Murky lighting used as style in movies.

[harmonica44]

I am wanting to start my first low budget film, and I was thinking of shooting it like this. Traditionally if an actor is standing in front of a bright window, the director is suppose to shine light on his face, to be seen much better, but some directors purposefully don't do that for style, and let the face be hidden by light from the windows. Tony Scott has done this. And traditionally scenes shot at night are suppose to be brightly lit so you can clearly see everything but some directors like Paul Greengrass, really like to dumb it down. In Green Zone, you could hardly to tell who was who it was so dark, and that was part of the dark gritty thriller style, which is what I wanna go for. I feel that a realistic gritty thriller could take place in a world of more real lighting, rather than fake.

And since I'm starting out very low budget, perhaps a murky look might better suite low budget cameras. Since this will be my first though, I feel that there is a good chance that this will be interpreted as amateur, rather than artistic style. Is there a good chance of that?

 

[PaulGriffith]

It is easier to do "artsy" stuff after you're established as a pro. In fashion, you can't break the "rules" without first proving you understand then and I think this is the same for film.

If everything else is top notch and bg light looks good and production design looks good and acting is great and it sounds great and there's no grain from a poorly lit shot.. Then maybe.

 

[NickClapper]

If I lit my film like 'The Social Network' was lit then the first think that everyone would say it 'Mate, it's waaaaay too dark'.

But Fincher and Croenweth do it and get a Cinematography Oscar nomination (which they should have come), so I would agree with PG that you shouldn't work too hard to replicate the effects used by experienced and heralded cinematographers...

 

[harmonica44]

Well it's not like I was going for coping someone experienced but rather going for my own murk gritty look. Plus it takes experience to light a shot in a conventional way too, so it seems to me that it's no harder to give a film a dark look, then it is to give it a conventional look. But I will talk to the director of photography about it. Plus I don't see why they most critics have this rule that you must be a pro to go against the trends. Seems kinda double standard-ish, but I will respect and try to do more what's best.

 

[NickClapper]

I'm not saying that the double standard is necessarily right, I'm just saying that it exists.

People expect short films to be a lit in a way that accentuates the performances and design- and that is always going to be keeping things fairly bright. If you use a really low key lighting set up (like the one I mentioned from The Social Network) then you need pretty awesome production design to make up for it and that's something that most shorts don't have.

There are more stylistically obvious ways of acheiving the murky effect. What about a film noir look? Or maybe shooting in black and white for that gritty feel? I know you liked the lighting in Green Zone but if you're doing frenetic handheld without apache helicopters then it might look a little rough on the eye. So I'd recommend looking for more obvious stylistic ways of getting to (roughly) the same end.

 

[PaulGriffith]

Plus I don't see why they most critics have this rule that you must be a pro to go against the trends. Seems kinda double standard-ish, but I will respect and try to do more what's best.

The reason I feel like it's ok is that it's actually way easier to not light a film than to light it "proper".

Look at modern art. I can't understand the polllock paintings and what not that are essentially paint splattered on canvas with no rhyme or reason. It takes very little to no talent for that type of painting, in fact they have animals that do it at some zoos. However, if DaVinci in his later years decided to make a statement or go against the norm of his time by splattering paint on a canvas, I would take it much more serious because he's proven to the world that he has the talent, he knows what he's doing. Otherwise, it looks like the easy way out.

Now, "dark" or no lighting to go against the trend is different than going against the trend with something that's harder to pull off than traditional lighting. I can't think of any examples, but if you or anyone was innovative in that way then most everyone would applaud it.

 

[Uranium City]

I don't see why they most critics have this rule that you must be a pro to go against the trends. Seems kinda double standard-ish.

I don't think it's a double standard so much as a desire for a filmmaker to have a reason to make any decision in film...if someone like Coppola (Godfather 2) or Tony Scott want to keep things dark there is a definite artistic choice being made. Someone like you or me making something dark might be due to a stylistic choice or might be because we suck at lighting.

You've been doing lots of research for your film and asking a lot of questions on a myriad of filmic subjects, and that's great. I'd also encourage you to get out there and start experimenting...use the camera you already have and a couple of clamp lights from a hardware store, and start shooting anything. Test your ideas out, see how they translate to the screen. That's a great way to figure out lighting, where there are millions of different solutions for millions of different situations.

 

[harmonica44]

I have experimented with my camera and a friends camera. The thing is is that the cameras have those video display screens where you can look at what you're shooting. Through the video display everything looks clear. But when I play the recording through my big screen HD tv, the recording is much more murkier looking than when it looks through the display. That's the thing about displays, they display much better lighting then when played back on tv. So it's very confusing to know what lighting you need.

 

[harmonica44]

I'm not saying that the double standard is necessarily right, I'm just saying that it exists.

People expect short films to be a lit in a way that accentuates the performances and design- and that is always going to be keeping things fairly bright. If you use a really low key lighting set up (like the one I mentioned from The Social Network) then you need pretty awesome production design to make up for it and that's something that most shorts don't have.

There are more stylistically obvious ways of acheiving the murky effect. What about a film noir look? Or maybe shooting in black and white for that gritty feel? I know you liked the lighting in Green Zone but if you're doing frenetic handheld without apache helicopters then it might look a little rough on the eye. So I'd recommend looking for more obvious stylistic ways of getting to (roughly) the same end.

That's another thing, will I need a production designer or can my director of photography do that job?

 

[chilipie]

I have experimented with my camera and a friends camera. The thing is is that the cameras have those video display screens where you can look at what you're shooting. Through the video display everything looks clear. But when I play the recording through my big screen HD tv, the recording is much more murkier looking than when it looks through the display. That's the thing about displays, they display much better lighting then when played back on tv. So it's very confusing to know what lighting you need.

They're both displays, but unless they've been calibrated they're not going to look exactly the same. Televisions are often designed to make things look more appealing rather than be accurate - perhaps you have it set up to increase the contrast in the image.

That's another thing, will I need a production designer or can my director of photography do that job?

Jobs are often combined in low budget films, and sometimes only a minimal crew is practical for the way you wish to shoot. None of us know what you can afford, how you wish to work or what you're trying to create, but what I will say is this: the more work someone has to do, the less time and thought they can dedicate to each area. DoPs and PDs often need to work very closely together, but the skills required are completely different and you'd be hard pressed to find an individual who could do both jobs very well on the same shoot.

 

[shoeshine]

There is no one way to light a movie. Dont look at it as "This'll be easier" or "This is how a student/low budget short should be lit." That's bullshit. Only consider one thing: How can the lighting best support the story and the actors? Once you figure that out you'll know how to light your project. And please be aware that that low key lighitng often takes quite a damn while and a fairly complicated setup to get to work right. If you think Ackroyd just went with available lighting you're a fool.

 

[Nate North]

Pleeeeaase, do not take directing cues from Tony Scott. Everyone on this form is a better director. He's just a guy with 0 talent, and over 80 million dollars of dad Riddley's money.

Every time this hack makes a film, it costs as much as funding a short for every creative person on this board.

So when a studio turns down your next ten films in a row, saying money is tight, it's because they spent it all on Tony Scott, who can't write, direct, or even choose projects as well as half of us. It's like looking up to Paris Hilton. (90 minutes of "my gas pedal is stuck", you have got to be kidding me Tony, seriously)

Sorry for the outburst, back to lighting talk. Dial your settings correctly and you can get a wide range of looks from conventional lighting shined through apertures.

 

[superamazing]

There is no one way to light a movie. Dont look at it as "This'll be easier" or "This is how a student/low budget short should be lit." That's bullshit. Only consider one thing: How can the lighting best support the story and the actors? Once you figure that out you'll know how to light your project. And please be aware that that low key lighitng often takes quite a damn while and a fairly complicated setup to get to work right. If you think Ackroyd just went with available lighting you're a fool.

Listen to this guy. HE JOINED THE FORUM TO TELL YOU THIS!! Good insight.

 

[knightly]

Different lighting styles and techniques here: http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=9597

google "tenebrism" and "chiaroscuro" for images... caravaggio is one of the renaissance masters and uses extreme tenebrism wonderfully... figure out the light sources in art to find a look you want to achieve, then come back with reference images and link us to them to dissect for you We'll be glad to help... but right now, it's just a theoretical question. Find 3 images that have the look you're going for and we'll help you sort it out for lighting a set.

 

[Jamster]

I tend to agree IF it's part of the 'look/feel' of the film then why not?

The sp I'm in development with is 75% within an enclosed space in very lowlight so the 'sculpting' of murky light and shadow is very much apart of the story.

 

[polfilmblog]

From an image quality perspective, remember the following:

Digital sensors have a narrow dynamic range. In your example, having an actor near a bright sunlit window creates real problems. The sensor can't capture nearly as much range as your eye can.

This can be mitigated.

Get some rolls of ND to put on the windows (.6 - .9 or more). That way you can avoid clipping and still hold some detail.

There is also color temperature mismatch. Daylight vs. tungsten. You may want the ND that also shifts to orange (3200K). Or else use daylight balanced lighting.

The other issue is noise. Digital noise is horribly ugly. To minimize it, don't require high ISOs. That means use light. Noise on faces is particularly ugly. Do tests.

Some noise reduction (Neat Video) can look amazingly good nowadays.

Other than that -- go crazy.

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

Good stuff above.
Somehow people got this crazy idea DSLR (especially 5Dmk2) don't need lighting. Yes, in fact they need MORE lighting because of the narrow dynamic range.

In the example above of the bright window, you could ND the window as noted, or you could light the hell out of the interior, narrowing the range between the two.

 

[ItDonnedOnMe]

There's a difference between creating a 'dark, murky' look and ending up with one because you don't know how to light or don't have the right equipment. That's why I don't think there is a 'double standard' for pros - it's simply a question of whether you actually had the choice to make, and if you aren't capable of lighting things either way then it's not a choice.

Also there's still a lot of work that goes into lighting a dark scene... and remember that what you see onscreen in any big film is likely not what it looked like on set. There's usually way more light than you think in a dark scene - it's made to look darker via the camera's exposure settings when shot as well as extensive manipulation in the grading process during post.