nail the highlight detail while the shadows are left to drown, where cinematography places all the image in the projectable contrast range. Black and white is a different matter, by the way - one reason why it is likely to survive even a few centuries of digital, as a art form of its own...

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

That's the difference between continuous and strobe lighting but I know quite a few photographers who work primarily with movie lights like KinoFlos or Arri HMIs.

It still requires less energy on a per-shot basis. Economical and practical considerations are always at play.

I don't think that traditional movie-shooting uses strobe lighting as a viable alternative in the general premise of the OP.

 

[KenR]

If you look at the work of the Hollywood photographer George Hurrell, he was not adverse to putting a lot of shadows in his photos (generally of male stars, the women were lit with flat light). As I understand it, he used the basic film type lighting setup for most of his work, and so was able to get the same effects as the cinematographers do for the screen.

 

[bobbyrab]

Not that I have a great deal of studio experience, but I think digital is changing still lighting to some extent, with higher iso capability plus the control of WB, it's easier than ever to shoot with continuous lighting, like Jamie says, we're beginning to see products such as kinoflow used by both stills and video.
Personally I prefer the quality of the softer light from continuous light sources to the slightly harder strobe lighting.
You can now get continuous light sources in the profoto range that take all the strobe modifiers. I'd love to have more experience with studio lighting, and continuous light would be so much easier to learn with.

 

[bobbyrab]

If you look at the work of the Hollywood photographer George Hurrell, he was not adverse to putting a lot of shadows in his photos (generally of male stars, the women were lit with flat light). As I understand it, he used the basic film type lighting setup for most of his work, and so was able to get the same effects as the cinematographers do for the screen.

I don't think they had strobe lighting then. At that time the disadvantage of tungsten light was the amount required for the slow emulsions made them very hot to work under, but I'm not sure when strobe lighting was introduced.

 

[sevo]

Personally I prefer the quality of the softer light from continuous light sources to the slightly harder strobe lighting.

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.

 

[filmtwit]

Differences between continuous and strobes:
Power - using anything above a 2k cont light draws a lot of wattage and shouldn't be done from every day socket.
- 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.
- Not remotely energy efficient and need more electricity then you can get from batteries.

It's a whole lot easier to flag, spot/Fresnel and direct continuous light then strobes.

On the down side, color temps can change due to age of the bulbs, as well as when you mix light sources in continuous light.

Just think of continues lighting as means of painting with light.

 

[bobbyrab]

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.

I wasn't asserting anything about cinematography, I'm simply saying if you use the modelling light on a strobe head as your illumination, then adjust the iso and WB and take the same shot with the strobe, the modelling light will look considerably softer.
That aside my point was because of the technology lighting for stills and video overlaps now more than at any time since pre strobe days.

 

[filmtwit]

I can soften/diffuse my tungsten lighting just fine with gels, scrims, fabric and with soft-boxes just a like a strobe.

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.

 

[bobbyrab]

Differences between continuous and strobes:
Power - using anything above a 2k cont light draws a lot of wattage and shouldn't be done from every day socket.
- 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.

It's a whole lot easier to flag, spot/Fresnel and direct continuous light then strobes.

On the down side, color temps can change due to age of the bulbs, as well as when you mix light sources in continuous light.

I'm really talking about HMI lighting, not tungsten.

 

[Araakii]

However, I don't think I quite agree with your premise that photos with underlit or backlit subjects are generally considered to be of poor quality in still photography. Care to show an example?

I don't have any example off hand but if you take a portrait outdoor on a cloudy day with the sky in the background, your subject would be pretty dark compared to the background and people would say that your shot has very poor lighting.

 

[Araakii]

If you look at the work of the Hollywood photographer George Hurrell, he was not adverse to putting a lot of shadows in his photos (generally of male stars, the women were lit with flat light). As I understand it, he used the basic film type lighting setup for most of his work, and so was able to get the same effects as the cinematographers do for the screen.

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.

 

[filmtwit]

While HMI uses less power then a tungsten, it still uses far more power then a strobe and can heat up a bit too.
HMI's are generally color corrected to daylight, but are never perfect.
HMI's can still use barns, gells, scrims, lenses and are a lot easier to flag when strobes are.

I'm really talking about HMI lighting, not tungsten.

 

[Araakii]

Thanks for all the info. At first I thought it's completely an aesthetics issue. But it seems like there are a lot of technical reasons for this.

 

[bobbyrab]

I don't have any example off hand but if you take a portrait outdoor on a cloudy day with the sky in the background, your subject would be pretty dark compared to the background and people would say that your shot has very poor lighting.

There are occasions where film can do somethings stills can't. As an example Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, He sits in the shadows with no illumination other than an ear and his hands, as the scene progresses he comes forward into the light and we see him clearly, then back into the shadows. Only the illuminated section could work as a still, the film as a piece also has sound and dialoge to give it context.

 

[furcafe]

I agree w/this & jamie123's post (#3). Technical issues (energy consumption) aside, I think the main distinction comes from the different aesthetic demands for video/cinema v. stills.

Going back to the OP's example of "if you take a portrait outdoor on a cloudy day with the sky in the background, your subject would be pretty dark compared to the background and people would say that your shot has very poor lighting," you rarely have "portraits" in a movie/video like you would in a still. Most portraits are intended to emphasize a particular subject, not set a mood, etc. like the same scene would in a movie/video, per the Brando as Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now" example below (same goes for Brando in "The Godfather"). That's not to say there won't be an occasional "tight & bright" scene in a movie/video (e.g., maybe Bo Derek emerging from the water in "10") or a subject in shadow in a more arty still (see, e.g., this http://www.aperture.org/exposures/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/WEBB_p11.jpg or any # of photos from Alex Webb), but there's a reason "tight & bright" is most often expected in photojournalism, etc. & not in the movies.

That said, I tend to dislike "tight & bright" portraits & much of the over-flashed (to me) stuff I see on Strobist, etc., which is probably why I like Alex Webb's work so much!

There are occasions where film can do somethings stills can't. As an example Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, He sits in the shadows with no illumination other than an ear and his hands, as the scene progresses he comes forward into the light and we see him clearly, then back into the shadows. Only the illuminated section could work as a still, the film as a piece also has sound and dialoge to give it context.