Our recce revealed the characteristics of each location and some of the features that could be problematic. In particular, the reflective surfaces that included transparent glass, black glass, mirrors and brushed/stainless steel, which could limit or influence camera coverage and staging. The West space was dark with a clear contrast between the level/quality of light between the interior and exterior. While the East space was bright and tight with a soft key source produced by bounced daylight.

West specifications included:

• High traffic public space.
• Significant contrast between the interior level of light and exterior daylight.
• Tungsten down lights that formed a warm, hard spot but low intensity spread.
• Daylight (and direct sunlight) bounced from Bowen St through front doors, provided a soft light source but mixed temperature.
• Black walls/floor and a white ceiling contributed to the contrast and shadows.
• Elevator contained warm tungsten (?) ceiling lights diffused through a perforated cover.
• On the other side of the interior glass doorway were LED lights that changed colour (rainbow), complicating the mixed temperature.
• GPO outlet available.

East specifications included:

• Quieter in foot traffic.
• White walls and floor.
• Daylight (and depending on time of day, direct sunlight) bounced from University Lane. The light is additionally bounced by the white interior surfaces.
• Narrow space between hallway wall and elevator, but significant depth down hallway
• 4x small tungsten down-lights inside elevator.
• GPO outlet available.

I planned to shoot in the West for a few reasons. Firstly, by exploiting the dark, contrasty light the theme of ambiguity could be established, since the audience (and Jeff) aren’t sure of Martine’s motivations. I also wanted the challenge of the multiple reflective surfaces to mostly study how this might influence camera coverage. Lastly, the ambiguous theme would also be constructed through hand-held camera movement and I felt the West location offered more opportunity for this type of camera coverage.

The plan was to work with a smaller aperture to allow for greater DOF and focus on the talent while slightly underexposing the skin for a moodier ‘look’. Since I needed to limit the reflective surfaces in frame,  longer focal lengths (approx. 35mm-70mm) would be employed to narrow the field of view.  In addition, I would utilise white core board in case the down-lights cast too dense shadows.

Still image from ‘Fool’

A venue that I occasionally frequent has a particular combination and aesthetic of light that always steals my attention and leaves me wondering how it might translate on screen. The space is Red Triangle Snooker Room in Fitzroy, a venue with over a dozen pool tables that vary from billiards to pub size.

• Overall, there are only a number of small light sources so the space is dark, moody and atmospheric.
• There are fluorescent lights in fixtures above each table that spot down on to the green/blue felt tabletops. As the light bounces off the felt, a green tint spills into the shadows.
• The carpet and walls throughout are coloured burgundy which heightens the mood and somewhat boudoir feel of the venue.
• This is further exaggerated by eclectic tungsten table lamps scattered around that consequently mix the colour temperature with their warm glow.
• At one end of the room there is a bright neon sign that depicts racked balls and emits a red and white glow.
• The space is on the 5th level of an old converted warehouse and windows line only the north and west facing sides. These windows are blocked with thick burgundy curtains, however the afternoon sunlight beats through and the boxed window panes often cast interesting shadows.

Since Kerry, Ryan, Andrew, Max and I have collectively talked about the desire to be creative and shoot something I suggested we visit the Red Triangle to see if they would allow us a few hours to shoot – and they said yes! So we all did a recce visit while considered references from films with similar lighting. Max linked the quality of light to a scene in David Fincher’s Seven (1995) and Andrew linked it a scene in Three Times (2005), a Taiwanese film by Hou Hsiao-Hsien.

In Fincher’s scene the dark shadows and limited light is integral to maintaining the neo noir/crime/thriller themes while the emotional tone of Hsiao-Hsien’s scene is illustrated through soft, cool light that feels both sensual and cold. These two references show the thematic possibilities the lighting conditions offered and therefore got us thinking about what we wanted to achieve.

Cue Fool, our somewhat experimental, bite sized short about a lonely man waiting for someone that never arrives.

Firstly our group decision to assign roles prior to the day of the exercise ensured we understood our responsibilities and were focused on one vision from the director/cinematographer. Considering our varying experiences handling a camera/lighting equipment, we operated cohesively and each contributed to solutions and ideas. Our group also endeavoured to establish a vision before the exercise however the characteristics of the locations and the 45 minute time slots greatly influenced decisions made on the day.

Although the time restrictions were important (and not in question), I felt this together with our inexperience limited room for us to become truly engaged with lighting decisions. All of the lighting choices were a knee jerk reaction to the spaces and not predetermined in our earlier visualisations. In saying that, we still managed to control light and exposure and achieve a sense of continuity. For instance, the reverse two-shot of Quinlan and I maintain the same soft light and evenly expose both of our faces. However, the OTS shot of Quinlan is overexposed and detail in the window to the left is lost entirely. I recall our reverse shots were planned prior to the day and were intended to stage both characters in the frame to be time efficient, but after class reflections it became obvious our artistic decisions (and the other group with the same script) essentially made the whole exercise harder! As discussed in class, the most economic choice would have been to scrap that OTS and simply maintain a close up of my character’s boiling anger.

During the outdoor shoot I was camera assisting and helping Ally and Sam capture their vision for the script. For a number of reasons the scene became rushed and we particularly struggled to achieve an acceptable exposure between the characters in full shadow and full sunlight. To counteract this problem we covered Quinlan’s white t-shirt with a black scarf and bounced a gold reflector onto Louise (who was in 95% shadow). Our location choice was also cumbersome and made it difficult to communicate what we could see on camera and what was needed to manage the light. The results are 3 shots that do not maintain a consistent level or style of light.

On reflection we can identify the many ways in which we would approach the two scenes differently however I feel a major factor that determined our results was we simply were all working together for the first time! … but no doubt a recce of the space before hand to predetermine it’s limitations and capabilities would have helped.

Jerrycan from Bridle Path Films on Vimeo.

Jerrycan (Julius Avery, 2008) is an Australian short film about five bored kids who decide to blow something up. Adam Arkapaw’s cinematography captures the bleak, dull world the boys occupy, which is heightened by the raw, grunge like quality gained from the 16mm film. Avery pursues a guerilla approach to his film making, preferring to shoot on location and utilise existing light sources. He also chooses to cast non-professional actors (the local kids in fact) and have them wear their own wardrobe as costumes. These artistic decisions attribute to the short film’s realism. Notably, the film won the Jury Prize at the 61st International Cannes Film Festival in the same year of its release.

In this night scene (00:00-00:40) two young boys throw rocks at a street lamp. This along with a smaller lamp close by, provides the only light source and consequently are practical. The light the boys try to break omits a warm glow however once it is smashed it becomes apparent the second lamp is a different temperature, green like a fluorescent. The practical street lamp is responsible for the key light and mostly provides a rim due to the staging of the boys. The cause and effect relationship between the scene’s action and the practical light is interesting, since the boys are trying to break the only light that literally illuminates them as actors. The effect exemplifies the looming consequence of their action.

As there is only a single key light source whilst at night, the objects or characters cast long shadows. In fact, it is the shadows and surrounding darkness that provide opportunity for the boys to conceal their incriminating behaviour. Although there are faint lights in the distance they do not supply light in the scene, rather suggest context for the setting.

Another element is the shallow depth of field from a wide aperture that results in the movement of the boys and their identity falling in and out of focus. Although the wide aperture would have been in response to shooting at night, Arkapaw makes the resulting shallow DOF work for the narrative and the changing focus adds to the ambiguity of the scene.

The intercut single wide shot of the old man walking his dogs is not lit from the same source as the boys, however based on our understanding of the director’s filmmaking approach, I can assume the man is still at the same location but composed near a brighter light source. It is important we can identify the man and his preoccupation so that he remains independent from the boys. This shot may also imply that the small town they all live in tolerates a lot.

Interestingly, the scenes that follow are all in daylight and include a group of boys misbehaving (very seriously) in broad daylight. Through this contrast, the opening night scene establishes the small world the boys are limited to, literally and figuratively.

Before we started, Andrew and I considered where there was ‘nice’ light within RMIT and as a result found ourselves on Level 5, Building 10 near the windows facing Bowen St. The light available was soft and diffused due to an overcast day, while surrounding buildings contributed a bounce. The space itself contained mostly soft, neutral coloured furnishings that absorbed light and allowed for moody shadows. This setting provided additional benefits as we could take advantage of the distance of available backgrounds outdoors i.e. buildings on the other side of Bowen St.

When the images are side by side you can appreciate our attempt to achieve similar composition, so it appears on screen as if we were ‘thinking’ of the other. Andrew’s off centre framing of my profile, the negative space and shallow depth of field provides an interesting ambiguity. While the long depth of field in the shot of Andrew feels more literal/stable. Although the overall style due to DOF is very different, the quality of the soft, low level light on our faces connects us and I particularly like the way the light wraps quickly into shadow. I appreciate even in an exercise (and while analysing shots of ourselves) we are able to respond to the technical differences in the images and produce context or meaning.

Although this exercise seemed straight forward, it provided great insight into the effects of DOF! I was immediately out of my comfort zone working with shorter focal lengths and small apertures. It also felt unfamiliar to capture a greater depth of field with so much detail while framing a person in a mid-close up. However working to these techinical specifications and upon reflection it is clear the power DOF has on the viewer’s interpretation of the scene. As a side note, why does this level of detail often heighten our sense of its digital medium? What films capture this greater depth of field without looking artificial? The wide vistas in Dances With Wolves comes to mind…

Another valuable insight and one yet to be resolved, is why the focus on Andrew appears soft. Since I am confident the focus was accurate in camera, further investigation is required. Robin’s suggestions were very helpful, in particular the potential for an issue with back focus (one I’ve experienced on the XR3 before). Of course there is still room for the error to simply be a bad focus on my part! So I will make the effort to reshoot this in order to narrow in on the culprit – round 2 findings to come.

Cinematographer Bradford Young uses the light in this scene from Ain’t Them Bodies Saint (2013) to establish the bond between Bob (Casey Affleck) and Ruth (Rooney Mara) and illuminate how the lovers are naive and foolish and together attempt to run away from reality (their crimes).

The late afternoon sun is a warm, golden colour that provides an effulgent rim light and a hard definition of the actors. In addition, the sun is the background source of light that generates the silhouette of trees and casts long shadows. Daylight filtered through the trees serves as a diffused key that is front/top lit and evenly wraps the whole face, this results in minimal shadows falling mostly under the eye. It is low intensity and the skin appears underexposed, however this reflects the setting as the subjects walk in and out of shadows. These factors maintain an authentic, natural style of light.

In the second half, the actors become bathed in the golden sunlight and the lens flares are of a hazy, angelic quality. This quality serves the narrative as it illustrates the fairytale, romantic world Bob and Ruth attempt to remain within and the figurative light they ‘see’ one another in.

I find my eye absorbs this image holistically. Although the subjects’ faces don’t have the same volume of light as the background, the combination of long shadows in the setting and hard rim light ensures the picture is balanced and the actors remain visually dominant. Also prior to analysing these lighting conditions I would not have thought to shoot in this situation for fear of underexposing the subject’s faces. Assuming an artificial source or very large reflector was employed to lift them out of complete shadow (underexposure), I can appreciate how difficult yet successful this light is.

After looking through the folders of possible paintings to reflect on, it dawned on me. As much as I adore Impressionist artists like Monet, Manet and Renoir and also have all the time in the world for Rembrandt there is one painting that I’ve spent collectively, many hours, staring at. And it’s hanging in my lounge room.

I digress with a quick backstory.

One of my first jobs was actually at a gallery but it was next door at a vintage clothing shop where I fell in love with this painting. But it wasn’t for sale, so I just secretly pined over it! A few years later and I was moving interstate. On my last day and to my surprise the owner came into the gallery and offered it to me as a parting gift (my secret pining had obviously been not so secret). I very gratefully accepted it but by the time I was able to get it home, the removals had already come. So, I asked a friend to temporarily look after it and post it down the track. Well… that never happened. Fast forward two years and I had moved interstate again, to Melbourne. And eventually the day came I found myself sitting in his lounge room staring at my painting! I’d completely forgot about it. He was reluctant to give it back but it has been on my wall ever since. Now this picture isn’t worth anything, is not in the best condition and really doesn’t match any of my things – but it speaks to me.

‘Gathering Storm’, Bruno Bramanti

Description:

The overall light is soft, diffused and low in volume with murky green shadows and yellowy whites. There are fine but hard highlights that mostly provide contrast for the horses against the soft, muted tones. The key light source comes from the setting (or rising) sun in the centre, which is half consumed by a shadowy storm rolling in. The shadows cast by the horses are long and soft, only dense close to the source.

Exercise 1, Part II

• Utilise white and black core board for fill light or negative control.
• More natural light sources made available from windows.

After reviewing everyone’s shots it seems we were more deliberate in the placement of the subject and so overall had better composition. However, maybe we next need to focus on an assessment of the light whilst considering the subject’s features. Then make decisions motivated by these factors.

Fig. 1 ‘Alyson’

I feel the shot of Alyson is the most successful in this, as the team have managed to model her face and feature her eyes whilst maintaining composition and mise-en-scene. They have achieved a soft but defined key light and also kept her fill side eye (camera left) out of the shadows. I find this combined with the sharp eye light (from the reflector/window presumably) and moody shadows very striking. The colour version of the same shot does not lose any of these qualities.

Fig. 2 ‘Andrew’

On that note, I am curious why the tones in the luminance while in black and white are (somewhat) lost when viewed in colour. I understand that our eyes ability to perceive a range of luminance is limited in colour but why does this affect the visual aesthetic or quality? Why do some of the shots ‘work’ in B&W but lose a/some quality when in colour? For example, the colour shot of Andrew (in my opinion) is not as successful as the B&W version. When in colour my eyes dart across the highlights on his face and overall his face appears more 2 dimensional. Yet the B&W looks balanced, modelled and my eyes are drawn to his eyes. Why?

Although the idea of employing the core boards initially seemed straightforward it wasn’t until class reflection that it truly sank in how difficult soft light can be to control. This has me thinking back on some cinematographers who like to utilise soft light and how they have managed to control it. What implications would come from simply lowering our exposure slightly and increasing the volume of our key light? Could this be an alternative to too much spill rather than trying to flag it with negative fill?

Side note: I love in this team’s interview how the light worked in this moment.