I cannot stop reverse engineering any lighting I see in magazines and on the screen. Watched a sci-fi film the other day, and the only thing going through my mind was "Jeez, must take an incredible light set-up to get this scene looking 'natural'".
Cinematography and photography are very closely related. Way back in the day I studied television production, specialising in lighting and I am delighted that many of the techniques and equipment used is the same.
I used to collect American Cinematographer magazine which had fantastic articles about filming and lighting techniques used. Brilliant stuff.
I recall one famous cinematrographer cited Robert Franks 'The Americans' as a huge influence in how he designed shots. He would let the book open at a random page and let the image work on him. It was the first photography book I ever bought.
Cinematography and photography are very closely related. Way back in the day I studied television production, specialising in lighting and I am delighted that many of the techniques and equipment used is the same.
I used to collect American Cinematographer magazine which had fantastic articles about filming and lighting techniques used. Brilliant stuff.
I recall one famous cinematrographer cited Robert Franks 'The Americans' as a huge influence in how he designed shots. He would let the book open at a random page and let the image work on him. It was the first photography book I ever bought.
No. It's a shame that most of the mags nowadays are only interested in fawning over the latest digital gear and encouraging the emptying of our wallets rather than having indepth articles.
I would recommend American Cinematographer if you are interested in lighting in general, I used to buy it from Borders but the price has gone crazy high. The magazine tends to profile the newest films out which is nice. I learned a lot from that magazine and am trying to translate that to my photography. When I was at college we had access to proper pro gear but as often as not when looking for a certain lighting effect you would be bodging stuff together with bits of cardboard and gaffer tape.
I think thats why I love strobist so much, he throws stuff together from nothing and it works. To me that is more important than spending big wedge on some fancy kit you don't know how to use.
Going off at a bit of a tangent, but I agree - lighting for movies is far more demanding than lighting for stills (because they only have aperture to play with and because the lighting has to be continuous, plus hey have moving subjects) and I think I learned more about lighting from the movie people than from anyone else.
I light TV commercials, now that's a demanding job And so does Marc Gougenheim, who is probably one of the best fashion/glamour photographers around.
But to get back to the original question, after a while we find ourselves just seeing the light and the way it falls on the subject. The general public sees the same things but perhaps isn't aware of them. I watched Witness on the box the other night (Harrison Ford hiding among the Amish sect) and it was interesting to see how the lighting on the female love interest gradually developed, starting off with flat frontal lighting to make her look plain and gradually changing to show the beauty of her face, and then to make her look sexy. Poor Harrison Ford had no chance
Will keep an eye out for reasonably priced AC mags - thanks for the suggestion.
It's actually quite surprising how many films/programs do not use consistent light between shots, a good example is two people in a car; you see each person from the others perspective. Each perspective will have a different set-up. Never noticed that before getting into light
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
