How much prep time does lighting take up?

moonshieldmedia

moonshieldmedia

I'm shooting in all natural or available light so there are no complicated lighting setups to deal with. How much time do you think this saves me?

I went ahead and scheduled more scenes per shoot day because I was assuming I'd be saving a lot of time, but we go into production in a week and I'm starting to panic that I overdid it!

There's 16 shoot days scheduled for a low budget indie drama romance feature. Without going too much into specifics, does that sound doable to you?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Tons of time so long as you scout your locations with the existing lighting in mind. If you don't, your images will look like you just pointed a camera at people with no knowledge of light.

You'll need to have a firm understanding of the 3-point lighting system going into your location scouts. These scouts have to happen at the times you'll be shooting on the day -- much more strongly planned schedule than with a lit shoot -- and much more aggressive about sticking to the schedule, lest you orce your self to increase the number of shooting days by missing shots in fleeting/changing light that you don't have any control over. There's even the possibility that the lighting will change from your scout day to your shoot day, so have back up plans for every location.

Now when you hit the location, you can use the existing lights in the same way you'd use lights to get a 3-point shot, just by moving the actors to the lights rather than the other way around... you'll have to balance this need with the need for good looking background framings as well.

I hope it goes well for you, I'd be interested in seeing the results of this. Hopefully, you can get better lighting than they did in "Once." (which I didn't like the aesthetic of at all -- too flat for my tastes)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
On a lit shoot, I plan 30-60 minutes / setup. All shots within the setup can be made with some minor tweaks between camera positions... so there's a little extra time there, but that's not much if you plan for it before hand.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The is the "How long is string?" question. Every project is different depending
on the skill and experience of the people.

moonshieldmedia said:
I'm shooting in all natural or available light so there are no complicated lighting setups to deal with. How much time do you think this saves me?
Click to expand...
This may slow you down. Without control of the light you must bend to the
whims of Mother Nature. And using available light means the light sources
are not versatile so it could take longer than if you used more controlled
light sources.


moonshieldmedia said:
There's 16 shoot days scheduled for a low budget indie drama romance feature. Without going too much into specifics, does that sound doable to you?
Click to expand...
Sounds doable to me. I have shot features in less. Of course I was using an
experienced crew and standard production lights so each lighting set up could
be controlled and set up and moved quickly.

Depending on how long YOUR string is 16 days could be an easy shoot or it
could be very difficult.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
moonshieldmedia said:
I'm shooting in all natural or available light so there are no complicated lighting setups to deal with. How much time do you think this saves me?
Click to expand...
This really depends. On an overcast day, it's going to save time, but then on an overcast day, I'd be wanting my Gaffer to grab some pocket pars and things so it isn't so goddamned flat! ;)

On a sunny day, it could slow you down, because you may start shooting in sun, only to find that the sun goes behind the clouds for another 15 minutes, or you start shooting in the morning overcast conditions, and then the sun comes out and the second half of the scene doesn't match with the first half, unless you start pulling out and rigging big scrims and diff frames.

You'll need to really carefully plan your days, times of day and all the rest of it if you want it to look good. And you're always the whim of the weather - even if you're inside and shooting a scene where sun's pouring through the window, but turns out it's a cold, rainy, overcast day, or simply that by the time you go to shoot there, the sun's moved on. Your options are: put up a light, put off the scene until another day when the sunis pouring through the window, or shoot it anyway and just accept that it's not going to be anything like what you want.

There's 16 shoot days scheduled for a low budget indie drama romance feature. Without going too much into specifics, does that sound doable to you?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's certainly doable, but it all depends on who's in your crew, how many in your crew, how experienced and professional your crew is, how long your shoot days are, where your locations are, how long your scenes are, what the weather's like, etc. etc. etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
YOU CAN DO IT!!!

16 days will be tight, no doubt. So stay on task and on-schedule, it's kinda that simple.

If you have a professional DP, and a professional grip, and a professional gaffer, and all the professional who are required to bring your film to light, then you'd kinda be a dummy to not let them do their thing.

But I'm assuming that's not the case with you. I'm assuming you (and/or one of your few crew members) would be forced to do this job that you're really not good at in the first place. Should that be the case, it would take your forever to light the scene, and it still wouldn't look very good.

Fuck it! Just make the best damn movie you can make! Don't forget that there is more than one way to skin a cat! Try telling the Duplass brothers that every scene needs to be properly lit!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks for all the advise. We'll be shooting on the Blackmagic Cinema Camera which gives us the option to shoot 2.5K RAW, so I'll have a little more room to adjust lighting in post than if I were shooting DSLR. I know my film will still be a little bit flat, but that's the look I'm going for on this project.

This is my first feature and I'm starting to get nervous, but thanks for the support!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
moonshieldmedia said:
Thanks for all the advise. We'll be shooting on the Blackmagic Cinema Camera which gives us the option to shoot 2.5K RAW, so I'll have a little more room to adjust lighting in post than if I were shooting DSLR.
Click to expand...

Shooting raw is not an excuse to not light. Remember, lighting's about creating a look, evoking a mood, feel etc. it's not simply about getting an exposure.

If you want sun pouring through the window, and there's no sun pouring through the window, no amount of post work is going to make it look like there is sun pouring through the window (well, unless you have the time and money to pay a professional colourist and sit with them for months trying to completely re-light scenes ;))
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Not lighting seems like a cop out to me... having started there and having the results suck. Upon critical examination, the shots I bothered lighting were much better than the unlit ones. It takes so much more skill to produce a good image without controlling the lighting than with it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Again, I'm excited to see what you come up with... my experience has been that I don't like the look personally... doesn't fit my aesthetic. Made it difficult for me to watch "Once" (which won lots of awards) - even through its amazing story.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
To have it not look like pure unadulterated ass it will take you LONGER without lights ("Oh well, the 45 minutes when this scene was lit perfectly by the sun is over, guess we'll pick that scene back up tomorrow") .

If you don't mind it looking like garbage it might take less.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A Producer goes to meet with a DP that the production are seriously looking at to shoot their upcoming film.

At the meeting, the DP and Producer discuss the film, and the look of the film. The Producer mentions that they're looking to shoot with available light. The DP says 'I only shoot with available light'.

The Producer thinks 'this is great' - the production doesn't have the time or money to bring in a lot of equipment, so having the DP shoot with available light will certainly speed things up and keep costs down. The Producer hires the DP straight away.

On the day, the Producer turns up and sees three massive grip trucks. He hurries over to the DP and says 'what's going on?! I thought you said you only shoot with available light?!'.
The DP turns to the Producer and says 'I do - everything that's available on the truck'.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I tend to prefer a completely flat non-lit look rather than a badly over-lit or oddly lit look done by someone who's inexperienced.

I think an audience can easily buy a non-lit scene because it looks the way the real world does. I'm not going for really cinematic high production value, I'm going for a realistic every-day-life feel that's character and story driven.

One of my favorite films is Blue Valentine and from what I've heard/read, it was lit scene by scene rather than shot by shot. The DP lit the space that they were shooting in and just let the actors move within that space, regardless of where the light fell. That's much more interesting to me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
moonshieldmedia said:
I tend to prefer a completely flat non-lit look rather than a badly over-lit or oddly lit look done by someone who's inexperienced.
Click to expand...
Having lights doesn't equate to something looking over-lit necessarily. I'd also say that no lights does not equate to completely flat at all, unless you're shooting under perfect overcast conditions with 100% cloud cover.

With lights, you should at least have some kind of lighting continuity throughout your film, without it your lighting continuity is dictated by the sun and the weather.

I think an audience can easily buy a non-lit scene because it looks the way the real world does. I'm not going for really cinematic high production value, I'm going for a realistic every-day-life feel that's character and story driven.
Click to expand...

99% of 'non-lit' scenes in films are actually lit to look like the 'real world'. If you think of any film that looks like it wasn't lit, you'll find there are often large lighting rigs, including high powered HMIs, large bounce boards and diff frames, etc. etc.
Even shows like It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia and Modern Family have elaborate lighting setups, even though they look like they're unlit; in fact their elaborate lighting designs are designed to look like the scene is unlit, though the lighting still always looks good - they look like they're shot by professionals rather than amateurs, and that's partly to do with the fact that although unnoticeable, there are lights everywhere.

One of my favorite films is Blue Valentine and from what I've heard/read, it was lit scene by scene rather than shot by shot. The DP lit the space that they were shooting in and just let the actors move within that space, regardless of where the light fell. That's much more interesting to me.
Click to expand...
I tend to do the same, light the scene and let the action happen within. What you'll also find is, even though Andrij Parekh says he lit only the scene, and not the shot - generally there'll be a few lights around like smaller Kino 2-bank or 4-bank Divas, for example, that float around the action, to add a kicker here or there depending on the shot. Take your classic reverse shot - the lighting for the two shot could be great, but when you go to the OTS shots, you're going to have at least one character in complete darkness, so you tweak your lighting a little bit, perhaps adding a kicker somewhere. This is how most DPs light - you don't completely re-light every shot, but you certainly need to tweak lighting between shots. But that doesn't mean it will look overlit or unnaturalistic
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I believe Easy Rider was shot with natural light only. A quote from Dennis Hopper is that "God is a great gaffer".

And no need oto stress that Easy Rider is a hell of a movie.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheArtist said:
I believe Easy Rider was shot with natural light only. A quote from Dennis Hopper is that "God is a great gaffer".
Click to expand...

Certainly you can shoot with only 'natural' or 'available' light, in fact I'm good friends with a DP who uses that to his advantage, complimenting only with some daylight balanced lights. His films are difficult to schedule, however - he carefully scouts every location and chooses the best time of day on the best days. If it rains, they can't shoot at X location, and have to put it off to another day.
He also still uses Kinos and pocket pars as kickers, and reflectors, scrims etc.

But it certainly doesn't save any time. The idea that not lighting = saving time is completely false, unless you just accept whatever the hell you get when you rock up and just shoot rain, hail, or shine, not caring about the look, lighting continuity etc.

Personally, I prefer complete control over my lighting setups, as many DPs I know do. That's not to say my friends who lights almost exclusively naturally doesn't produce great work - he does. But, that's just not really the way I like to work if I can help it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My answer was just there for the likes of Gonzo who can't fathom shooting with only natural light.

I have no huge experience in lighting and I believe you 100% when you tell me it requires more work.

But then again, time is not the only factor. Lights need planning and light design too as well as power, transportation and money. I'd say that learning to use natural light is a more interesting first step than learning to work with artificial lights from the beginning.

Also, and it probably has nothing to do with the topic but I saw this in Breaking Bad and made me smile.I wonder if they light the close ups in that scene the same way. But that's proof if needed that work lights can go a long way.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top