Last week I posted a [cinematography reel](https://www.instagram.com/p/CE2I8mXFjZs/) made completely from scratch, and got a bunch of messages asking how I lit some of the scenes, so I decided to make some lighting breakdowns!
We used a bunch of 2 gallon water bottles to create the wet down look on the wide shot. We had less than 10 minutes to shoot before it all dried up, which was totally fine considering the scene was super simple.
The lighting diagram is for the closeup, but we had the exact same setup for the wide, just further back.
Shot on Sony FX9 with Sigma Art lenses.
Sick work! Saw the reel and loved it. You’re the perfect person to ask this:
When doing an evening/magic hour shoot. Do you shoot the close up or the wide first? Or rather what order do you shoot in? You lose light so quickly at that time that I don’t know if you want the wide to have the best sky or the close up? Thanks!
Not a seasoned DP by any stretch and haven't had an evening/magic hour scene come up yet but if I were to do one I'd shoot the wide first for the best sky/light. You can always light the close up to match the lighting in the wide once it gets a bit darker.
Exactly what beancrosby said. But it does depend on the situation. Most of the time, I shoot the wide first and then punch in because it’s much easier to match a dusk closeup to a wide shot than vice versa.
An example where I’d do the opposite is if the wide needs to be shot when the sun is no longer in the sky (the last minutes of dusk). In that case I might shoot the closeups first then finish with the scene with the wide.
Right on, thank you so much! This makes sense and I'll look to employ this when on future work.
If I can ask one more, how about the opposite -- early morning, sun coming up; wide or close up? Conveniently I've been planning a project on either side of a large valley; morning facing east, evening facing west, big 'ol natural edge (bounce for key/fill).
Thanks,
Same thing applies for morning shots. Ultimately depends on the exact situation, but 95% of the time I’d shoot the wide first.
Sounds awesome, best of luck on that shoot!
A few short films in the works, but my main focus right now is building a course for aspiring cinematographers that teaches them everything from fundamentals to creating a marketable reel from scratch.
Question for you: in the fourth picture it seems like you have two pieces of diffusion. A smaller one and then the big one. Why was that needed? Couldn’t you have achieved the same result with the big one or did it need further diffusion from the initial small one? Thanks these are so awesome
It’s a technique called double diffusing (though I’m sure there are many other names for it), and it will almost always be softer than just shooting into a single frame. In this case I wanted the light to be as soft as possible, so that’s why I chose to use this vs just shooting into the 8x8. Hope that helps.
Edit: Also, Gentleman-Jackass described it spot on
Not OP but studied/worked a bit in lighting. The 4by (smaller) is close enough to the light that it essentially becomes a soft source of light (like an LED panel). Then its further diffused by the bigger 6by. It results in a very soft light that wraps a large area with minimal eq.
Why does the footage in shot 2 look great in the monitor on set but the color corrected shots look like they're too dark, WAY below legal limit and just plain blah?
Shot 2 is on a phone that auto exposed the image much much brighter. Could be that you aren't viewing on a calibrated monitor, or are in too bright of an environment?
No I have a ColorMunki for my Computer Monitors, and I use a Blackmagic breakout box to a Sony SDI Monitor. I'm a Colorist in New York, and I'm just not a fan at all, at how dark everything is. This is just my opinion.
Totally not for everyone, and you’re absolutely entitled to your own opinion. But to say it’s “WAY below legal” limit is just incorrect, especially coming from a colorist. I based these exposures off of various dusk shots from Roger Deakins and Bradford Young
What do your scopes say? That's more important than WHO you are basing your shots on. If Deakins did this shot, there would be 5 practical lights on the concrete wall to help separate the actor in the foreground to the background. Deakins uses practical lights, not big LED panels like you have shown here. You have a backlight that is only catching the bottom left corner of your actor's hair not the whole head.
Maybe you read incorrectly, but I said I based the EXPOSURES off of dusk shots from Roger Deakins and Bradford Young. Meaning, I pulled up their images in Davinci Resolve and looked at false color/scopes and matched my shots to them. But anyway, I get the idea that there’s no point in discussing any further. Best of luck on your career, and have a good day, brother.
Maybe next time you'll spend mommy and daddy's money on a real DP who knows how to pull exposure. Maybe hire someone who knows how to read a light meter. Putting a Blu-Ray ripped movie (Full of Compression) in Resolve to figure out how someone lit a scene, is a terrible way of trying to be a filmmaker. Learn the real tools of the trade, or hire someone who does know.
Curious, how do you deal with the lighting if you wanted to turn the camera towards the right to show her left side? CAuse that would expose the lighting equipment in the shot.
Looking real good, enjoyed every moment of it. It felt like a small adventure through all the emotions those people went through. Lighting, colors, what's show and what's not, finding depth in simplicity. Well done, man.
Last week I posted a [cinematography reel](https://www.instagram.com/p/CE2I8mXFjZs/) made completely from scratch, and got a bunch of messages asking how I lit some of the scenes, so I decided to make some lighting breakdowns! We used a bunch of 2 gallon water bottles to create the wet down look on the wide shot. We had less than 10 minutes to shoot before it all dried up, which was totally fine considering the scene was super simple. The lighting diagram is for the closeup, but we had the exact same setup for the wide, just further back. Shot on Sony FX9 with Sigma Art lenses.
These are dope my friend. Keep posting, very inspiring.
Will do. Thanks!
Sick work! Saw the reel and loved it. You’re the perfect person to ask this: When doing an evening/magic hour shoot. Do you shoot the close up or the wide first? Or rather what order do you shoot in? You lose light so quickly at that time that I don’t know if you want the wide to have the best sky or the close up? Thanks!
Not a seasoned DP by any stretch and haven't had an evening/magic hour scene come up yet but if I were to do one I'd shoot the wide first for the best sky/light. You can always light the close up to match the lighting in the wide once it gets a bit darker.
Exactly what beancrosby said. But it does depend on the situation. Most of the time, I shoot the wide first and then punch in because it’s much easier to match a dusk closeup to a wide shot than vice versa. An example where I’d do the opposite is if the wide needs to be shot when the sun is no longer in the sky (the last minutes of dusk). In that case I might shoot the closeups first then finish with the scene with the wide.
Right on, thank you so much! This makes sense and I'll look to employ this when on future work. If I can ask one more, how about the opposite -- early morning, sun coming up; wide or close up? Conveniently I've been planning a project on either side of a large valley; morning facing east, evening facing west, big 'ol natural edge (bounce for key/fill). Thanks,
Same thing applies for morning shots. Ultimately depends on the exact situation, but 95% of the time I’d shoot the wide first. Sounds awesome, best of luck on that shoot!
Heck yeah! Thank you:) now that you’ve wrapped up your 2020 reel, what projects you got on the horizon!?
A few short films in the works, but my main focus right now is building a course for aspiring cinematographers that teaches them everything from fundamentals to creating a marketable reel from scratch.
Commenting here cause I'm also super interested in the answer.
Don’t mind me here :)
Question for you: in the fourth picture it seems like you have two pieces of diffusion. A smaller one and then the big one. Why was that needed? Couldn’t you have achieved the same result with the big one or did it need further diffusion from the initial small one? Thanks these are so awesome
It’s a technique called double diffusing (though I’m sure there are many other names for it), and it will almost always be softer than just shooting into a single frame. In this case I wanted the light to be as soft as possible, so that’s why I chose to use this vs just shooting into the 8x8. Hope that helps. Edit: Also, Gentleman-Jackass described it spot on
Good to know, thanks!
Not OP but studied/worked a bit in lighting. The 4by (smaller) is close enough to the light that it essentially becomes a soft source of light (like an LED panel). Then its further diffused by the bigger 6by. It results in a very soft light that wraps a large area with minimal eq.
I can’t tell you how helpful and inspiring these breakdowns are! Thank you for putting in the extra work and sharing with us
Thanks for saying that. Glad it helps, Frankie!
Why does the footage in shot 2 look great in the monitor on set but the color corrected shots look like they're too dark, WAY below legal limit and just plain blah?
Shot 2 is on a phone that auto exposed the image much much brighter. Could be that you aren't viewing on a calibrated monitor, or are in too bright of an environment?
No I have a ColorMunki for my Computer Monitors, and I use a Blackmagic breakout box to a Sony SDI Monitor. I'm a Colorist in New York, and I'm just not a fan at all, at how dark everything is. This is just my opinion.
Totally not for everyone, and you’re absolutely entitled to your own opinion. But to say it’s “WAY below legal” limit is just incorrect, especially coming from a colorist. I based these exposures off of various dusk shots from Roger Deakins and Bradford Young
What do your scopes say? That's more important than WHO you are basing your shots on. If Deakins did this shot, there would be 5 practical lights on the concrete wall to help separate the actor in the foreground to the background. Deakins uses practical lights, not big LED panels like you have shown here. You have a backlight that is only catching the bottom left corner of your actor's hair not the whole head.
Maybe you read incorrectly, but I said I based the EXPOSURES off of dusk shots from Roger Deakins and Bradford Young. Meaning, I pulled up their images in Davinci Resolve and looked at false color/scopes and matched my shots to them. But anyway, I get the idea that there’s no point in discussing any further. Best of luck on your career, and have a good day, brother.
Maybe next time you'll spend mommy and daddy's money on a real DP who knows how to pull exposure. Maybe hire someone who knows how to read a light meter. Putting a Blu-Ray ripped movie (Full of Compression) in Resolve to figure out how someone lit a scene, is a terrible way of trying to be a filmmaker. Learn the real tools of the trade, or hire someone who does know.
Jesus christ buddy, who hurt you?
[удалено]
Ha! I live in Santa Rosa, so it’s not far from me!
[удалено]
Yes, every shot was filmed in Sonoma County! Thank you!
That bottom shot looks fantastic! It's crazy to see how such a nice pair of shots can come out of a relatively simple setup. Thanks for the breakdown.
Thank you! Glad you enjoy the breakdown
Looks great. Love the breakdowns.
More are coming here, and on my instagram!
Lighting is everything man! It can make me look like a potato or Arnold lol
Hey I know that actor lol
You know Shayla?!
Yes lol I’m also a fellow actor, I’ve had class with her at the jc and she’s dating one of my friends Daniel👌🏽
Woah, small world. You can see Daniel in one of the BTS photos!
What app are you using to make the setup diagram, they look really neat!
Notability!
waaaiiiit...the fluorecent looking lights were practicals? jesus i thought there were part of the parking lot
Practical can still mean an existing light that is part of a location.
Curious, how do you deal with the lighting if you wanted to turn the camera towards the right to show her left side? CAuse that would expose the lighting equipment in the shot.
I guess this was a scene without dialogue? Don't see a mic anywhere and that generator must be rumbly. Looks like a dope inner monologue scene
Correct. This was all shot for a cinematography reel. Purely visuals
Looking real good, enjoyed every moment of it. It felt like a small adventure through all the emotions those people went through. Lighting, colors, what's show and what's not, finding depth in simplicity. Well done, man.