Skip to main content

The Lighting Tells The Story, and The Story Tells The Lighting

Those who have studied lighting - especially for theater or motion pictures, know well the mantra that "The lighting tells the story." Simply put: No matter what kind of camera or lens is used, who the actors are, or who wrote the script, it is the light that ultimately creates what we see. That is the cutting edge of the knife. However, the more I think about this, the more I would change it a bit...
"The lighting tells the story - and the story tells the lighting."

It is a reciprocal thing. The way something is lit does create emotion, and makes the viewer feel the story through their eyes. We draw conclusions and fill in details based on the way what we see is illuminated. But that moment itself must also dictate the lighting: What quality of light is needed to do the telling? Where would it be coming from? What color is this light? Is it one solid wash, or should it be broken up in mottled shadows?  All of these things are going to be determined by what story that shot is supposed to tell the viewer's eyes. The two concepts work in tandem.
      Interestingly, one of those questions; 'where is the light coming from?' can sometimes be more vexing than needs be. In truth, we probably don't need to get too carried away with the idea that a compelling image is contingent on the lighting always having a logical source. After all, in real life, things are not lit like they are in movies, or on stage. I remember reading of how a Director of Photography on a Hollywood film was once asked where the light he planned on using in a shot would be coming from in real life. He replied, "The same place the music comes from." Exactly. We know there is no light in the middle of a forest at night, just as we know that sharks aren't really out there swimming around the ocean while playing recordings of the John Williams orchestra. We accept that this is all part of storytelling. 

One last thought that comes in - for photographers especially - is the question of color vs black and white. I would argue that it might be best to always shoot the image in color so as to have that information there. But sometimes a shot can become much more powerful in black and white. Here is another example, taken from that earlier photo-shoot seen in my post about creating believable sodium light color gels:

So where is that light inside the car coming from?    Does it really matter...?



















Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Playing With Dramatic Light

I have this image that keeps recurring in my mind. It involves the cold blue feeling of a dark winter and the glowing orange of a firelight. So far it seems to keep eluding me, although I think this is largely because every attempt I have made to capture this "mood" has been done in a hurry, or in the rain, or some other situation that forced me to run through it rather than walk it out. This shot is one such version. I may need to go back with a slightly different lighting setup and try some more. Perhaps in a different location.

It's Not The Light, Its What You Do With It.

Standard soft-light shot with umbrella Snoot light for that film-noir look T his past weekend I had the opportunity to shoot with a very talented East Coast makeup artist, and an amazing model (!)            S ince I knew that I would be working in a relatively small space, and did not want to set up lots of plugged in lights, I used a Vivitar 285-HV speed light and bounce umbrella. Once we got the images we were after, but before we wrapped the shot and struck the set, I dropped a snoot on the light, swiveled it around, and tried my version of a "noir / vintage album cover" look. These are just quick samples of both styles, pretty much as they look straight from the camera. The refined, polished, edited versions will be coming up later - but it is nice to see that even a small and often overlooked "old-school" flash unit can still create pretty impressive light!

A Picture is Worth How Much? (Part II)

After a long two year absence from this blog, I feel the need to write a post on some recent rumblings which - by the time you read this, may be either old news, or a never ending story. In essence it is a follow up to my last post of February 2014, in that it follows the same line of thought, but adds a new variable to the equation. Firstly, I took two years away from photography due to family responsibilities. While I could write a whole run-on blog post about being a care-giver for an elderly parent, it falls quite far afield of my purpose here, so I'll just say that the time away from the camera has allowed me to see my work for what it is (or was) more clearly, and to redefine what it needs to become and where I want to go with it in the days ahead. Call it a "forced introspection," it leads me to the point I want to make now. In my previous post I ruminated on how the preponderance of photographic images has led to a 'devaluation' of photography. ...