I think the main obstacle to understanding what is problematic here is that I think the majority of people don't understand or don't recognize good vs. poor lighting.
Like, for me personally, I looked at the caps you posted from West Wing and I honest to gods can't see anything particularly wrong with them. I thought about it further and looking back, over years of media consumption I really can't remember a time where I looked at something and thought, "That's really poorly lit!" (unless it was something obvious like nearly pitch-black and impossible to see the action).
While this is a good discussion that should be happening among people who work as lighting designers and people who produce, directed and photograph media, I'm not at all surprised that people who don't know anything about light or how it works on film would see the discussion as "ridiculous". I guess what it boils down to is (as usual) people talking out their ass about something they actually know nothing about.
This seems blatantly obvious to me, and I know basically nothing about lighting for film or TV. I just have far too many years of hanging around on stages while my ballet teacher argues with the backstage people about how to do the lighting. And my Dad used to do lighting for a local drama group, which meant he'd hang around backstage to talk about the lighting with people.
People look different under non-natural lighting, and different skin tones are affected in different ways. What is good for one person will not necessarily be good for someone else.
Looking at the West Wing cap, my immediate reaction was that the lighting in the series was better at the beginning and worse at the end, at least within the WW set. And Charlie had a larger role in the darker rooms at that point (chief of staff office was ALWAYS darker than the Oval.....), which compounded problems.
Of course, with the moving I've been doing, my West Wing access is much limited, so my memory could be failing me, I'm better about noticing framing, movement, position, angle, ..... really, everything ELSE about cinematography other than light. And what I know was taught as an afterthought--- how that all affects the design, really.....
and while this is going to make me look at Serenity.... AGAIN.... at least that's on my hard drive? (iirc, lighted much more thoughtfully for a mixed cast than most, and everyone lit better than firefly).
I would count myself in the group of people who don't notice these things - though obviously that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist - just makes me sort of glad I don't know enough to be bugged while watching shows by stuff like this.
One of the Leverage writers has a blog where he takes a lot of fan questions - more about scripts etc. but makes me wonder if any of the Leverage crew will pick up on (if they haven't already) the discussion and respond.
This is fascinating. When I have to take artifact photos for work and want artifacts that are very light and very dark to appear in the same photo, I usually give up and photograph them separately and put them together in photoshop. Obviously that's not a viable option for TV or film.
I'm also not likely to notice bad lighting if it's not glaringly awful, but I wonder if it has a subliminal effect on the audience by making darker-skinned people look less attractive or more threatening - like an unintentional version that photo of John McCain where he looks scary.
Comments 5
Like, for me personally, I looked at the caps you posted from West Wing and I honest to gods can't see anything particularly wrong with them. I thought about it further and looking back, over years of media consumption I really can't remember a time where I looked at something and thought, "That's really poorly lit!" (unless it was something obvious like nearly pitch-black and impossible to see the action).
While this is a good discussion that should be happening among people who work as lighting designers and people who produce, directed and photograph media, I'm not at all surprised that people who don't know anything about light or how it works on film would see the discussion as "ridiculous". I guess what it boils down to is (as usual) people talking out their ass about something they actually know nothing about.
Reply
People look different under non-natural lighting, and different skin tones are affected in different ways. What is good for one person will not necessarily be good for someone else.
Reply
Of course, with the moving I've been doing, my West Wing access is much limited, so my memory could be failing me, I'm better about noticing framing, movement, position, angle, ..... really, everything ELSE about cinematography other than light. And what I know was taught as an afterthought--- how that all affects the design, really.....
and while this is going to make me look at Serenity.... AGAIN.... at least that's on my hard drive? (iirc, lighted much more thoughtfully for a mixed cast than most, and everyone lit better than firefly).
Reply
One of the Leverage writers has a blog where he takes a lot of fan questions - more about scripts etc. but makes me wonder if any of the Leverage crew will pick up on (if they haven't already) the discussion and respond.
Reply
I'm also not likely to notice bad lighting if it's not glaringly awful, but I wonder if it has a subliminal effect on the audience by making darker-skinned people look less attractive or more threatening - like an unintentional version that photo of John McCain where he looks scary.
Reply
Leave a comment