Question about shooting in the sun with reflectors.

H

harmonica44

What if you want to shoot a scene outside and you want a shot to be really wide? So wide, the reflectors cannot reflect towards the actor, cause the actor is too far away in the shot? You can overexpose so it's not too dark, but then the sky is blown out, if you do that. Here's a scene from Skyfall, where the camera over exposes in some shots, but then is not, in other shots, even though it's all in the sun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13DQS1AHdXg

I showed this to a DP and he said the cinematographer screwed up, and that he should have properly exposed everything, even if it meant the actors would not be so bright.


At the same time, here is a scene with no overexposing it seems, and at 4:06 into the video is a shot of the actors far away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6x401CGAl8

But what do you think, is that the way to go?
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
seemed like a perfectly good scene to me, there wasnt any bad over exposure, so cant really see what your debating about?

in the dark knight rises when batman is tricked by catwoman to fight bane, they deliberatly overexposed banes top body, it was a stylistic choice, again who are we to judge, why dont you just shoot it how you like it then show us?

maybe before you get to 4,000 posts
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
I showed this to a DP and he said the cinematographer screwed up, and that he should have properly exposed everything, even if it meant the actors would not be so bright.
Click to expand...

To each his own, but I'm not sure I'd place much faith in advice from someone who thinks he knows better than a member of the ASC and BSC with 10 Academy Award nominations for Best Cinematography to his name.

Both looks are technically acceptable, the choice depends entirely on your stylistic preferences - YOURS, not ours.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. Yeah I thought that was bold of cinematographer to say, since he himself although practiced, has never shot a movie before.

But I guess my question which style I should choose to get the actors bright enough. I think I will choose both styles, and use whichever is appropriate for the given situation and the weather. As for shooting RAW, no one I know who wants to make movies has access to a camera that can do that. Maybe when the RAW video cameras go on sale cheaper in the future, and I could use something else.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Okay thanks. Yeah I thought that was bold of cinematographer to say, since he himself although practiced, has never shot a movie before.

But I guess my question which style I should choose to get the actors bright enough. I think I will choose both styles, and use whichever is appropriate for the given situation and the weather. As for shooting RAW, no one I know who wants to make movies has access to a camera that can do that. Maybe when the RAW video cameras go on sale cheaper in the future, and I could use something else.
Click to expand...

you dont know anyone with the bare minimum t3i? 5dmk2, 5dmk3?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shooting raw wil give you a little bit extra DR, but it won't light your scenes for you, and it won't make your creative decisions for you.

Come up with a look that you want to portray.

From that, you can make your creative decisions, and you can base it on the story itself. Exposing something over or under is perfectly fine, as long as you understand the consequences (based on the camera you're using and the tests you've done to know how far over or under you can expose without losing detail), and you have good reasons for it.

Also, it's always better to have shape in the light, rather than complete under or over-exposure. You're better off exposing say your sun backlight as over, and your front fill as normal, than simply not lighting at all and allowing everything to blow out so you can get a good exposure on the face.

Tbh, your DP friend is an idiot if they think that Roger Deakins screwed up, especially if they haven't shot a film yet. I wouldn't call him a DP.
It's perfectly fine to dislike decisions other DPs and creatives have made, even the top guys. But, you need to have good reasons to do so, whilst still understanding that there's a reason these guys are at the top of the industry.

I disliked some of the cinematography in War Horse. I found it too theatrical for my liking. But, I know that was a deliberate choice by Janusz Kaminski, and one that Spielberg obviously agreed with. I appreciate why he did it, I just wasn't a big fan of it. That doesn't mean he 'screwed up' and I would never say that about a real DP. DPs may find themselves with not enough sunlight to do what they want, or not enough artificial lights to do what they want, but you'll never find a real DP set up all their lights for their scene, tweak them to get it just right, and then accidentally open up 2 stops (and if they are that kind of DP, they'll make sure they have a good 1st AC on set to keep on top of it for them).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you dogmaticly believe that blowing out any part of the picture is wrong:
yes, the DP screwed up.

If you just look at the result without hindrance of such 'technical beliefs':
no, the scene s great.

Learn to think for yourself.
Ask your DP why he thinks so.
Think hard and deep why you agree or disagree.
Don't ask us what to think.

As long as you need to confirm on this forum what someone tells you,
as long as members of this forum have to give you google-links with the info you seek,
you will not be a creative filmmaker.

Use your brain and eyes!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
To get a wide shot with a nice balanced exposure, point a 5K at the actor as a key light... if you don't have access to a 5K, put the sun over the camera's shoulder and use that as a key, this will also effectively darken the sky and wrangle the background of the shot up in exposure to balance better allowing you to fit it into the Dynamic Range of the camera you've got; even with default manual settings.

I'm tempted to make a course of camera tests that will demonstrate these ideas to give a grounding in cinematography and light as a practically applied coursework.

The test here is to take a camera on a sunny day (not between the hours of 10 and 2 as the sun is too high to effectively light), put the camera on a tripod, point at the horizon directly below the sun, expose and shoot. Turn 45 degrees, repeat until you're back at your starting point. Now put the images next to one another and examine the differences. You'll see that when you're ointed away from the sun, your images suddenly POP as the foreground exposure comes up to meet the skies by reflecting the sun that is at your back. 45 degrees to either side of this (sun at your back) makes the best dramatic shadows on your subjects who are closer to your camera than the background and also lit well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
To be quite honest, the average audience won't give a fuck about overexposure unless it's a hindrance and annoying. It's only us film heads that give a crap. And even then, a little overexposure isn't going to kill anyone. But that Skyfall scene wasn't even all that bad. If you're only allowed a certain amount of time to shoot, then you have to work with what you have. You can plan all you want, but you can't plan for weather. 90% of the time, you'll never get a completely perfect looking movie, but if you get scenes that are 80-90% perfect, then that's all that really matters because at the end of the day you can say that you shot it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
To add, as I've said before:

Lighting is creating a mood. Lighting is not only about adding light, but also about taking light away. You test your stock or camera system to see what it's dynamic range is, and how far over/under you can push things. You then design the lighting in your scene accordingly. You might have a practical lamp that's two stops over what you're exposed at, which gives your actor a nice backlight for a night scene, as his face falls two-three stops under.
You might have someone's key light one stop over what you're exposed at, and their fill a stop under.

It's all contrast ratios, and none of it is inherently wrong, as long as you know exactly why you are doing it. There's no such things as a perfectly exposed shot. The fact that part of a scene is way over or under exposed does not mean it's incorrect or a screw up. The simple fact is movies that are flatly lit are boring, and the only way to stop flat lighting is to create some contrast, which causes things to be under or over.

It's not that no-one cares about under or over-exposure, it's more that no-one wants to look at a boring frame, so you design your frame with interest and contrast ratios to give you a specific look/mood/time etc.

Also, at the end of the day, when you're doing on location filming, there's always going to be compromises. Deakins may have really wanted the sun to be in a completely different position when they're biking through the building, but the building's built in such a way that it would be impossible (as an example) and therefore they run with what they have. They may have been over and running out of time/light. Just because it's a big budget film does not mean that when they're on an international location that they have the luxury of being able to go 'oh the sun's not quite in the right spot, let's wrap for today and come back tomorrow when it will be' - essentially pushing production back at least a day, and requiring an extra day's hire of equipment, cast and crew pay, changing of flights etc. etc.

The shot looks fine to me. Anyone who thinks every shot should have a specific lighting/exposure level is looking at it from a purely academic view, rather than an aesthetic view.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top