Lighting designers and set designers “see” their worlds very differently than normal, everyday people. They are translators of sorts: They translate 3D ideas into 2D imagery that in the end goes undetected through viewer sensors. Their efforts are, especially if they do an excellent job, unnoticed, unappreciated and invisible to the viewers they design for.
The purpose of Blog 1 is to discuss why and how this is so and what strategies the lighting and set designers of your show employ in their translation process. Discuss examples of effective lighting and set design in a show of your choice. And don’t just say it’s good! Explain what exactly it is that makes it “good” and how techniques it uses might be applied to your own works.
Blogging Instructions:
To comment on the blog, go to the bottom of the bottom of the post and click where it says “X Comments>>.” Enter your name and your syr.edu email address. Entering your email address ensures the WordPress server that you are a person and not a spammer, and it will allow us to keep track of who has and has not commented.
You have two options when you comment. You can either directly address the question of the week, or react/respond/interact with another student’s entry or entries. You can interact with words, pictures, videos or anything that adds to the conversation. There is great value in either approach, but the more of the latter, the more the discussion will become “our own.”
READING MATERIALS THAT MIGHT HELP YOU ON THIS TOPIC:
All below are at the reserve desk under TRF-452/652
- Light Science, by Thomas D. Rossing & Christopher J. Chiaverina, introducing the science and phenomena of light.
- Lighting for TV and Film, by Gerald Millerson, a broad coverage of the dynamics of lighting design.
- Lighting for Video, by Gerald Millerson, basic coverage of effective video lighting.
- Production Design for Television, by Terry Byrne, covering the culture and dynamics of television design.
OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT HELP YOU ON THIS TOPIC:
- Paying close attention to lectures on lighting and design.
- Carefully and critically analyzing a television show beyond its surface.
- Check Semester Schedule for due date.
August 29, 2007 at 5:19 pm
This is an example comment. Hopefully it will be longer in real life.
August 31, 2007 at 1:20 am
Blog-1 Seeing in Two Dimensions
Steven Kleinman
I might as well get the ball rolling here, this may not be the right way to do these blogs but here goes nothing…
The purpose of this first blog is to discuss why and how lighting designers use the art of “painting with light,” to make the programs we all watch and love possible. I figured the best place to start when researching this topic was at the top. After a bit of research I discovered that last years Emmy nominees in the category of “lighting excellence,” were all either awards shows or American Idol episodes. At first this struck me as absurd and ridiculous, considering how few award shows there are on television in comparison to scripted series. My concern is that these shows were awarded with these nominations because of the over-the-top nature of the lighting effects they used, to make the one-time spectacle nature of their programs unique. While no none will argue that all of the flashing, whizzing and buzzing lights that constantly pop on and off during American Idol aren’t fun to watch, many (including myself) would argue that this is not what lighting for television is all about. In my onion it is much more difficult to hide the fact that you are using five, ten, or fifteen lights for a simple bedroom scene, where the audience only sees two lamps actually on in an otherwise dark room. I may be off base with my conclusions, being as though I have never tried to light the American Idol set.
From my experiences the hardest scenes to light are those that take place in the dark, at night (i.e. bedroom scenes and outdoor scenes at night). After thinking for a moment it dawned on me that the X-Files was a show that had this challenge on a weekly basis. Over the course of its nine year run the majority of episodes were shot at night, in dark rooms or out in the fields at night. By nature of its subject matter the X-Files was a creepy, eerie, dark show. As we all know things are much scarier in the dark, so for a show like the X-Files to retain the eerie qualities that the scripts called for shooting in darkness was a necessity. I went back and watched an episode titled “Home,” which beautifully illustrated the excellent lighting this show often produced.
In one scene a woman is hiding under a bed, in a dark bedroom. The only light we see is coming from the moon outside of an open window. However anyone who has ever shot anything at night knows, that the moonlight through a window is not nearly enough light to shoot someone’s face under a bed. The woman under the bed was placed in a way that made it look as though she was near the window, with a direct line of the moons light shining on her face. At the base of the window was a pool of light (“supposedly” coming from the moon); this light was then reflected off of the floor and onto her face. A small portion of the side of her face is lit from this reflected pool of light. Obviously the moon could never have provided the appropriate lighting conditions for this scene, and a pretty impressive lighting design was needed. If I weren’t watching specifically for the purpose of dissecting the lighting conditions, I never would have thought twice about this scene. It was done in such a way that seemed so realistic and natural. The scene was able to balance the lighting needs of the camera, without taking anything away from the integrity of the scene.
In my opinion this is what painting with light is all about, and the academy of television and film needs to recognize it.
August 31, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Hey Guys, here’s what I have to say
I analyzed the lighting for an old episode of 24. I’ve noticed that over the past few years many one hour television dramas such as Lost, Heros, 24, etc. now focus on the cinematography as much as the story line. In this episode of 24, the action switches between watching Jack Bauer who is outside in the bright sunlight and a group of agents who are in office lighting. When looking at lighting, the use of the halo effect and profile shadowing are executed properly, but what got my attention was the set design and camera angles which brought a sort of sophistication to the lighting.
For the outside shot, the scene took place in an abandoned railroad station and you could tell this not only by the back drop but through it. The camera was sometimes positioned through cable car windows or the long shots were angled to show the extensions of the tracks. Because these shots were creative or unique, they showed off the set design as well as required proper lighting that displayed not only what action was taking place, but also where you were watching it from. The scene also had water puddles that lit up to match the position of the sun. This may have been less controlled than the credit I am giving it, but either way it helped set the scene for the feel of the desired seven a.m. time frame.
The inside lighting was not as creative as the outside shots but what I took particular notice to was the room’s light sources. In one scene an agent was walking down a hallway which had slit sized windows every few feet. As the agent walked past the windows, she lit up according to the proper angles and position to the light coming through the window. She then stops in front of a very large lamp. This scene really showed the experience of the gaffer. The agent was standing in a white hallway with windows, next to a large white shaded lamp, and yet her lighting looked very natural and soft, in no way was she drowned out by all this white and lights.
Wow I’ve got a ton to learn about how to light.
September 1, 2007 at 9:09 pm
As was further demonstrated to me during Friday’s lab, good lighting is extremely difficult. All we had to do was set up a simple, natural, daytime lighting scheme, and we still had problems. I am in awe of the professionals working on shows like the X-Files and 24 where lighting is an integral part of the mood and theme of the show.
Like the two previously mentioned shows, Veronica Mars also used lighting as an extension of the plot and theme of the show. Because most people I know have never seen Vmars (hence its cancellation
), I posted a couple examples.
Like the X-Files and 24, Veronica Mars used a lot of night scenes, so shadow and small, intense pools of light are frequently used. But, there are also a lot of scenes that take place during parties, scenes that make use of flashier lighting schemes and color.
Veronica Mars’ lighting scheme was generally less realistic and more post-modern. Veronica Mars was noir for teenagers and 20-somethings, and the lighting design perfectly matched the show’s mood; a combination of darker mysteries with the quick wit of its sassy heroine. The lighting was often dark and shadowy, but the designers played with a color a great deal, so the show had a funky and playful noir feel.
Veronica’s Dad’s Private Investigation office was a good example:
http://vmtranscripts.com/uploads/images/310/0115.jpg
This picture shows a typical lighting set-up for this office. The office is dark, as one would typically picture a P.I. Office, but the red and yellow light adds that post-modern touch. The light is made to look like its coming through the windows, but Veronica is still nicely backlit and the characters faces aren’t too dark, like they would be if the light was actually originating from those windows.
This clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qnLozy8KGw
is a good example of the lighting used during the frequent party and club scenes. Scenes like this one not only have to play with shadow, but also have to deal with very flashy color and intense party lights.
The lighting designers had to light the stage with spotlights while keeping the audience in the dark, but the audience couldn’t be too dark, because the main characters faces have to be visible. The club has to look like its being lit with hanging lights, but in reality those lights wouldn’t be strong enough to illuminate the audience. There are also blue lights cast on the wall, and a spinning disco ball throwing more blue light on everyone. Yet the characters are all visible and Veronica is still very well lit throughout her performance.
As is typical of the show, the lighting isn’t completely realistic. The lighting isn’t meant to be lost in the background, its supposed to add to the mood of the show. It is never so over-the-top that is calls too much attention to itself, but the constant use of intense color adds to the show instead of staying completely invisible. The lighting designers had to walk a fine line between adding to the story and calling too much attention to the lighting. But they usually pulled it off brilliantly.
September 3, 2007 at 9:06 pm
I watched 2 episodes of Scrubs, “My Nightingale” from season 2, and “My Way Home” from season 5. I chose My Nightingale because half of the episode takes place at night, though in the hospital. What I noticed kind of surprised me, in that the hospital isn’t lit much differently for daytime and nighttime scenes (it appeared that way to me, anyway). During the day, the sets are lit using white light that appears to stream through window blinds. At night the lighting scheme is the same, except that there is a slightly bluish tint. At all times in this episode, there isn’t any appearance of hallway or overhead lights at all. I keep trying to picture a hospital, and it actually seems as if in Scrubs they capture the weak, fluorescent lighting scheme similar to the real thing. That being said, I know they do their shooting in an old hospital, so maybe that’s got something to do with it. Scenes in the O.R. are darkly lit, and they make it appear as if the operating lights and instruments are the only sources of light in these shots. I noticed a big difference when the setting shifted from day to night. At that point in the episode, the hallways were all very dark – mostly shadows, and what little light there was was very blue. I can only assume they did this for the initial night scene just to strike a contrast. However, after the commercial, the sets were lit as I described above. I want to go out on a limb and say that the lighting actually isn’t that great in this episode, but then again what do I know? If I had never had to analyze it I never would have noticed anyway, and isn’t that the point?
I chose My Way Home because it is written to parallel the Wizard of Oz story. The episode starts in a bathroom lit by candles on a rainy day. Here there was a lot of orange being splashed on the set. The next scene was shot outside after the rain, and it seemed to me as if they used all natural light. For the first half of the episode the lighting matched that of My Nightingale during the daytime scenes. However, I noticed during one scene with blood involved how neutral all of the colors in the shot were. There were only a few instances of red and pink, but mostly I saw a lot of dull blues and greens. In the second half of the episode it seemed to me as if they tried to emulate an “over the rainbow” type of feeling, and EVERYTHING was lit much brighter. There was bright “sunlight” being cast onto the walls through “window blinds” (again, a lot like My Nightingale – just much, much brighter). The clothes seemed to be much brighter, as well. I found this to be pretty clever, but then again I am biased…I find pretty much everything they do on Scrubs to be clever.
Between both episodes I was most impressed by the lighting when they brightened up My Way Home. This change was easily observed though. So is that a bad thing? I was underwhelmed by the normal lighting design, which is supposed to go unnoticed, and I was impressed with the bright change in this episode. So if the job of lighting and set designers is supposed to go unnoticed, which episode was lit better?
September 4, 2007 at 6:22 pm
In consulting Gerald Millerson’s “Lighting for Television and Film” for an overview on the potentials of good lighting, I sought to my interpretation with a modern show that exemplified those goals. In particular, Jean Oppenheimer’s 2002 “American Cinematographer’s” article on the production of Alias’s second season. I felt this personally fitting because I can remember paying close attention to season 2, both on its original broadcast run and then on DVD (and then, of course, losing interest in season 3).
As Millerson notes on page 17, “Light can develop an atmosphere or mood. Lighting can build up a particular ambience.” According to Alias cinematographer Michael Bonvillain, “Each [facet of Sydney Bristow's life] has its own look and feel, so you know immediately where Sydney is.” Oppenheimer goes on to describe the “looks” of the show:
“Not surprisingly, Sydney’s apartment — the only place where she feels safe — is warm and comfortable. Bonvillain’s camerawork on that set remains calm and steady, and he lights the tableau-style scenes with a variety of Fresnel heads directed through 1000H frames, as well as a bank of ACLs (aircraft landing lights) that create a strong shaft of sunlight coming through the front door.”
Similarly, as light sets an ambience, Millerson writes, “light can create visual continuity. It can join and unify a series of separate subjects.” It’s one of the reasons that the three main sets of Alias S2, (Sydney’s home, SD-6 headquarters, and CIA headquarters) each have their own distinctive characteristics. Oppenheimer describes SD-6:
“By contrast, the cavernous, underground SD-6 headquarters is lit almost entirely with Kino Flos, which give the room a chilly, blue cast. Ceiling and desk practicals help illuminate the huge space, which is filled with high-tech equipment and rendered in a slick, austere, almost monochromatic look and feel. Although the fluorescent lighting is very bright, the room has an oppressive feel. Bonvillain explains, “We wanted to create a feeling of something hanging over the characters, almost pressing in on them, so we hung the fluorescents at eight feet instead of nine. We also shoot low and wide under bridges and other overhead structures to create an oppressive feeling, sometimes with ND soft-edge grads if they help.”
Placing so much effort into lighting, as noted in the Blog 1’s instructions, makes the 2 dimensional appear 3 dimensional. Under the subtopic, “Why do we need lighting techniques,” Millerson takes into account the consequence of inappropriate illumination. “Poorly arranged,” he says, “light can produce flat, two-dimensional pictures. Effective lighting creates an illusion of depth and solidity.” Bonvillain speaks on his philosophy of providing depth in scenes with the use of practicals (table lamps, wall brackets, pole lams, standard lamps, chandeliers, ceiling panels, etc). and key lights, and rarely fill lights. He says, “Practicals give you scope and depth. When characters move in front of them, the light cuts out for a second, which gives you a sense of life.”
Lighting, according to Millerson, also “affects a subject’s appearance,” generating different feelings, positive and negative, in regards to a character disposition. According to Bonvillain, actor Ron Rifkin, who plays Sydney’s duplicitous, evil boss of SD-6, has been lit much like Al Pacino was in “The Godfather.” Bonvillain notes, We toplight him and get just low enough so that he has a little pinpoint of light in his eyes, which gives him a slightly evil look.”
So much of lighting is done to create an effortless series of scenes provide mood and ambience without drawing attention to the technicalities that it one who can feel the invisible nature of the work, not just as a spectator but as a creator, becomes increasingly skilled as a lighter or set designer. Bonvillain discusses slowing scenes down to 40 fps in order to create emotional empathy between the audience and Sydney during her scenes when her trust is suspected and her double-agent status is vulnerable. He mentions that it’s an effect he desires the audience to feel, going on to add, “I do things because they feel right, and then make up a reason as to why I did them.
For further research, see Millerson, Gerald “Lighting for Television and Film” and Oppenheimer, Jean “Espionage 101.” “American Cinematographer.”
September 4, 2007 at 11:32 pm
I certainly agree that the lighting and set design of a television show or film often go unnoticed to the untrained viewer, and in many occasions, even the trained viewer. This is one of those elements that is constant in this medium and often does not receive the same attention as the story and characters often do (I am certainly guilty of not saying “Wow! That show sure had some great lighting!”). Regardless, I think we all know how important this is, but also how difficult it can be to build the perfect set or devise a perfect lighting scheme. I have no problem saying that I am not at all artistic when it comes to design. Lighting is still often confusing to me as to how to control and manipulate light and I most certainly cannot draw to save my life. Of course, I am willing to improve on this and hopefully will by the end of the semester. But enough about me…
It is interesting to watch a show when the intention is to study the lighting and set design rather than focus on character and story. In “Arrested Development,” as with most of the content of the show, there is an element of satire even with the set design. A majority of the Bluths live in the model home, where attention is sometimes called to the fakeness of the home, which is one of the primarily locations of the show. On nearly every occasion in film or television, the set surrounding the actors is perceived as reality. Afterall, this is the goal of a set, which is to give the illusion that the actors are truly performing in a four-walled, natural environment. On “Arrested Development”, however, props and set pieces are shown as being fake, as is usually the norm in a real model home where everything is placed for decoration, not for real use or consumption. For example, in an episode in season 3, the character Rita bites into fruit that is clearly plastic, calling attention to the fakeness of the set around the actors (this was also used to reveal a crucial character trait, but manipulates the set as well). At the end of the second season, the living room floor actually caves into the ground because of poor construction (and because it is a model/“unreal” home). At other times, kitchen drawers will not open, household items will not work, and various items will fall and break, all for comedic purposes. With most studio television shows, the audience is aware that the set is not real but created for the show, but never is this brought to attention. In “Arrested Development” the fake set often is at the forefront of the action occurring around it.
As with lighting, it is interesting to see where the light is coming from and how it is manipulated. With, “Marta Complex” (an episode of AD) and “DNA” (an episode of “Rescue Me”), much of the light source simply comes from lamps, overhead lights, and candles placed within the set or around the action. Night scenes, as we found in lab, can be especially difficult to design and shoot because the light must come from a source, while also designed and arranged to create the mood and setting of nighttime. I noticed in Rescue Me, when Tommy sits in his truck at night, the light on his face and hands comes from a streetlight and the dashboard. The light is not bright or intrusive, but provides just enough so the viewer can see what should be seen. While it is uncertain if there was another controlled light source provided by the designers, it is maintained that the light on screen is simply coming from normal, everyday lighting such as streetlights and car lights. In AD, Michael and Marta enjoy a candlelight dinner outside, where the light source comes from candles, moonlight, and household lights from inside. It seems natural and barely given a second thought, but it is interesting to discover where the sources are coming from to create a feeling of reality.
Quickly, I very much agree with Steph that current television shows have become more cinematic, with handheld cameras and the combining of designed sets with normal, everyday locations. The design of these shows plays a large factor in the new direction of television in general, as well as why people choose to watch more of this cutting-edge programming.
September 5, 2007 at 1:15 am
I definitely agree with everyone’s comments on the difficulty of lighting, especially television dramas like 24, which constantly change locations and sets. So instead I decided to look at a popular television sitcom that has a reoccurring set design from episode to episode. Of course the idea of a reoccurring set seems monotonous and boring, which is why it is so important for set designers and light designers to keep reinventing the space to make the same sets look interesting every week. What better sitcom to examine than Friends, which ran for 10 seasons and continues to entertain viewers all over the world.
I watched an episode from the 8th season of Friends, because I figured by then all the kinks were worked out and sets at this point were pretty much narrowed down to Central Perk and everyone’s apartments. In this Friends “The One With the Halloween Party” the set design was great because even though it still takes place on the controlled set of Monica and Chandler’s apartment the set designers created not only a Halloween party setting, but also a warm fall feel. The color scheme in the apartment includes beige, browns, red, and yellows all colors that reflect the autumn season when the episode takes place. The curtains on the windows are brown with leafy designs, and even the flowers on the table are a deep scarlet color. So besides the obvious set design of the Halloween décor from the skeletons hanging from the ceiling to the orange streamers, the apartment itself reflects the colors and feel of the fall season.
The majority of the episode takes place at night, but with that said the lighting remained consistently bright throughout the episode. The only times when there was a contrast between light and dark is when Rachel opens the door to the hallway to give candy to trick-or-treaters. The hallway lighting is a muddier color than the bright light within the apartment. This illustrates the lack of lighting in the hallway (as would be natural in most apartment buildings) with the sources of light in the apartment coming from overhead lights, lamps, etc. I did notice however at times the lighting in the apartment was particular noticeable and looked artificial especially on close up shots. For instance, in one shot of Joey the light reflects off Joey’s forehead, which I of course I wouldn’t normally notice, but was a really glaring problem to me since I was focusing on lighting. For the most part the lighting was consistent and unnoticeable, as good lighting design should be, despite the hard work it takes to get that effect.
However, there was one shot that really disturbed me which was an outside shot of the apartment building. The shot was at night because the Halloween party took place at night. The outside street was lit with dull street lamps but the apartment building seemed to have a huge spotlight on it while the rest of the background was really dark. I know that this is probably filmed on a set and not an actual apartment building, but to me this just make it stand out more because of the huge spotlight focused on the building and nothing surrounding it. I’m not sure if that’s normal, or that’s the only way to get the apartment building to be the center of attention, but I just wondered why the lighting was so focused and strong on an evidently dark night.
September 5, 2007 at 1:26 am
Television set and light designers for dramatic series need to be able to convince the audience that the characters are actually in the setting which the plot establishes. This is important to the success of the show in terms of attracting and maintaining audiences. In general, dramatic television aims to be aesthetically pleasing and realistically set to allow the audience to believe the basics- who, what, where, and when. If the audience watches a show and automatically recognizes and accepts (in most cases) a setting (the props, the time of day, the location, the time period), then the dialogue, drama, and action of the script have the chance to reach audiences. The set and lighting’s ability to make the drama prominent and supported by realistic settings is why a designer’s job, if well done, should go unnoticed.
As well, successful set and lighting design helps to emphasize the emotions and dramatic atmosphere of characters, which holds the audience’s attention. This is where a designer can further manipulate their set and lights to support and help complete the action. In a sequence from the dramatic series Veronica Mars, episode “Not Pictured,” the dramatic peak of two seasons worth of mysteries and investigation plays out on sets that are designed and lit to allow the tension to grab the audience. To begin, the sequence starts in an elevator where two conflicting characters with an adversarial past are forced to confront each other alone. Playing off the script the lighting consists of a dimly, barely lit elevator where there are spotlights on the faces of the two characters as they discuss the events that caused them to be enemies. The spotlight on each character being the most important light in the scene emphasizes the drama between to the two characters by putting focus on the heads that represent who they are.
The second scene of this sequence is on a rooftop at night which appropriately sets up the literal darkness that represents the metaphorical darkness of the revelations that occur in this final sequence of the plot. The rooftop is dimly lit with the majority of light coming from yellow, blue, and red lights that protrude from the hotel’s structure. Behind the “bad” character, in the eyes of the audience, is the blue light which lights the side of his face and body where he holds a gun. Behind the main character, which the audience fears for, is a red light and a yellow glow that are supposed to seen as lighting her entire face, exposing her as vulnerable, which is a rare quality to see in her. These two shots organized with these light set ups expose the tense situation of power that plays out throughout the scene. When a third character enters the scene and a fight ensues the colored lights are used to outline the bodies that begin to fight instead of lighting the faces, giving no specific face or character association to the bodies rolling around. This is when tension is broken in the plot and the fight is an outlet for all of the problems and conflicts. Meanwhile, the set of the roof remains empty except for the objects that give off the light and the characters. This simplicity provides the scene with an empty, dark space where the conflicts and mysteries of the past seasons come together and are solved; a lot of scenery is not necessary because the focus of the scene is past events. The light manipulation and design of these sets in this sequence are a successful design to let the audience connect with the plot, characters, and action.
From the example of Veronica Mars and our practice set lighting, I found it was important for set and light designers to convey the story of the script to the audience in order to be successful. The designers, as they “translate 3D ideas into 2D imagery,” act as the middle men between the audience and the writers and directors of the show. In our practice set lighting we all worked together to play the role of the designers and I think that this understanding of the effort and thought that goes into translating the images is what will help us most in our show, even if we fear that we may not know everything about lighting.
September 5, 2007 at 2:05 am
I agree with Christine. As a fellow closeted fan of Veronica Mars, I couldn’t help but note, even from the pilot ep (which opens on a dimly lit Veronica spying on a would-be client’s cheating ex in a shady part of town in the middle of the night), that so much work is done to create the mood and play into the show’s often dark tones and themes. One thing that Christine forgot to mention was that VM is nothing if not a constant nod to film noir, and in that aspect I would have to disagree with the notion that light and set designers make their work invisible- film noir definitely attracts the eye towards its style.
September 5, 2007 at 2:19 am
Jeopardy was on, so I watched it. Jeopardy isn’t a show I’m particularly fond of and I figured this would only help me focus on the lighting. This didn’t exactly work. First off, it was the Jeopardy College Championship or something so I could actually get some of the questions – and when you are getting questions right game shows are a lot more fun. Secondly, lighting is a very hard thing to focus on. I kept reminding myself to look at the lighting and would instantly forget as soon as the next question came up. I’d say this means that the Jeopardy lighting crew was doing a good job. This brings up a point Keenan mentioned – whether ‘I didn’t notice anything’ is the highest compliment one can give to a lighting designer. I think it is. It is a tough job to light sets when the nicest thing you can hear is about someone not noticing your work, but lighting is at its best when it is so natural that you don’t even think about it.
One thing I did notice about the Jeopardy lighting set was something that will probably come in handy on our talk show. The set looked huge. There were 2 and sometimes even 3 layers. The contestants stood out against the background, and the background also stood out against itself. In one shot the lighting was effectively able to show a contestant, a background with a window in it, and a plant that was through the window in perfect 3-dimensional perspective. This was all present in the same shot and yet if you weren’t looking for it you would probably only notice the contestant.
The only possible mistake I could find in Jeopardy was that I saw one strange shadow on the neck of a player that was jumping around when she talked. I wouldn’t have seen this if I weren’t looking for it but it didn’t look natural. I only noticed it once, though, so either it was fixed or I got too into answering questions to focus on lighting. I’m curious, am I making too much of a normal game show shadow or was that actually a mistake?
When we built our sets I thought the biggest problem was lighting two things at once. It wasn’t so bad lighting the host or the background separately, but putting it together the light from the background would mess up the light on the host, or vice versa. Light can be very fickle, and the slightest change in angle will throw it off. For instance, Joel mentioned the Alias cinematographer saying he hung fluorescent lights from 8 feet instead of 9 to achieve a difference in mood. One foot can make a difference in the final product even though this sort of change may be imperceptible to the human eye. This problem is probably what makes lighting so hard – you can’t trust your own eye. Lighting designers have to have two ways of viewing things: how it looks in real life and how it looks in the camera. This must come about with lots of trial and error and a good memory of what has worked in the past.
And Steve – I agree it is odd that the Emmys are going to Award Shows and American Idol. These are shows that don’t really have to work to hide their light source (which to me is one of the toughest aspects of lighting) as everyone expects there to be different kinds of lights above and around the stage. The only thing I can think of to explain this is that award shows have to deal with more spontaneity. Yes, they do rehearse, but they still aren’t as controlled as a series is and the Emmy may be in part recognizing the ability and preparation it takes to light the unexpected. Also, the production value is through the roof on those shows and I think a major part of that look is how even and professional the lighting is. And with those flashing lights – I think there is a very fine line between them being fun to watch or just plain annoying, and when someone can make hundreds of blinks and flashes look natural it probably means a lot of work went into the design.
September 5, 2007 at 3:07 am
For this assignment, I watched an epsiode of The Office: Sexual Harassment. Its hard to light a show that bounces around from scene to scene with a hand-held camera, but the crew did a fantastic job of evenly lighting an area without seeing the lighting fixtures. What I like best about the show is its use of natural flourescent lighting, just like a real office. It doesn’t feel like you are on a TV set, like most sitcoms. It’s not overly flattering, nor harsh but more of a pale light. At times, the lighting can seem a bit bright coming off some of the office lighting fixtures. One can particularly see this when they look at Steve Carell’s forehead. Once again, it’s office lights so it’s not suppossed to look like a TV set.
The show employs the best techniques of daytime lighting with higher top and back light to simulate the indoor office ligting fixtures and the key light positioned next to the fill light, providing contrast/shadows. The overhead office lights provide the most light in the scenes, shining light directly on the subjects and background, which are sometimes in the heart of the action of a scence, sometimes not. Yet, it’s all very real and natural. The background is not overbearing, allowing for the Director of Photography to give the characters a halo effect when they are the focus of the scene.
There is a nice relationship between set design and lighting design. The D.P. uses natural sunlight in conjunction with the flourescents to give the scenes more of a diffused look. Office lamps are also used effectively, providing natural-looking light.
The interview scenes are done very well. The main light is kept on the subject of the interview, highlighting his or her features while keeping contrast/shadows to a minimum. The background light is kept dull, maintaining focus on the subject of the scene.
September 5, 2007 at 3:55 am
Since I’m mostly inadequate at lighting in general, I’m not so sure how hot I’ll be at discussing it to any great length here, but I’ll try to make this as sensible as possible without being half-assed. I guess I’ll start by sort of piggy-backing off of some of the examples Keenan was using, though in my case I’ll be talking about “The Office” instead of “Scrubs.” I suppose both shows are in the similar vein of the newish trend in TV comedy: the single cam, no laugh track, with the action mostly set within a professional setting. I believe “The Office” succeeds in setting the mood for the show in the same kind of ways that “Scrubs” does, mainly a realistic, 3-dimensional set and lighting that doesn’t draw attention to itself but is, to the contrary, professional in its concealed non-professionalness, giving the viewer the illusion that they’re in that hospital with those interns, or in the case of “The Office,” stuck inside that drab office in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
I think the biggest error a TV show could make, especially in the case of “The Office,” would be to deny the place in which it is set by relenting to the temptation for the slick, cinematic techniques as has already been discussed as another trend in TV nowadays, though mostly with dramas. There’s nothing that’s made to standout with the design of the set, nor the lighting for “The Office.” To crib perhaps a tad too directly from Keenan, “The Office” is nonetheless also very effective in its use of a fluorescent light scheme and weak, gray naturalistic daylight streaming in from the windows. However, I would say “The Office” exceeds beyond “Scrubs” in creating a naturalistic sense of light. Quite frankly, it’s not supposed to look very good, and that’s what I believe is good about it. The show in general is going for that fly-on-the-wall, mock-documentary feel, so anything in the slightest bit professional looking would betray the entire premise of the show. Therefore, the producers don’t shy away from showing the fluorescent lights dimly glowing on the ceiling, and bouncing light from table and pole lamps against the gray walls of the office. There’s overall kind of a grainy, dark palette to the light inside the office. You still get a sense it’s daytime with the open windows at the penumbra of the set, but also some heavy use of shadows as well, overall exemplifying the whole idea of lighting for day (mixing bright light with not so bright light) very well.
There’s no attempt made at all to glorify or romanticize anything. And that’s not just with the set. Harsh lighting is often used in the close-ups on the actor’s faces as well, bringing out the flaws in their skin, the sweat on their brows etc. There does appear to be some three-point lighting used in the scenes where characters sit down for mock interviews with the “camera person” inside one of the office rooms. Other things I believe were done well for the show included having almost all open space within the frame closed off with desks, boxes filled with paper, or computer screens, making the feeling of working in a claustrophic small office palpable. Characters are sometimes even framed from behind their computers or boxes, or through window blinds looking inside Michael’s office in one scene, giving him the look of being trapped inside the blinds.
Another great set/lighting design in the episode was for the casino scene itself. Turning the idea of a gaudy, bright Las Vegas casino showroom on its head, the casino scene in this episode takes place at night inside a warehouse. A blue tinge is picked up from the blue curtains strung around the background out of focus, as well as some of the fluorescent casino lights, and small pools of light over the casino tables. Also another great light scheme I found was towards the end when Pam is talking on the phone inside the office. All the lights are off, all she’s lit with are the lamps on the desk around her. This time there’s a softlight used on her face, showing her delicateness as Jim comes into the room after having earlier professed his secret love for her, giving the scene a more romantic feel and only briefly betraying the realistic lighting scheme of the show.
In the end, I guess what this all teaches me is you don’t have to go overboard with lights to have a good, realistic lighting scheme. And don’t be afraid to use the space inside the set to give a feeeling of realism as well (for instance, you can see the parking lot outside the window of Michael’s office, which acts as a backlight for him as he sits at his desk, creating a backlit halo effect). That’s not to say one should have crappy lighting if the setting is supposed to be drab and crappy (though the illusion of said crappy lighting works wonderfully in “The Office’s” case), just stay true to what you’re trying to depict.
September 5, 2007 at 4:16 am
Blog 1 – Seeing in Two Dimensions
After having experienced last week’s lighting design exercise (and lots of trial and error) and having focused particularly on lighting and set design while watching an episode of CSI, I realized how much there is to learn about lighting and the basic fundamentals of it. Lighting itself is truly an art of its own and a challenge to master. Regardless whether a lighting designer is merely competent or excellent in his/her expertise, it seems necessary and essential for all lighting designers to fully understand and apply the science of light. I have never felt such deep appreciation for lighting designers as I do now. I am personally guilty of overlooking lighting when I watch either television or film, unless it is obvious that the lighting design was horribly executed. It’s ironic that the best lighting when done impeccably goes unnoticed. Terry Byrne, author of Production Design for Television, says, “Often the value of a good design staff is noted by its absence” (23).
As for lighting designers being “translators of sorts,” I’d have to concur with Byrne’s way of seeing them more as sculptors. “Lighting,” he says, “is a sculptural art: It is a challenge to make things portrayed in two dimensions appear three dimensional.” When given a mound of clay, for example, to work with, sculptors have to create and carve edges to give the mound of clay a more multidimensional look. And I think that’s what light designers do essentially – they have to “sculpt” or carve, so to speak, something two dimensional to appear 3D. But there’s more to the art of lighting than simply “sculpting.” Light designers have to keep in mind both settings and costumes, which Byrne says are “at the mercy of lighting” (22).
I watched a CSI episode called “Lucky Strike” and I have to give Production Designer Richard Berg a lot of credit. First of all, CSI is shot in Las Vegas, “The City of Lights.” And that has to be an impressive challenge because when shooting on the Las Vegas strip, there is so much to take into consideration. So many lights (of course)! So many vibrant colors! The first scene of this particular episode was shot in the strip. And from the beginning to the end of the episode, there is so much going on in every scene in terms of mis-en-scene, which immediately engages the audience’s attention. There are a few scenes I’d like to consider in terms of effective lighting.
There is a scene in which Officer Brass questions the nanny about the kidnapped child. The scene takes place in a hotel room. As far as the viewers can tell, the only light that is lit in the hotel room is the lamp on the table. We know that the scene takes place during the night because curtains have a blue tint to them.
There is another scene in which Grissom and Nick are in a cave. Their only source of light, as far as the viewers can tell, is their flashlights. If they were in an actual cave, we wouldn’t be able to see their faces. However, we can still see the outlines of their heads and shoulders, indicating there’s a backlight and there is. Behind Grissom and Nick is a tint of blue light, indicating the entrance to the cave (the background). The backlight here separates the subjects from their background and gives the shot its depth, and of course, the opportunity for the viewers to see the characters!
I certainly agree with Byrne when he says that “it is a challenge of color perception to light colors on a set, colors on costumes, and colors of complexion to achieve just the right mood and atmosphere” (22).
Due to the importance of balancing light with all the other elements present in a scene, makeup proves to be an essential and quite an important aesthetic tool. There’s a scene in which Warrick and Sara are in a crime lab going over some evidence. I could tell that they had to balance their skin tones for lighting reasons. Makeup wise, Warrick’s foundation made him look lighter and Sara’s foundation was heavy. (For those of you who’ve seen Something New, an interracial comedy that stars Sanaa Lathan and Simon Baker, Simon wore more makeup than Sanaa did during filming. He has pale skin and Sanaa’s skin is darker, so the makeup artists had to balance them out for lighting reasons. The makeup gave him his sunny glow onscreen, even though in real life, his whole body had to be creamed with tanning lotion.)
I can finally understand why Byrne says light is the most intangible medium used in production design. It is indeed “the most vibrant and dynamic; to many, it is for these reasons both the most challenging and the most rewarding of the design areas” (22). I hope that by the end of this course I will have a better understanding of how light functions and how lighting can (and should) become second nature to a light/set/production designer.
September 5, 2007 at 4:25 am
I watched an episode of Lost “Everybody Hates Hugo” because lighting for outdoors is very difficult and this show pulls it off beautifully. I agree with Christine’s comment that lighting and set design must appear realistic in order for the story to be realistic. Lost is a perfect example of this because its storyline is completely fictional and unrealistic yet it must be believable to the viewer. This is accomplished by a lighting scheme that goes unnoticed and is virtually invisible because it looks so natural. This design acts as a backdrop for the story rather than the focal point of the show.
The lighting on Lost is always appropriate to the location and the light source is always obvious. Whenever there is a scene in an enclosed space such as a ditch or in the hatch, the characters and the set always appear darker. A good example of this is a scene when Sayid and Jack crawl in a tunnel underneath the hatch. There are only two sources of light: the light peeking in from the inside of the hatch that appears blue and the flashlights the characters are holding. As Sayid and Jack crawl through the tunnel they appear as dark figures and a close up on Sayid only reveals light on one side of his face-the side the hatch light is on. This is important to point out because a scene is only effective if the ambience and atmosphere match the story and action. If the tunnel was bright and the viewer could see all the nooks and crannies of it, the drama would disappear, but because the viewer can only see what is luminated by the character’s flashlights, it creates suspense and a more dramatic mood.
Another example of this natural lighting is a scene when Hurley is outside by the water standing underneath a tree. The sky and water are vibrant blue and the water glistens under the sun. Both Hurley and the tree appear as black silhouettes, creating a bold contrast from the blue background. It is clear that the light source (the sun) is behind Hurley and is very natural looking because there is no direct light source coming from the island. Lighting is also used to direct the viewer’s eye in the frame. Another scene from this episode shows some of the characters on one end of a cave and the light source (a fire) at the opposite end of the cave. This sole light source catches the whites of the character’s eyes drawing the viewer to the character’s face rather than the activity on the opposite side of the cave. The focus is on the character’s emotions expressed through their facial expressions and produces a dramatic and worrisome tone to the scene.
The set design is also an important element in Lost. The show’s storyline bends the rules of reality and the set design has to fit this new reality. It is not natural for a hatch with electricity and computers to be found on an island but because it fits within the show’s story, it makes sense to the viewer. The set designers have to own the frame and have complete control so as to make sure everything in the frame somehow moves the story forward. The outside scenes are kept as natural as possible. Greens, blues, and browns are the main colors-the colors of nature. At night fire is the main source of light, creating an orange tint on everything. The characters appear dark but there is enough light cast on them for the viewer to make out gestures and expressions. In reality, a small fire wouldn’t give off as much light as suggested on the show but this is television after all and a little bit of exaggeration only makes the show better.
September 5, 2007 at 5:47 am
Kudos to Kleinman to look at last year’s Emmy nominees in the category of lighting excellence when doing this assignment. I thought that it was a great idea to see what the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, the leading judge of television production, considered trophy worthy lighting. I was also surprised that nods went to awards shows and American Idol episodes. So much so, I went to the website myself to see what got nominations this year. The Academy Awards, Grammy Awards, American Idol Finale, a Dancing with the Stars Episode, and Late Night with Conan O’Brien were the five shows that got nominations. Where were shows like 24, Heroes, and Lost? Those were the first shows that came to my mind for quality lighting.
This past summer I actually interned at Late Night with Conan O’Brien and worked next to Fred Bock the Lighting Director everyday. To be honest, his responsibilities were something I never thought much about. I recognized that it was necessary to have a lighting director and his crew, but never really appreciated the challenges of lighting that Fred faced in lighting a late night talk show. Now, with this assignment, I ponder if Fred Bock has the most difficult lighting job in the television world. Is there anything more challenging than lighting the palest man on television? I’ve seen Conan O’Brien face to face and he is practically a ghost, he is a ghost man. Also, Late Night airs at 12:30 PM eastern standard time and gives off the impression that it is filmed at that time. People would be stunned when I would break the news to them that the show is actually filmed at 5:30 PM. Something more than the New York City cyc background must convince the viewership to think the show is filmed at night? That something must be lighting.
The next step to my appreciation was for me was to watch an episode of Late Night again this time concentrating on the quality of the lighting. Within twenty seconds of watching I started seeing the lighting techniques used to give the feel of a Night show. The back stage light is blue and feels like night, the spotlight used gives that feeling Conan is performing at night (You don’t see spotlights on Ellen), under the Max Weinberg Seven their are lighting strips that remind me of night time on an airplane, and keeping a strong fill light of the background are a few great examples of how Late Night with Conan O’Brien gives off the impression of a night show.
I’m going to have to concur with Jeff and Keenan that the best lighting is when you don’t even notice it and I believe that is what Late Night does so well. I’m on my way to understanding that creating lighting is a difficult task that takes creativity of placing lights and innovative design of a set to make a convincing picture. If a viewer doesn’t buy the realities created on the show they won’t watch it, and lighting helps create the reality of scenes. So yeah, I guess lighting is super important and this helped me realize that.
September 5, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I definitely agree with those who have mentioned that a good lighting design is one in which the audience is almost totally unaware of it. Too often, with awards shows especially, television has tried to adopt the conventions of concert lighting. The only trouble though is that there needs to be lots of movement and flashing in this lighting in order for the camera to actually pick it up. There are only so many colors that can really be used in television as well, so tv designers are somewhat limited in the looks they can create, so they turn to the effects engine in their lighting consoles and make the lights move in order to be noticed. As a concert lighting designer, this frustrates me because on top of looking repetitive and cheesy, it totally alters audience’s views of what is a good lighting design for real concerts. Too often I get student groups in Goldstein Auditorium asking for crazy lighting requests because that’s what they saw on last year’s MTV music awards. They just don’t realize that it doesn’t look nearly as cool in person as on TV. If you watch Leno, you can see a great example of a show that has incorporated aspects of concer lighting into the overall design for musical guests, yet they do not take things too far. The lighting helps create an atmosphere suitable for the performance, but the lights do not overshadow the performance. I do, however, like watching the telecast of the Eurovision Song Contest every year for its lighting. Every year, the 5 or so concert lighting manufacturers premier their new technology, and it is just about as much as a technology showcase as it is a talent show. Its a great example of television lighting taken to an extreme, and part of it still looks kind of cool though.
While “unnoticed” lighting seems to be the ideal, there are some shows that do a great job of using lighting stylistically to create a mood. This summer I had the chance to work at a movie studio in Brooklyn, and during my stay the FX series “Damages” was shooting. I watched an episode last night, and I am extremely impressed with the lighting. As a lighting person, I do enjoy a show that goes the extra mile to make the lighting interesting, and this show definitely does that. Damages has a very intense feel to it, and is shown mostely through flashbacks. The first scene features a bloody girl running through the streets of New York. In order to help convey the mood throughout the show, the entire design team worked very closely together to achieve that mood.
Damages is a superb example of how a Director of Photography can use sceneic elements to anchor the lighting of a show, and how things like color correction can also add to the feel. I would say that Damages overall has a “blown out” feel to it, with very bright key light coming from odd angles, and a soft but consistant fill light. The Key light often acted as the backlight, and this was achieved through the set design. The set of Damages is a very fancy New York law firm with giant windows overlooking the New York skyline. The DP used this scenic element to his advantage because the key light in all of the scenes is strong sunlight shining through these windows. The cameras are set so that these backdrops (which were extremely detailed in person) appear to be almost blank, giant white sources of light on camera. The entire set had a somewhat film noir look to it, and the color correction added hues of green to it that made the entire picture look slightly creepy, just enough to suggest that unknown, yet familiar forces were undermining the main character’s every action.
Being able to be on the set of Damages as it was shooting really helped me better understand how this lighting design was achieved. The amount of lighting fixtures on set was actually very minimun, with a majority of the fixtures being used to light backdrops, or 5K fresnels shooting through windows into the set to create these giant beams of light. The backdrops were lit mostely with Panabeams, which gave a uniform wash over the entire backdrop, which was also able to be backlight to simulate evening. As for the actual interiors, most of the lighting was achieved through special homemade lighting fixtures in which a couple par fixtures hung directly above the set and a “box” was built around them, with a giant sheet of opal diffusion stretched over the bottom part. These fixtures gave the entire set a uniform diffused fill light. This light was supplemented with the sunlight, which was emphasized with a few small fresnels where needed. Extra fill light was added with Kino-Flo fixtures hung above the set, as well as a couple fixtures with chimeras here and there. It definitely did not have the lighting-intense feel that most television shows had when actually being on the set, however the “minimalist” way that it was lit gave the show a definite feel to it, and I was really impressed with how it turned out.
September 5, 2007 at 2:53 pm
After our first experience during lab time last week and analyzing an episode of “Reba” for this first blog, I now appreciate more the effort and hard work that goes into the lighting and set design of a television show. “Reba” is a show about a hard working single mother who lives in Texas with her oldest daughter, son-in-law, baby granddaughter, and two younger children. I have watched the show for many years and have always enjoyed the warm ambience that it gives off to its viewers. I never realized exactly what went into creating that atmosphere.
The show is focused on two to three different sets. The main areas are Reba’s kitchen and living room. The kitchen is large and is more of a socializing area than it is used to eat and cook in. The conversation is always lively in this area, as perhaps many kitchens around the U.S. tend to be. The living room flows into the dining room that is situated in the back and though no action ever happens there, it is pivotal in creating the feeling of the set. The walls are a welcoming pale yellow with rich wooden pieces such as the large front door and banister. The room is warm and inviting. The couches are plush. All of the main furniture pieces match in a way that is not too obvious but clearly work together in a particular color scheme. The room is clean but not spotless as Reba is a single mother and seeing that there is a baby living there and her ten year old son there is some disorganization such as toys lying around and a baby chair randomly placed in the background. This setting gives credibility to not only the story but also the characters involved in the show. The show would not be as believable if Reba had a contemporary living room, uncomfortable leather couches, white carpets, glass tables, and not a spot of a mess anywhere to be found because that is not who the main character is nor is it how she lives her life.
On the other hand, the set of Reba’s ex-husband’s house where he and his new wife live is completely different. It is important to note that a big part of the story here is that Reba’s ex-husband left Reba to be with his new wife, Barbara Jean, who was also pregnant at the time. Therefore, since we are sympathizing with the main character it would only make sense for set designers to create their house to be not as friendly or inviting. The walls of Barbara Jean’s house are a pale grey, the front door is situated at an awkward angle, there is a horrendous black leather couch centered in the middle and black curtains hang on the windows. In fact, nothing really matches similar to Barbara Jean as she is a funky character with an offbeat personality and who rarely color coordinates. As we can see from my discussion of these couple different set designs, they do go somewhat unnoticed to the untrained eye. There is a certain tone and mood that the set gives off and this is not coincidental. When looked at closely we can see that the set designers had a particular method in creating these sets. That being to match personalities of houses to those who live in them which goes with the story line and that in the end is an integral part in what made the show a success for as long as it was on the air. We can learn from these shows that we have all been talking about and apply them to our own by paying close attention to detail, truly knowing our characters, and giving them a set that their true personalities would actually have in real life.
Lighting will also make or break a set design as well as a show as we found out during lab time last week. I have never really understood the lighting design aspect of a television show. Quite honestly, I thought that maybe I could jut get by without having to be bothered, silly I know. But lighting can change the simplest of sets into something really great. While analyzing this show I am able to understand this more.
I have noticed that “Reba” is normally supposed to have a daytime feeling. The light designers accomplish this by making the illusion that sunrays are beaming into the house from the windows and doors that we see on set as well as those that we are not able to see. Even the most insignificant window all the way in the back gives us the impression that sun is shining through it. This design is important to the show as “Reba” is a family comedy and it would not have the same effect if it were always shot at night, or it was cloudy out, etc. Since there are a lot of sunrays there are also many shadows of the different objects in the house and of the subjects. There are apparent halos on the subjects that create depth to what we see. In fact, the entire lighting design will give a scene the illusion of depth if done correctly. One example of lighting that I thought was really smart is a scene where Reba barges into Barbara Jean’s house demanding to know why her granddaughter would go to her and her ex-husband if Reba’s daughter and son-in-law passed away. Barbara Jean is the bad guy in this instance and if you look to the back wall by where the steps are I was able to notice an example of the use of those slides (for a lack of the correct word) with the “creepy” and window designs that Professor Schoonmaker showed us during lab time. It was not the same pretty sunrays that shined on Reba’s wall rather it was the shadow of strange looking tree branches that I believed went perfectly with not only the mood of the scene but also matched the emotions of the main subject. It added an interesting touch that I never would have noticed had I not be shown an example of this in class.
I believe that we can learn from many of these techniques and apply it to all of our works in the future. I can see that we have all spoken about many different types of shows with lighting that transforms sets during the daytime, nighttime, inside, and outside. Hopefully, with some more studying and understanding on my part I might actually be able to add to the lighting design of a set one day…or maybe even tomorrow.
September 5, 2007 at 4:16 pm
No one in our class will deny Professor Schoonmaker’s observation that if a lighting designer is doing his/her job, their efforts should be “unnoticed, unappreciated and invisible to the viewers they design for.” Most television programs strive to create a realistic image, and many of the examples given by others in the class (i.e. Scrubs, The Office, Friends, even Lost) depict quality execution of this technique. Others have already pointed out the importance of light source, time of day, and lighting for the particular set, so I would like to focus on a dramatic program that exemplifies these and other lighting design elements. I watched “Walking on Water,” an episode from the third season of Grey’s Anatomy. Rather than explain how this show sets its tone from varying light intensities and physical arrangements, I would like to discuss how the color temperature resulting from the show’s light design plays a major role in the expression of the story. The predominant set in this episode is the hospital, Seattle Grace, where the main characters are employed. Staying true to the concept, the interior of the building is predominantly white, with very sterile and neutral accoutrements. The lighting designers use color temperature of lights focused on these surroundings to convey tonal messages. For example, in this specific episode, protagonist Meredith Grey is experiencing an overwhelming bought of depression. The color temperatures of her scenes are cold, creating a dreary and dismal feel to the otherwise neutral set. The lighting effectively parallels the character’s mood. By contrast, one of the supporting roles on the show is an obnoxiously cheerful doctor named Sydney Heron. Scenes featuring her have much warmer colors, vibrant lighting, and more focus on brighter objects in the room, such as a colorful box of files in the background.
Another lighting issue that this episode handles well is their development of special effects lighting. Although establishing a naturalistic lighting setup where the design is hardly noticed is crucial, accomplishing believable effects that accommodate the storyline is also very important. For instance, at the beginning of this specific episode, Meredith Grey sinks under the water in her bathtub in a moment of despair. The following shot is taken from the perspective of someone underwater, with movement of lights and appropriate filtering and a maintained clarity of objects in the frame. The effect must have been difficult to attain. Later in the episode, an accident scene is depicted. The lighting for this exterior scene includes the flashing lights of the ambulance and attention to other such details. This meticulous lighting design is also obvious in their usage of light as a character within scenes to add humor. One instance of this is an elevator scene where jokes are made at the expense of the Chief of Surgery’s receding hairline. Light touches off the top of his bald spot and calls attention to the area in question, as well as causing a comic gleam that emphasizes the joke.
I cannot imagine this being an easy episode to light. The single cam style of production involves many 360 degree pans, which means that each scene has to be lit so that every possible angle works with the lighting. Also, some of the exterior scenes taking place at the accident site include both land and a body of water in a single shot. Therefore, the lighting must illuminate all of the action on the land without glaring off the water and obscuring those parts of the frame. Within all sets of the episode, high contrast is an eminent threat, between the white of the hospital walls and uniforms to the debris from the ferry crash that they are responding to. This scene in general poses other problems, including how to light through the smoke that is filling the air throughout the action.
September 5, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Not only did last Friday’s class teach me how to effectively light a set; I also learned that this process is significantly more difficult than it looks. I would have never guessed how much effort goes into lighting for a television show. I did not fully realize that when watching a scene that is meant portray a nighttime setting, a crew of designers worked diligently to pull this off. After watching a few episodes of my favorite sitcoms after Friday’s class, the lighting techniques utilized to depict a time of day became more apparent to me.
Not only did these sitcoms use lighting to convey a certain message; I noticed several props and set displays that were also effective for this. I never really paid attention to accessory props in the backgrounds of sets, but after intentionally focusing on them I now understand how necessary this is. Sets and props are used to give you a certain feel for what the setting of the scene is intended to portray. I suppose I usually see these set designs in the corner of my eye and subconsciously deem what they are meant to translate about the setting. Yet after making this conscious effort to notice this, I realize the vitality of set designs for effective story telling.
Right before starting this blog entry, I finished watching an episode of the hit syndicated sitcom “Everybody Loves Raymond”. The strategies used in lighting and set designs literally jumped out at me. I would have never thought twice about these strategies, yet now I could pick them out in every scene. If a scene was supposed to take place during the nighttime, I was always able to discern that it was night. However, I never put thought into what made this look like night besides it being dark in the windows. In “Everybody Loves Raymond” the lighting designers used puddles of light in certain areas on the set to portray night. It was still light enough to see the actors and set design, yet I was still able to distinguish the time of day being depicted. I found this to be a successful way of representing nighttime in this scene because I was able to tell it was night without having to be verbally told. As for set design, shinning prop lamps also informed that it was
night. My brain is able to intuitively formulate that if lamps are on it must be a dark setting, meaning that it is nighttime. I never had to focus on the lamps to realize the time of day. Now, after taking exceptional notice to set design, I see the immense effectiveness of this setting design strategy.
A scene from “Everybody Loves Raymond” that I noticed used lighting and set design strategies to depict location took place in the basement of the house. Of course I knew that this scene was filmed in a studio and not an actual basement, but due to effective lighting and set design it was hardly perceptible. This scene was lit darker than the other scenes in the house, as basements are usually darker than a kitchen or living room. Also, tiny spaced out squares of light were beamed on the walls. This was made to look like sunlight shining though the basement windows. I now knew that Ray was in the basement during the daytime. I would usually not even think twice about these squares of light. The fact that I am able to figure the time of day and location by this miniscule design detail proves that this strategy is effective.
Besides the lighting of the basement scene, I was also able to determine the location by the set design. The set was quite cluttered with various props and the walls were painted in dull colors. Another room of the house would be more organized and more aesthetically pleasing. Most homeowners do not worry as much about the appearance of their basements. This was evident in “Everybody Loves Raymond” and assisted me in determining the location of this scene.
When working on the lighting and set designs of our class sitcom I will use the strategies utilized in “Everybody Loves Raymond” to effectively translate ideas into 2-D images. I agree that the best set and lighting designs go unnoticed and unappreciated to the viewer. Although it is no easy process to design a set, focusing on the designs of other shows proves that these strategies are essential in visually illustrating a story.
September 5, 2007 at 4:25 pm
For this first blog I analyzed the lighting and set design of Entourage, “The Cannes Kids”. I chose to look at Entourage because each episode of the show takes place over a variety of settings both inside and outside. At first I wasn’t sure if Entourage would be a great choice of show to watch in terms of lighting and set design. However, as I soon learned after taking two pages of notes, the show contains many more elements of lighting that are so realistic they essentially go unnoticed.
The opening credit sequence in Entourage is a perfect example of artificial night light at its finest. The sequence takes place outside with the light coming from traffic lights, car headlights, the moon and neon signs lighting up actor’s names on the sides of buildings. The type of light in this sequence is flashy, bold and fast occurring in order to stay in line with an effective opening sequence. The lighting also convinces and is sophisticated enough to encourage the viewer to join the exciting, fast paced lifestyle of the Entourage gang. I must also agree with Stephanie in that the extreme and varied camera shots of car holding the Entourage gang alongside the speedy intervals of neon lights is effective in creating a polished opening.
Compared to the flashy neon use of light in the opening sequence of the show, the Directors of Photography are quick to vary the style of lighting in the “The Cannes Kids” episode. A large portion of this episode takes place in the outdoor setting of Cannes, France. The DP’s make excellent use of outdoor sunlight in these settings by filming the exterior shots on realistic looking tropical beaches. One of the shots I found to be especially interesting was actually the first shot of the episode which took place on the ocean. The camera did this cool use of panning to show light reflecting off of the water. This shot transitioned well into a series of other shots with the Entourage gang on a boat in the middle of the ocean. The primary light sources of these outdoor shots are made to appear as natural as possible. At first glance I would never have assumed the use of any additional light in these scenes. However, as I took another look at the screen I noticed that the shots were not entirely in focus and had a slightly faded yellow look. I am guessing that this effect was achieved with an opaque lens with even a yellow tint that resulted in the hazy beach appearance. I also know that there has to have been additional light sources in these scenes to prevent the actors and set from looking flat or fake on screen. Therefore, I can assume that there is evidence of additional light sources with high fill and back lights to simulate a realistic beach.
The outside shot of the beaches of Cannes is nicely contrasted with the highly controlled interior lighting of the hotel lobby and hallways. Every shot inside the hotel is pristine and absolutely clean. There is evidence of both fluorescent and natural light inside of the hotel. The fluorescent light is created with the addition of many small lamps in the hotel lobby and the natural light comes from outdoor light generated from the floor to ceiling windows. As opposed to the liberating feeling of being outside on the beaches of Cannes, the inside small hallway of the hotel is almost too perfect and uncomfortable a setting. The fluorescent light and absence of windows in this hallway contributes to such a feeling.
To be perfectly honest, I too, like many people have stated above, am horrible when it comes to lighting and set design. That is not to say that I don’t appreciate good lighting techniques….in fact I’m in awe of people who can achieve this! Because believe it or not, no matter how many times I learn lighting techniques in class or in the studio setting, whenever I light something it always looks ridiculous or false on camera. Needles to say it never turns out as I had intended. I agree with Jeff’s comment that with good lighting comes lots of experimentation via trial and error. Let me just say that I’m very excited to continue this trial and error process with lighting in lab but am happy that we have other people in the class who are more skilled in that technical department!
September 6, 2007 at 12:45 am
A lot has already been discussed about how good professional lighting and set designers really are. After our studio run-through last friday and class today, I think the biggest aspect of student lighting and set design, that I would like to comment on, and that gets overlooked the most is just simply space. Space between the camera and the actors. Space between the actors (middle ground) and the set (background). And finally space between the lights and the actors. How many times have you guys been in a production in 255 where the filmmakers put themselves in these small confined spaces and try to pull off a four point light scheme that is supposed to look breath-taking. If I were to give any advice when it comes to lighting a set, it would be to take advantage of as much space around you as possible. Spread yourself out and let the shot show you where and how strong your key, fill, and back-lights need to be. Our whole conversation today about what was wrong with our shots could all be boiled down to one point: make your shots look 3D. When it is the case that you have to shoot to make a little area look like a big area, just as in Deal or No Deal, using lines and movement in the background helps your capture come out in 3D.
September 26, 2007 at 12:40 am
so theres been a lot of talk about the best lighting as lighting that you didn’t even realize. after all, the goal of great television is to get our audience entirely lost in a dream world. why should they be thinking about lighting? while it may not be recognized immedately on the surface, lighting is key to setting a mood, supporting a premise, and often providing an underlying meaning. as always… here i go about arrested development (i swear, its not the only show i watch. i just f-ing love it.)
take this example:
http://www.andrewmaury.net/storage/trf/Picture%202.png
let me preface by saying that every, and i mean EVERY, episode of arrested development feels like the brightest most beautiful day there ever was. while it is gorgeous in aesthetic, there is meaning that ties into the whole theme of the show. notice in this screen shot how the sunlight illuminates the window to be 100% white. the window is so white that you could say its over exposed into a seemingly endless abyss of white. but isn’t that what this show is? hilariously ridiculous plot-line after hilariously ridiculous plot-line in what seems to be a dream world. this is exactly the point: every character is idiotically naive, but somehow everything smoothes out in their bubble-of-a-world. this all encompassing whiteness is the bubble, and it melts perfectly in between the all-white intro sequence and transition effects:
http://www.andrewmaury.net/storage/trf/Picture%203.png
http://www.andrewmaury.net/storage/trf/Picture%201.png
i have always told people that i love the show because its just so bright and fun. but beyond that, i think arrested development uses the concept of dramatized daylight to its fullest extent, giving great meaning to the premise underneath.
January 23, 2008 at 12:22 am
Blog 1 – Michael Phillips
Alright, check it. Lighting is like eating cookies or anything really sugary for that matter. When you eat too much you become pale and sick and sometimes you even throw up.
When you go crazy with lighting (like eating too many cookies) your subjects will look pale. If the lights are flashy and crazy enough you might even cause some seizures and vomiting making the analogy slightly less ludicrous. Also like cookies, too much lighting causes diabetes.
The point is, lighting designers use light to create the illusion of third dimension in a two dimensional medium. This invites the audience to become lost in the world we’re creating for them. Lighting also calls attention to what’s important, driving the plot along or just adding to the tension already present in the story. Mostly, i just makes it look “real” enough for the audience to accept it. Now that I’ve regurgitated the purpose of lighting, let’s check out an awesome example.
I’ve been watching clips of Pushing Daisies and I find it’s a great show to comment on because I actually notice some lighting techniques. Most of us have at least seen a promo for the show and noticed it’s Burton-esque charm. The sets have crisp shapes and colors and the lighting accents this. Take for instance this Kristin Chenoweth heavy clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kbe1m30RS8c
When Kristin is left alone in The Pie Hole, the back-lighting reveals how deep and empty the place is despite the wild, lively colors. The atypical shapes become more apparent with the depth created through lighting and set design enhancing the quirky tone of the show. It also makes the settings larger than life. These overly elaborate, colorful settings create an environment (or like Henry’s bubble) where the supernatural status-quo is accepted without a thought.
At the end of the clip, Kristin is seated at a table while the dog licks her face. There is some nice contrast; the shadow on her and the dog make them look like permanent fixtures in the empty pie restaurant and further bludgeons us with this lonely feeling they’re trying to convey.
Oh, here’s another clip where they use those Cookie things to create the illusion that light is coming from a window in the fourth wall. And there’s that awesome doggy again.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VP5FXmgxzdU