K
kaos1000
Guest
Mr. Mullen,
Thank you in advance for your time and energy. This may seem a bit convoluted, but I will try to get to my question as quickly as possible.
I have been watching as many movies as I can with the idea of studying the lighting. I have also aquainted myself with the concept of "3 point" lighting, and "4 point" lighting (the 4th point being, lighting the background elements specifically, and from what I've heard, lighting them first......meaning before the subject).
The thing that is surprising me about watching movies and studying this, is the specific artistic differences between shots in a scene. For instance, if a master shot has two people in it that end up in two shots or close ups switching back and forth............there will be artistic differences in the choices made (i.e. no hair lights in the master........but distinct hair lights in the subsequent shots).............some thing that I would have thought would be a "continuity" issue.
Apparently not................instead of continuity, the point of each camera set up is to make the most beautiful photograph possible.(and by the way, I never noticed the differences until I looked for them)
The same thing with colors (colored lights placed in places that they would not be in "real life")......light placement (light seeming to come from "unnatural" locations in the frame)...etc........don't seem to really matter from a "realistic" point of view.
Am I on the right track here? Do you always light the background first.......and make it as artistically pleasing as possible.....then move on to the subjects of the shot?
Sorry to sound so scattered............learning a lot.
kaos
Thank you in advance for your time and energy. This may seem a bit convoluted, but I will try to get to my question as quickly as possible.
I have been watching as many movies as I can with the idea of studying the lighting. I have also aquainted myself with the concept of "3 point" lighting, and "4 point" lighting (the 4th point being, lighting the background elements specifically, and from what I've heard, lighting them first......meaning before the subject).
The thing that is surprising me about watching movies and studying this, is the specific artistic differences between shots in a scene. For instance, if a master shot has two people in it that end up in two shots or close ups switching back and forth............there will be artistic differences in the choices made (i.e. no hair lights in the master........but distinct hair lights in the subsequent shots).............some thing that I would have thought would be a "continuity" issue.
Apparently not................instead of continuity, the point of each camera set up is to make the most beautiful photograph possible.(and by the way, I never noticed the differences until I looked for them)
The same thing with colors (colored lights placed in places that they would not be in "real life")......light placement (light seeming to come from "unnatural" locations in the frame)...etc........don't seem to really matter from a "realistic" point of view.
Am I on the right track here? Do you always light the background first.......and make it as artistically pleasing as possible.....then move on to the subjects of the shot?
Sorry to sound so scattered............learning a lot.
kaos