In another thread I posted a critique of a shot that Harmonica posted, comparing it to a shot from my short film Period Piece. It seemed like a good post to spin off into its own thread, so here it is. If you have shot you'd like critiqued, post a screen grab here and we can all point out what works and what doesn't work. I'll try not to be too harsh, but I will be honest. Sugarcoating doesn't help anyone to learn. I'd like to use this thread to help people improve on their usage of lighting and set design to create interesting imagery.
Here's a frame grab from my team's 48 Hour Film, Period Piece. I was the co-producer/co-writer/DP for the project. I'm not saying it's a perfect shot, it's not even close. In fact I actually took the frame grab to point out some flaws that we made.
It is, however, a lot more interesting to look at than this frame grab from a clip Harmonica44 posted.
First off, there's depth to my image. In the foreground, you can see drink glasses and a bottle of ketchup. Then you have the two actors, the subjects of the shot. Behind, you have a table, the rest of the bar, a hallway, interesting ceiling beams, lights. All simple things on their own, but this all helps create a sense of depth and makes the frame interesting.
Now lets compare to Harmonica's shot. You have a guy crammed in a corner with a phone cord and light switch. I realize he's shooting in a house, but that just means he needs to work harder as a set designer. I'd suggest he move the actor away from the wall a bit, and have the actor on the right side of the frame. To the left of the actor have that statue, that adds something interesting to the shot. The actor is talking to someone, so maybe have this shot be over the shoulder, with the second actor's shoulder showing on the left side of the frame. On the wall add a poster, a photo, a shelf, anything. Just make it interesting. There's something on the wall in the upper left corner, but it's only barely in the shot so I have no idea what it is. Shooting in a residential location like a house doesn't mean you don't have to have set design. It means you have to work harder to get interesting shots.
Now onto the lighting. See John's face from Period Piece? It looks interesting. I'm not talking about the expression, I'm talking about the lighting. There's shadows, which always make a face more interesting. I'm not saying the dark side of his face isn't lit, it is. Even shadows need to be lit to get exposure. The shadows are just lit a few stops lower than the highlights. It's not perfectly lit, in a perfect world the highlights on his face would have been a bit darker. We were on an extremely tight schedule and didn't have time to tweak. I think the editor is actually fixing it in post for the non 48 hour cut of the film, but I'm not positive. I also would have liked to have a better hair light on the talent, but we couldn't pull it off on this shot.
Let's look at Harmonica's lighting. The subject is completely flat and evenly lit. The only shadow is under his chin. This looks extremely boring, and should be avoided at all costs. In the background I'm seeing double shadows everywhere. This can usually be avoided by using better placement of lights. As I haven't seen the whole scene I don't know what the motivation for Harmonica's light is, but I'm assuming he doesn't have one. When doing interiors it's nice to have a lamp or other practical light in the scene so the viewer knows where the light is coming from. You then base your lighting around that, and that can subconsciously explain the reasons for your lighting to the viewer.
I highly encourage people to post shots from their films. I'd like this thread to become a place where people can learn about lighting and set design. Again, I'm not trying to criticize people, I just want to help everyone learn. No one is perfect. There are two glaring mistakes from my shot that make me cringe every time I look at it. However, out of all the people I've shown the short to nobody has even noticed. Bonus points to whoever figures out what those mistakes are.
Here's a frame grab from my team's 48 Hour Film, Period Piece. I was the co-producer/co-writer/DP for the project. I'm not saying it's a perfect shot, it's not even close. In fact I actually took the frame grab to point out some flaws that we made.
It is, however, a lot more interesting to look at than this frame grab from a clip Harmonica44 posted.
First off, there's depth to my image. In the foreground, you can see drink glasses and a bottle of ketchup. Then you have the two actors, the subjects of the shot. Behind, you have a table, the rest of the bar, a hallway, interesting ceiling beams, lights. All simple things on their own, but this all helps create a sense of depth and makes the frame interesting.
Now lets compare to Harmonica's shot. You have a guy crammed in a corner with a phone cord and light switch. I realize he's shooting in a house, but that just means he needs to work harder as a set designer. I'd suggest he move the actor away from the wall a bit, and have the actor on the right side of the frame. To the left of the actor have that statue, that adds something interesting to the shot. The actor is talking to someone, so maybe have this shot be over the shoulder, with the second actor's shoulder showing on the left side of the frame. On the wall add a poster, a photo, a shelf, anything. Just make it interesting. There's something on the wall in the upper left corner, but it's only barely in the shot so I have no idea what it is. Shooting in a residential location like a house doesn't mean you don't have to have set design. It means you have to work harder to get interesting shots.
Now onto the lighting. See John's face from Period Piece? It looks interesting. I'm not talking about the expression, I'm talking about the lighting. There's shadows, which always make a face more interesting. I'm not saying the dark side of his face isn't lit, it is. Even shadows need to be lit to get exposure. The shadows are just lit a few stops lower than the highlights. It's not perfectly lit, in a perfect world the highlights on his face would have been a bit darker. We were on an extremely tight schedule and didn't have time to tweak. I think the editor is actually fixing it in post for the non 48 hour cut of the film, but I'm not positive. I also would have liked to have a better hair light on the talent, but we couldn't pull it off on this shot.
Let's look at Harmonica's lighting. The subject is completely flat and evenly lit. The only shadow is under his chin. This looks extremely boring, and should be avoided at all costs. In the background I'm seeing double shadows everywhere. This can usually be avoided by using better placement of lights. As I haven't seen the whole scene I don't know what the motivation for Harmonica's light is, but I'm assuming he doesn't have one. When doing interiors it's nice to have a lamp or other practical light in the scene so the viewer knows where the light is coming from. You then base your lighting around that, and that can subconsciously explain the reasons for your lighting to the viewer.
I highly encourage people to post shots from their films. I'd like this thread to become a place where people can learn about lighting and set design. Again, I'm not trying to criticize people, I just want to help everyone learn. No one is perfect. There are two glaring mistakes from my shot that make me cringe every time I look at it. However, out of all the people I've shown the short to nobody has even noticed. Bonus points to whoever figures out what those mistakes are.
Sorry guys.
That said, a very smart gaffer recently told me, "I think you're too hard on yourself, why you trippin', Go!" after having seen it. He's probably right, he's much smarter than I. 
