Looking over what we shot during the first class, with a better understanding of lighting terms and types from the second class, it is easy to see that exposure was a big issue with how our interviews turned out. Whilst preparing for the interview to be shot, I thought the exposure was fine, a little overexposed, but it looked nice in the viewfinder to me. However, once assessing this both in class together, and outside of class to write this, it’s easy to see how overexposed it actually is. This has now made me more aware and hopefully more cautious about how an exposure can look through a viewfinder compared to when seen on a more dynamic and rich screen, and not to underestimate the soft lighting power of a flat, overcast day.

Robyn also suggested we take this newfound knowledge, and observe, whether it be with the world around us, or the media we engage with. Similarly to how I know notice when audio is slightly out of sync because of a bad merge in movies and television, this information can and has come as a burden on my viewing experiences. For example, whilst watching some casual television with a friend, I found myself constantly and subtly analysing the lighting in shots. Whether it was a hard or soft lighting set up, where the artificial light sources are and what is natural lighting (as the show was not always shot in a studio), and of course, which side of their face is lit (which Paul has ingrained in my brain eternally.

I am really excited to see where this course goes, because the more classes we have, the more I realise how much lighting theory I have barely scratched the surface of, and how much that theory gets me excited to put it into practice!