Cinematography : Lighting Approach, Philosophy & Practices by Justin Lim

I don't do much DPing now but producing. Assuming the story and director allows me, my approach after blocking is just to focus on lighting my main subject and figuring out where my key is coming from. I don't worry too much about everything else. Less is more for me. I don't like doing the usual key, back, fill, or using heavy back and rim light for the actors, I rather put a light on the wall for separation than doing a kick or backlighting. After my key is set, I just pick things off in the scene when needed. I personally use a lot of practicals and try to use as little light as possible. This approach applies whether I'm lighting one person in a small room, or an entire street. I think 99% of things you see on TV is way over lit. I don't like moving the camera for no good reason at all. So many films track here and there, crane here and there for no good reason. Every camera move must have REAL significance in moving the story rather than just being a cool shot in itself. Resolution isn't my main concern, and I don't get into all the 2k, 3k, 4k, 6k debate. The lens is very important to me, I put a lot if emphasis on finding, testing the right lens for a project. I work in foot-candles. Hope I'm helping.

I also aspire to be a cinematographer and on occasion I get to DP small budget stuff. But, just from watching really experienced DPs I've worked with light stuff, I think knowing the blocking of a scene is the most crucial pat of figuring out how you are going to light something. How you are going to light a scene shoo;don't even be a thought until you see how a scene is going to be blocked out. Block, light, rehearse, shoot.

You can learn the craft, spend years gaining experience, know techinically about every lens, camera, talk my ears off about sensitometry; But Cinematography is a real art like many things, you either have it or you don't. How do you know? Just look at the lighting. I have many, many years and a lot of experience, but honestly, I don't have it. It's why I'm producing.

Ken, this is fantastic. Why foot candles as opposed to f-stop?

Absolute measurement of light not depending on ISO or other variables. I started in 16mm and 35mm films way back, and the single greatest advice I got was to get to know just one lens and one film stock really well before moving on. Back in the day the 'one light' print was a great way to evaluate your exposure and particular film stock. My favorite film stock was 5245/7245 50asa.

I think lighting is pretty difficult but you seem to have it nailed down good look on your future endeavors!

Thanks Lina. As a producer, I insist the DP and director almost shoot the whole movie in rehearsal. Having all your shot list and camera setups locked down saves time, and therefore save me money. I would do a lot of prep with the DP which they love, and have setups lock down on location recs.

Which side of the pond did you start in?

007 stage Pinewood Studios, UK. Almost 30 years ago. I made tea. JJ Abrams taken over now.

The lighting approach as part of the plan for the look of the movie is totally based on the story you are telling. The images the script conjures in your head along with the desires and intent of the director and producer are what should appear on the screen. The feel and the mood of the whole picture, individual scenes to individual shots has to be thought out and interpreted by the DP and the director working together. Creating visuals that enhance the emotion of the telling of the story is the key to rising above merely illuminating a shot to get a technically acceptable exposure. I prefer to do most of the lighting during pre-production on lighting plots. Know the look and what will be needed to have in terms of the amount of light, the contrast ratio, the feel of the light, the colours to be used, on a floor plan work out the light locations and how the light will be shaped and controlled on the set. The core of my approach is that the lighting is taken from what I want the actors faces to look like from the camera angles I will use and then deal with the environment they are in. If you had enough time to prepare, on the set you will be building the images that you saw in your head and now have on paper. Explain the plot to the gaffer and then go in search of a cappuccino and stay out of the way. What light is first is not an issue you absolutely know how it will all look together. However if you did not have time to fully prepare then it is important for some to set the key light first and light from there, however if you can accurately imagine the scene and know what the lights you have available do, the key light first may not be necessary and the lighting would be done in the fastest method possible. There are few things that I always demand from my lighting. First and foremost is that the performers have to look great in terms of the story. I never use fluorescents or far worse LED lights on performers faces. The inaccurate colour caused by the spectrum just does’t work. Before anyone says CRI, please do some research to find out how it is measured and what it applies to and doesn’t apply to. Use the quality of the light to soften and shape instead of or in conjunction with filters on the lens. Style of the lighting used is unique from picture to picture so cannot really speak about one style or the other.

I turn on a light. If I like what it does, I leave it. Maybe I move it. Maybe I add another. When it looks right, I'm done. And I do this all extremely fast and with purpose based on some overall game plan that came from pre-production choices of "look". Sometimes it's single point, 2, 3, 4, 5, 27 point...... whatever it is, it is to taste, but once established it must be maintained ( experience lets you anticipate how to not light yourself into a corner... no class for that). Wides can be lit looser; closeups get a tweak. If the art department can help me light with practicals, or paint choices to cue or even bounce color, or set pieces to cast shadows, all the better. Camera and lighting are intertwined as should be all the other elements of production- they should not stand alone

Andy, can you elaborate on your comment about LED? More and more LED lights are hitting the market and I see more people using them.

Accurate colour reproduction is the biggest problem with LED lights. Their colour spectrum is all over the place with a broken uneven spectral distribution. If a colour is missing from the light source, nothing you can do will put it back. Accurate flesh tone reproduction is a basic starting point for any picture and some screwy light will not yield accurate flesh tone. Playing with the colour of how an actors skin reproduces on screen is not a good practice. It can get you fired very quickly. LEDs from various manufacturers have completely different light output colour when compared side by side. There is no consistency. Even from the same manufacturer a new light will not necessarily match an older light. LEDs have a future and they have a current place at a professional level in our industry, but that place is not lighting people for the best colour reproduction or look as a first requirement. For me, at this time, they are an effect light or a background light.

One of the things I did to really understand how light effects the subject and the camera was I went back to see how the masters did it. I studied art work of the renaissance paying close attention to how they lit their subject in relation to the observer. Then I copied it with light and camera, taking care to get the right tone and intensity. I hadn't noticed it until I started, that they painted with one light source. Now when I do private moments or when I want to single out something in the shoot, I use one light source. It looks very dramatic and has quit a contrast. I also use LEDs, love'em, portable, battery operable, quick and easy to set up, but I still use incandescent for flesh tones.

"Disempowered/The scattering flock/Dances in a fever/At the castle rock" Apologies for the "hijack" - I hope that you're a Cake fan, Ric.

Hey Justin, As it has been mention above, blocking solves about 90% of your problems when you’re shooting a scene. There are other things to consider before you take a step on location or sound stage. Talking with the Director about the script and the characters motivations for that scene will allow you to plan out what type of lighting you may want to use to fulfill the directors vision. Things always change, but once you see the blocking, then it’s just a matter of achieving the look for the scene with the hurdles that the location throws at you. Every film is different and each have their own set of circumstances that are better or worse than the previous project. This experience will widen your understanding of the processes and make you a better DP. If you have more direct questions, message me and I’ll respond back to you. Cheers, Adam

C.D., I love cake, Adam this is so true.

^My new Stage 32 bestie! Let's hope we'll be both singing the chorus to Moustache Man soon, while celebrating a big deal.

Cake is awesome! I concur regarding LED's. The technology is getting better and better. But I also do not use them on faces.

Remote Phosphor LEDs are really wonderful lights - they have very high CRI and are soft single shadow lights with great output for low wattage. They look great on faces. I used two on a low budget feature I did this past summer and then used them on a corporate video later. I agree, I would never use a litepanel or a Lowel blender on a face. Even with diffusion they look a little harsh. 1x1 litepanels with 250 are what we use on the talent on Project Runway - but that is a reality show and it’s not an artistic dramatic look we are going for. KinoFlos are wonderful soft lights that are really dependable. Like LEDs they are inconsistent sources – they have a flicker rate that is usually not a problem, but if you shoot high speed for slow mo they can be. Lighting is an art which requires the DP to consider what is the dramatic moment within the scene. the lighting should always support the story. It has many functions, and visibility really isn't one anymore. Good lighting that supports the emotional moment of the scene, contributes to the atmosphere of the story and can augment an artistic style. Justin, I think you might really enjoy my new book "Lighting for Cinematography: A practical guide to the art and craft of lighting for the moving image", from Bloomsbury Press. You can check it out on www.lightingforcinematography.com, where I also started a “what's new in lighting” blog which you'll also find interesting.

CRI is not relevant. It is a visual comparative reference not an imaging reference. It is about observed colour of an object ubeing illuminated. Nothing to do with motion pictures. Different film stocks and different electronic cameras see colour differently. Add unpredictable light sources and you have a situation where you cannot predict the results. Testing an individual source with the camera that will be used is the only way to determine whether the resulting images work for you. This usage of CRI as a reference in our industry essentially began as a marketing ploy from manufacturers. It is advertising not information. A revealing question for any salesman at a trade show. “what is the daylight reference light source for CRI?” Kinoflo lights have a greenspike in the spectrum. The spike is easily seen and clearly shown and stated in KinoFlo’s information. Not a flattering addition to the light on faces. The effect on your image will depend upon the film or camera used, so testing is essential. Whether this is an issue to deal with is decided by your standards. Usage of LED and fluorescent sources greatly depends upon what you personally consider acceptable.

I have shot with remote phosphor lights - the cineo LS are beautiful. I've used a spectrometer on them, which does give you an accurate reading of the light being emitted. They are full color. Both on camera and to eye they are wonderful, full body, white lights - soft and bright and low wattage.

As long as the Cineo LS’s worked for you David, that’s great. When you used a spectrometer you of course noted the extreme spike in the blues peaking around 450nm, followed by a trough at 475nm and another major trough around 575nm? These are easily seen in the published spectral distribution charts on the Cineo website. Even though they neglected to include the vertical scale on the charts the basic shape is there and is surprisingly similar looking to most other LED sources. Different cameras have different sensitivity peaks and curves for Red Green and Blue. Each will see light differently. It is great that the light worked so well with the cameras you are using and with your aesthetics. Nice when such serendipity happens. The spectral distribution indicates that may not be the case with every camera.

Hi Andrew, this is a fun discussion, but I think it needs its own heading, as we've veered from what Justin was first asking. So take a look at the new discussion I posted.