Fascinating, what a difference just lighting makes

[directorik]

i think there was 1 or 2 lits only. one on the ceiling may be other one in right side

Isn’t it amazing that excellent lighting doesn’t look like “lighting”?

See how the background of the second picture drops into darkness
and how it pops in the first picture? That’s because there are three
or four lights on just the background - the woman cleaning the floor
as a light on her. The four practical lights over the counter have been
replaced with bigger lamps and two small lights have been placed over
the flat top. So that’s six to eight lights just for the background not
counting the practicals.

There is a an overhead soft light just up stage from the camera to
keep the camera side darker. To keep the faces of the two actors facing
the camera at the same level there is a light on each of them.

Notice how the backs of the actors in the second picture are lighter
and everything else's falls off farther away. One light - probably coming
from a window and then only practical which do not have to power to
balance the light from the window.

Good lighting doesn’t look like lighting at all - it looks natural. The second
picture is exposed - the first is lit. And doesn’t look it.

 

[ClockworkNinja]

It's all a difference of whether you want to show the scene how it really looks, or if you want to light up everything, and say who cares about mood?

Oh hey, and protip on lighting: if you're trying to capture images of a city in the distant background don't fire off your flash like a spastic idiot at the windows in the observatory room. You're just ruining the shots of people who know how to use a camera and you won't actually illuminate the buildings.

 

[TheArtist]

Oh hey, and protip on lighting: if you're trying to capture images of a city in the distant background don't fire off your flash like a spastic idiot at the windows in the observatory room. You're just ruining the shots of people who know how to use a camera and you won't actually illuminate the buildings.

I think you just insulted every person on this thread.

 

[Caidh Mor]

Looks like they went back for re-shoots.

 

[ClockworkNinja]

I think you just insulted every person on this thread.

Nah, just venting at having to deal with idiots at the Empire State Building observatory last night. :v

 

[jax_rox]

Looks like they went back for re-shoots.

No, it was an attempt at color grading by someone who posted it on another forum.

The original is from Birdemic II.

I find it interesting how terrible the low budget one looks. Even on a low budget, they should've been able to set dress and light better. Just flagging off some of the light off the wall, and other areas and shaping it around the actors would help. Add in a few little lights here and there to set things off and it would look a lot better. Wouldn't look like the Avengers, but I don't think it's necessarily meant to..

The Production Design on it is horrible, it really just looks like they walked in, set the camera down, put the actors in place and hit record, then walked out. It looks like they spent no longer thn 15 or 20 minutes in there. And that's what you get - shoddy looking results.

 

[mus]

the second one looks better lit, even though the first one is a huge budget movie

 

[knightly]

the second one looks better lit, even though the first one is a huge budget movie

(Not directed specifically at you, just at the comment)

The second one, to me, has the aesthetic of "don't have the time or knowledge to shape the light to suit the needs of the script." I don't know the script, but I'm certain there's more emotional content that could be expressed in this frame. It's very common in low-budget work. Most of that tends to be lack of time, personnel or equipment... my earlier works are not immune to this phenomenon.

When we've analyzed our projects when they're done, we look for what makes the footage look less than professional... time after time, it's been lighting - which is why I ended up focussing on lighting in our group (no one else seemed to be genuinely interested in learning it). We fix the 3 largest problems with our previous projects on our present ones every time.

Time spent on the image in costume, set design, lighting, etc... everything but the camera, provides amazingly better results in an image that looks as if you had a larger budget to work with, and raising the chances that you can acquire an audience for your work.

Take the time to learn lighting... and set design... and makeup... and costuming... and camera movement... and... and... Your work will benefit, and your audience will thank you.

 

[mus]

(Not directed specifically at you, just at the comment)

The second one, to me, has the aesthetic of "don't have the time or knowledge to shape the light to suit the needs of the script." I don't know the script, but I'm certain there's more emotional content that could be expressed in this frame. It's very common in low-budget work.

To me, the second one looks like they had the time to light the actors completely. The first one doesn't evoke any mood or emotion, it just looks darker, that's all. I know that lighting is important, but the second one just looks better in every way, which is what I find to be so surprising.

 

[jax_rox]

Sure, the second one is brighter, meaning there's more exposure on the actors, but it's really just a 'get in, get out' situation by the look of it, work with what you have and get the best exposure you can on the actors. The one from the Avengers shapes the light - it tells you where to look. On the low budget one, my eye is drawn to the blank white wall, an expanse of bright white. On the Avengers one, my eye is drawn to the central characters.

In the Avengers one, I get a sense of the mood, the time of day, the typ of establishment and an idea of what's happened previously. On the Birdemic one, I get the sense they didn't have time up do anything, or it's a reality show.

Lighting is about much more than getting an exposure. Sure, the actors in The Birdemic shot are brighter but the shot itself is far less interesting, and that's mainly due to lighting and production design.

 

[mus]

Sure, the second one is brighter, meaning there's more exposure on the actors, but it's really just a 'get in, get out' situation by the look of it, work with what you have and get the best exposure you can on the actors.

I really don't see how you're getting that at all. It looks like that with the Avengers one, to me. It looks like they took more time with the second one than the first one (i'm talking specifically about the lighting here... the set design, I would agree with you.)

In the Avengers one, I get a sense of the mood, the time of day, the typ of establishment and an idea of what's happened previously

None of those have any relevance to the lighting, and concerning the mood, the mood for this particular scene is not enhanced by the lighting. The dialogue, and watching the actual story itself in the second one, should provide for you the idea of what has happened previously.

The first one seems to have a 'get in, get out' look. It seems like they used whatever lights were already in that location, I know they didn't, but that's the way it seems. Also, my eyes are more drawn toward the background of the image, which is not what I should be paying attention to.

 

[knightly]

To me, the second one looks like they had the time to light the actors completely. The first one doesn't evoke any mood or emotion, it just looks darker, that's all. I know that lighting is important, but the second one just looks better in every way, which is what I find to be so surprising.

Here are my specific complaints about the second (in the original post -- not the photoshop darkened one):
1) The walls in the background are almost entirely missing from the image
2) The dark skinned guy should have his own light to punch him up into exposure
3) The blue shirted guy is nearing over exposed (probably closest to what ever light source is being used)
4) The lady next to him in the yellow shirt is overlit and has no texture because of it.

If they were to address 1-3, I'd say the frame was from a comedy (the original did garner quite a few laughs in the theater when I saw it). Very even flat lighting, very little mood or definition. Key/Fill ratio nearing 1:1

The first image (from the after-after credits sequence from the Avengers for those who don't recognize it (or didn't stick around long enough to see it after the first after credits sequence) seems reminiscent of some old paintings in the chiaroscuro / tenebrism style. Playing with light and dark to draw the eye to where the artist wants the eye drawn.

The length of time this shot is on screen in the theater allows the viewer to really explore the set design as well, so the second shot would get very boring with next to nothing to read or look at in the background, but the Avengers shot has a gothic detail to it that lets the viewer sit on that shot and really delve into it.

The second is fairly well exposed, but for me it lacks an attention to detail that I like to see from crafts-persons who are seeking to use their specific craft to milk every ounce of life out of a setup and put it on screen for the viewer. We are painters, it's not enough to put paint on the canvas and call it good, it's got to be the right paints to evoke the emotions we're attempting to accomplish to serve the script and help engage the audience with the world being created on screen by the producer and director.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

The second one if flat, flat, super flat, and thus is really really really boring. It has the crappy "throw up a softbox, get an exposure, and roll" look that is becoming way too common as people are too damn lazy to actually light a scene.

If my DP lit a scene like the second one I'd fire him on the spot. In fact, he did, and I have.

 

[jax_rox]

I really don't see how you're getting that at all. It looks like that with the Avengers one, to me. It looks like they took more time with the second one than the first one (i'm talking specifically about the lighting here...

Hardly, the second one looks like one big window light, the first Avengers one has many many lights, gflags etc plus all the practicals with higher wattage bulbs.

None of those have any relevance to the lighting

Mood, time of day, emotion, drawing the viwer's eye etc. have complete relevance to lighting. The first one looks like the DP spent more than two seconds thinking about the lighting. The second looks like the DP walked in and went 'oh yeah, this will do'.
If you don't think mood, emotion, time f day etc. have any relevance to lighting, then you're looking at lighting from the wrong angle. As I say, lighting is about much, much more than just getting an exposure.

Also, my eyes are more drawn toward the background of the image, which is not what I should be paying attention to.

At least the background's interesting, unlike the empty white wall my eyes are drawn to in the Birdemic one.

 

[mus]

I was referring to you saying "the mood, type of establishment, and a sense of what has happened previously" are all evident by the lighting. Like I said, I don't feel this lighting evokes any particular mood... and honestly, if anything, it provokes one of sadness, if I didn't know what's going on in the story (which is a moment of victory and celebration.)

I don't see how the lighting shows you what type of establishment this is, other than one that has lights in it, and again, it does not provide a sense of what has happened. The plot should have done that for you.


The only thing I'll agree with is that the first one's set was designed better. And yes, I understand that lighting is more than just exposure, but I don't think they took the time to get that exposure with the Avengers shot, provided that, I don't see what mood is supposedly presented with a dark picture. If someone could tell me what mood this was meant to evoke, perhaps I could see things differently.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

The second shot is much "darker" than the first in that all the detail is lost. I can't see the black guy's face at all, I can't see any of the background (which in the first shot has a lot of interesting detail in it including the woman mopping), I can't see the scene as existing in a 3 dimensional world because the really really shitty lighting has flattened the entire image into a badly taken snap shot. Movies are an idealized view of life. Everything should look "better" than it does in the real world.

Everything that's "important" or "interesting" for me to see in the first shot I can see with total clarity.

 

[DeJager]

The first image looks more cinematic and appealing. The second image looks more amateurish.

 

[mask]

Isn’t it amazing that excellent lighting doesn’t look like “lighting”?

See how the background of the second picture drops into darkness
and how it pops in the first picture? That’s because there are three
or four lights on just the background - the woman cleaning the floor
as a light on her. The four practical lights over the counter have been
replaced with bigger lamps and two small lights have been placed over
the flat top. So that’s six to eight lights just for the background not
counting the practicals.

There is a an overhead soft light just up stage from the camera to
keep the camera side darker. To keep the faces of the two actors facing
the camera at the same level there is a light on each of them.

Notice how the backs of the actors in the second picture are lighter
and everything else's falls off farther away. One light - probably coming
from a window and then only practical which do not have to power to
balance the light from the window.

Good lighting doesn’t look like lighting at all - it looks natural. The second
picture is exposed - the first is lit. And doesn’t look it.

of course second pic cannot compare with first one.

 

[sfoster]

Everything in that
first shot is exactly where it needs to be including the slightly
higher angle and the shorter lens then the second picture.

Hold on a sec.. You're saying the first shot has a shorter lens, and the second shot has a longer lens?

I would have thought it was the other way around. In the first picture those lamps hanging in the background seem to be closer. In the second picture they seem to be further away. Doesn't this suggest the first shot was done with a longer lens?

 

[Will Vincent]

Hold on a sec.. You're saying the first shot has a shorter lens, and the second shot has a longer lens?

I would have thought it was the other way around. In the first picture those lamps hanging in the background seem to be closer. In the second picture they seem to be further away. Doesn't this suggest the first shot was done with a longer lens?

Yes, the first image used a longer lens. Given the amount of compression between foreground and background elements I'd guess quite a bit longer lens.