I was just wondering if there was a good way to have indoor lighting with only one light. If not, is there a way to make proffesional or semi-proffesional lighting from just a lamp? Thanks in advance.
-Ryan
-Ryan
lighting Lighting Question!
- Thread starter ryancahill98
- Start date
Yes is the short answer, but there is a longer answer also. You have to have the right circumstances for that one light to look right. I can see if someone is working at a desk and you only have a single work lamp on the desk with that person. Then for some shots it can provide the key for their face. For other shots it can light a wall and give the person a silhouette look.
One thing people tend to over do is the lighting. Many people think that they need to have a ton of lights to make a shot work. More times then not you may need to control the lighting instead of create it. That is especially true with the new Mysteryium X chip that is now available for the RED. I have been on several shoots with that chip and it is extremely sensitive. We find ourselves using less and less actual lights with that chip and simply use negative and bounce to control where the light plays well. That means a better knowledge of how light is going to work.
Does any of that help?
One thing people tend to over do is the lighting. Many people think that they need to have a ton of lights to make a shot work. More times then not you may need to control the lighting instead of create it. That is especially true with the new Mysteryium X chip that is now available for the RED. I have been on several shoots with that chip and it is extremely sensitive. We find ourselves using less and less actual lights with that chip and simply use negative and bounce to control where the light plays well. That means a better knowledge of how light is going to work.
Does any of that help?
Ah Brooksy...you must be from the newer gen of filmmakers. With your fancy ice cream sodas and bubblegum.
I would totally disagree with you. I would say one thing people tend to do is UNDER-do lighting. Newer generations of filmmakers are lazy with lighting. They tend to use 'nat' lighting, and call it edgy...no...it's just lazy. Just because your sensor can handle it, doesn't mean you should do it.
Back to the OP.
You can use just one light, but I would highly advice against it. I would do my bestest to find another few sources of lights and stick them in the scene some where. You don't want to get into the habit of under-lighting your scene, and/or using 'nat' lighting.
If you plan to shoot films on a regular basis, invest in some work lights from Home Depot. Or if you have the cash flow, a cheap Arri or Lowell kit. Lighting is hugely important.
If you absolutely have to work with one lamp for your practical light source...stick the actor as close as you can to it, or point it down and towards their face (just keep it steady).
You can only find one practical light in all of the house/location?
M1chae1-
Once again we are not seeing eye to eye. Maybe it is because you are misinterpreting what I am saying. When I say that people tend to over do lighting I am not saying that we should not use lighting. What I see from many beginners and people who don't know what they are doing is using too many lights. Maybe I should have explained myself a different way.
The most common mistake I see is when a beginner sets up a light. Then they notice a shadow on the wall. So they set up another light. Then there is another shadow in a different area. So they setup another light. This tends to just snowball and before you know it there are 27 lights set up for a shot that should only be using three. This is what I mean by over doing it with the lights. It is a common beginner mistake.
I know what you are saying when your talking about people trying to make it "look natural" so they decide they are only going to use "available light". That is stupid. In order for something to look natural in a shot you need to do a lot of lighting.
So what do I mean by a "lot of lighting"? Well that is when a DP has to figure out what he wants the shot to look like. Then you start designing the light, which doesn't mean setting up a ton of lights but controlling the light. Putting a floppy over the actors head to cut the top light, putting a scrim in to cut the light from the key. Adding diffusion to the lights to make the shadows less hard. Walking the edge light around to give that more or less of a wrap. Pinching barn doors down. Blacking out half of a window to give the background a gradient. Maybe putting up a piece of lace to give a pattern over an area of the film.
In all of that there are probably very few actual lights set up, but there is a lot of lighting going on. Lighting by control. In experience people will continue to put up light after light and not know any better.
M1chae1, I wouldn't expect you to know most of this. It seems your still working in the "free production" world. Once you start getting on some more paying gigs make sure you take a look at what the gaffer is doing and what the DP is calling for. You'll start to notice how much control and shaping of the light that goes on.
"If you absolutely have to work with one lamp for your practical light source...stick the actor as close as you can to it, or point it down and towards their face (just keep it steady). " - As far as this statement goes, this is some awful advice. Your going to end up with a flatly lit shot if you do this. But to each his own.
I would say look for a professional to do it right. Gaffers and DP's live in the light world. M1chae1 did have one great point that I would just like to emphasize: Lighting is a huge deal and needs to be taken seriously. Don't rely on your camera for natural light. It is going to look ridiculous. This is what is going to bring your picture to life. Hope that all helps.
hopped in on this before the last comment was made, I'll touch on that as well.
The op sounds like he's trying to throw a single 20w-40w bulb to light a scene. By lamp, the OP meant "fixture" and M1chae1 commented on it as "a practical only".
M1chae1 was correct, you are correct as well. The end result is that a Lamp (not a bulb for us non-professional, free film folks) isn't enough to light a scene... unless you're really tight in your framing so you can get the light source really close (Inverse Squares are my friends).
Since the OP seems to be asking about a single "lamp" the fixture may not support anything larger than 100w before it'll start to melt and/or overload the wiring and burst into flames. So, OP, my recommendation is to get a couple of larger lights (2-3 to start) that can throw more light... then learn to control where that light goes using scrims and flags and cookies and other various light blocking doo-hickys.
Look up portrait lighting on google and youtube. Look up 3-point lighting, rim light, key light, fill light... get a "router speed controller" (dimmer) from harbor freight tools online (or some other place) for $15ish, set your key light, set a fill on the dimmer to contain the unwanted shadows caused by the key light, set a rim light to separate your subject from the background, set a background light at a shallow angle on the background to bring out the texture in it. 4 lights, every scene for me and you can get a striking amount of variety with this setup.
Simply turning the dial on the dimmer will get you a variety of looks and moods without moving the lights.
for a 2 light setup, place the rim light so that the lights hits the subject's shoulders and the background... set the key light so some of it falls past the front of the subject and use a large piece of white card to bounce it back as fill... the farther away the card, the dimmer the fill.
The op sounds like he's trying to throw a single 20w-40w bulb to light a scene. By lamp, the OP meant "fixture" and M1chae1 commented on it as "a practical only".
M1chae1 was correct, you are correct as well. The end result is that a Lamp (not a bulb for us non-professional, free film folks) isn't enough to light a scene... unless you're really tight in your framing so you can get the light source really close (Inverse Squares are my friends).
Since the OP seems to be asking about a single "lamp" the fixture may not support anything larger than 100w before it'll start to melt and/or overload the wiring and burst into flames. So, OP, my recommendation is to get a couple of larger lights (2-3 to start) that can throw more light... then learn to control where that light goes using scrims and flags and cookies and other various light blocking doo-hickys.
Look up portrait lighting on google and youtube. Look up 3-point lighting, rim light, key light, fill light... get a "router speed controller" (dimmer) from harbor freight tools online (or some other place) for $15ish, set your key light, set a fill on the dimmer to contain the unwanted shadows caused by the key light, set a rim light to separate your subject from the background, set a background light at a shallow angle on the background to bring out the texture in it. 4 lights, every scene for me and you can get a striking amount of variety with this setup.
Simply turning the dial on the dimmer will get you a variety of looks and moods without moving the lights.
for a 2 light setup, place the rim light so that the lights hits the subject's shoulders and the background... set the key light so some of it falls past the front of the subject and use a large piece of white card to bounce it back as fill... the farther away the card, the dimmer the fill.
Okay, before everyone jumps on my back (again), let me preface my next statement with a disclaimer:
I am NOT saying this is how things should be done. Nobody seems to believe me, but I believe I had a legitimate reason (note, I said "reason", not "excuse") to pretty much forego any real lighting on the feature I just shot. That reason was an extreme time-constraint. I basically shot the entire feature 48 HFP style. We were constantly on the run, and I can honestly say that we would not have wrapped anywhere close to on-time if I would've lit it properly. I had a two-man crew, for crying out loud, and I was playing both the role of director and producer. I wasn't about to try throwing on a DP hat, as well.
So, anyway, to answer your question -- you can do whatever the hell you want. The real question is are you going to be happy with the results? To aid you in answering that question, I'm posting the following two examples of lighting with one light.
Again, people, I'm not saying this footage looks awesome, or that everyone should start doing it this way; I'm only showing it as one example, to help ryancahill decide if he/she is okay with that minimalistic look, or if he/she wants to spend more time on lights.
Also, it's worth noting that these shots were gathered with the T2i, a camera known for picking up low-light.
Anyway, this first shot was lit with an energysaver daytime light bulb, 100W (non-energysaver equivalent of 400W). I just simply screwed it into the ceiling lamp in the center of the room.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBMvaAIRTls
The second shot was lit with a single 500W Lowell light, bounced off the opposite wall and ceiling.
(For some reason, I can't embed it, so here's the link)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4xaN6MNb3k
I am NOT saying this is how things should be done. Nobody seems to believe me, but I believe I had a legitimate reason (note, I said "reason", not "excuse") to pretty much forego any real lighting on the feature I just shot. That reason was an extreme time-constraint. I basically shot the entire feature 48 HFP style. We were constantly on the run, and I can honestly say that we would not have wrapped anywhere close to on-time if I would've lit it properly. I had a two-man crew, for crying out loud, and I was playing both the role of director and producer. I wasn't about to try throwing on a DP hat, as well.
So, anyway, to answer your question -- you can do whatever the hell you want. The real question is are you going to be happy with the results? To aid you in answering that question, I'm posting the following two examples of lighting with one light.
Again, people, I'm not saying this footage looks awesome, or that everyone should start doing it this way; I'm only showing it as one example, to help ryancahill decide if he/she is okay with that minimalistic look, or if he/she wants to spend more time on lights.
Also, it's worth noting that these shots were gathered with the T2i, a camera known for picking up low-light.
Anyway, this first shot was lit with an energysaver daytime light bulb, 100W (non-energysaver equivalent of 400W). I just simply screwed it into the ceiling lamp in the center of the room.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBMvaAIRTls
The second shot was lit with a single 500W Lowell light, bounced off the opposite wall and ceiling.
(For some reason, I can't embed it, so here's the link)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4xaN6MNb3k
Last edited by a moderator:
I think when we talk about lighting we would do more justice to the topic by talking about lighting design (same goes for sound too, and by that I mean using "sound design" instead of just saying sound). Especially if we take on the responsibility of advising and teaching our younger, less experienced peers. When discussing lighting we often get lost in talking about the equipment - a key, a fill, a rim, fresnel, softboxes, gobos and so on. Or the conversation carries on about application - 3-point, head-on, low-key, high-key, etc.. One can go out and buy a kit or specific lights with the intent on just lighting a scene. The thing is there is the danger of over doing it (as Brooksy pointed out) or under doing it (as per M1chae1's statements). Don't get me wrong, understanding your equipment is, well, key (no pun intended). If your goal is to just light an object/subject then you can deploy anywhere from 1 to N number of lights. But you may be doing your story, your work and your collaborators a disservice by looking at things this way.
However, when you meld equipment with application to gain the desired effect that your story calls for, that you visualized during your inspiration then, you are in the realm of design. Design calls for thought and consideration of things like light (and shadow), sound, location, set, etc. as cast members to be deployed and directed in the crafting of your story. To play the parts that the material calls for. These are the things we usually take for granted because they are easy to just ignore or regard in a half-ass manner because we tend to view them as just equipment, tools needed to get the job done. But when we start to look at them as parts of the story, as cast members then we start to consider them as major checklist items during pre-production and production - we design with them.
So instead of asking is one light enough to light my scene, try understanding your material enough to know how you need to light your scene. Once you know this then you will better understand what tools you need and how you need to use them. So for us low budget folk, we may just have one light, which is cool, it is what it is. What's on you is understanding what you need in your scene and how best to use that lone light to get the result(s) that will help and not hurt the story. That's how you'll truly know if you can get your desired results with one light.
Just be honest to the material. The material is king so your lone light may or may not cut it based on what the scene calls for and/or how you want your scene to look. You can cheat and place that lone light source close to your subject/object and get a result with crafty framing. Problem is that shot is not a stand alone picture, so will getting that shot make sense to the overall material? Only you know this.
So it all starts with you. Know what you want, what you need, what your story and inspiration beg of you. Once you have considered this then you can better do the Googling and the YouTubing to best see how you can pull it off. You will get some really great recommendations on here and maybe other sites, but you need to factor in how other people's fixes will best fit your needs.
My view, without knowing your material or overall goals, is that you may just need more cowbell.
However, when you meld equipment with application to gain the desired effect that your story calls for, that you visualized during your inspiration then, you are in the realm of design. Design calls for thought and consideration of things like light (and shadow), sound, location, set, etc. as cast members to be deployed and directed in the crafting of your story. To play the parts that the material calls for. These are the things we usually take for granted because they are easy to just ignore or regard in a half-ass manner because we tend to view them as just equipment, tools needed to get the job done. But when we start to look at them as parts of the story, as cast members then we start to consider them as major checklist items during pre-production and production - we design with them.
So instead of asking is one light enough to light my scene, try understanding your material enough to know how you need to light your scene. Once you know this then you will better understand what tools you need and how you need to use them. So for us low budget folk, we may just have one light, which is cool, it is what it is. What's on you is understanding what you need in your scene and how best to use that lone light to get the result(s) that will help and not hurt the story. That's how you'll truly know if you can get your desired results with one light.
Just be honest to the material. The material is king so your lone light may or may not cut it based on what the scene calls for and/or how you want your scene to look. You can cheat and place that lone light source close to your subject/object and get a result with crafty framing. Problem is that shot is not a stand alone picture, so will getting that shot make sense to the overall material? Only you know this.
So it all starts with you. Know what you want, what you need, what your story and inspiration beg of you. Once you have considered this then you can better do the Googling and the YouTubing to best see how you can pull it off. You will get some really great recommendations on here and maybe other sites, but you need to factor in how other people's fixes will best fit your needs.
My view, without knowing your material or overall goals, is that you may just need more cowbell.
On a sidenote, it has dawned on me that Youtube is lame. It totally changes the coloring of your image. The way these two shots I've posted look on Youtube is very different from what they actually look like. Compare the Youtube clips with these stills I just pulled. Look at the difference in contrast and white-balance.
Speaking of white-balance, look at the difference between these two stills. YEESH! This is what happens when you shoot a feature 48HFP style. Looks like I've got some color-grading to do.
Speaking of white-balance, look at the difference between these two stills. YEESH! This is what happens when you shoot a feature 48HFP style. Looks like I've got some color-grading to do.
Last edited:
No offense intended, Cracker. You know that,
but I just gotta say...
Your shots are exposed, not lit. There is a difference.
Your pics and vids here look fine. With lighting they
would look great. I understand the limitation of your
specific production so I'm not making any personal
judgment of you or your method. But taking the time
to light well, to use lighting design as Kosh mentions,
would change the entire look of your movie.
Ryan, you can get good exposure with one light. You
cannot get professional or semi-professional lighting
with only one light.
but I just gotta say...
Your shots are exposed, not lit. There is a difference.
Your pics and vids here look fine. With lighting they
would look great. I understand the limitation of your
specific production so I'm not making any personal
judgment of you or your method. But taking the time
to light well, to use lighting design as Kosh mentions,
would change the entire look of your movie.
Ryan, you can get good exposure with one light. You
cannot get professional or semi-professional lighting
with only one light.
1. You should have been more clear. To a noobie, it sounds like you're saying don't use a lot of lights, or don't over-think the lighting. Yes, you should have been more clear.
2. Show me an example of films that are using way too many lights. By your example, it would appear a lot of people are using way too many lights to cover up shadows. Post some trailers or clips. I just don't see this...I see way more often indie filmmakers using too few lights. Or in Cracker's case, getting your image 'exposed' but not 'lit.' As Rik pointed out, there is a huge difference, one that most indie filmmakers nowa'days don't seem to understand.
3. You insult me by saying you're not surprised I don't know these things because I work in the 'free production' world. Excuse me, but our films are in stores, on television, and nationally distributed. Not to mention, I've worked on sets with varying budgets. The concept of lighting is the same, no matter what the budget. Sure, some higher budget movies may have way more control over lights, and there may be a lot more flags set up to control where light and shadow fall...but the concept is still the same. I've been on sets with huge HMI lights, and I've been on sets with 1 can light. Please don't belittle me. Can you post some links to these 'paying production' films you work on all the time? Thanks. By the way, I've been paid quite a bit for the films I've worked on, however, I typically work pro bono on the east coast.
4. I gave him horrible advice? He has one freakin' lamp...what do you want him to do? Should the actor not get close to the light like I said? Should they not point the light in his direction? What would *you* do with one lamp? I basically said using one single lamp is a horrible idea...I would never use just one lamp. And if I did, I would put the actor close to it...if you don't, you won't see the actor at all. Unless you want just a silhouette...which I take it he doesn't want. How about this...take the lamp shade off the lamp, set it up in the general area of the actor. Maybe if you had a china ball style covering, I'd place that over the light for diffusion. Is that a bad idea too? I should have probably stated that you don't want the direct light bulb blasting in the actors face without any kind of diffusion...that was my bad. I apologize.
I guess I just don't know enough to give the advice...because I work in the 'free production' world. Sorry about the attitude, but your retort to me was very patronizing. Listen, I know I'm no expert in much of the film world, but just because I work mostly micro-budget films, doesn't mean I can't give worthy advice...especially when someone asks about a one-lamp light setup.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Just happened to be doing some lighting tests on m y T2i today.
Auto Focus on, Auto Exposure on.
all I did was go from 3-point to 2-point to 1-point lighting and back again.
What a difference it makes!
I am now a full convert to triangulation.
Cheers!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9yjM39Y9Bc
(sorry for the abrupt end: it's a light test, not an editing test)
Auto Focus on, Auto Exposure on.
all I did was go from 3-point to 2-point to 1-point lighting and back again.
What a difference it makes!
I am now a full convert to triangulation.
Cheers!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9yjM39Y9Bc
(sorry for the abrupt end: it's a light test, not an editing test)
... *Sigh*...
What to say? I guess nothing else. I have really explained myself all I could. I never meant to belittle anyone. Sorry for that. I am not going to argue anymore. At this point people will believe what they want to believe. However, I do strongly suggest listening to the man below. He knows far more then any of us combined.
What to say? I guess nothing else. I have really explained myself all I could. I never meant to belittle anyone. Sorry for that. I am not going to argue anymore. At this point people will believe what they want to believe. However, I do strongly suggest listening to the man below. He knows far more then any of us combined.
Just happened to be doing some lighting tests on m y T2i today.
Auto Focus on, Auto Exposure on.
all I did was go from 3-point to 2-point to 1-point lighting and back again.
What a difference it makes!
I am now a full convert to triangulation.
Cheers!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9yjM39Y9Bc
(sorry for the abrupt end: it's a light test, not an editing test)
Nice work.
Aesthetic choices for the lighting test above... I like to put the backlight on the same side as they camera as you have done, but key from the other side (short lighting as opposed to broad lighting)... then fill on the camera side to taste - again purely aesthetic, but I really like the look of it.
Good tests, what were you using for lights?
Good tests, what were you using for lights?
... *Sigh*...
What to say? I guess nothing else. I have really explained myself all I could. I never meant to belittle anyone. Sorry for that. I am not going to argue anymore. At this point people will believe what they want to believe. However, I do strongly suggest listening to the man below. He knows far more then any of us combined.
Apology accepted, no matter how backhanded it is. No hard feelings. By the way, I genuinely am curious as to your previous experience in terms of big budget affairs...do you have any link to films, clips, trailers? And what were your duties on set? I love to learn from experienced individuals, and knowing what they were involved in helps on several levels.
Thanks.