This week of class was quite a practical experience. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to make it to Tuesday’s class, which was a bummer, but it did allow me to come in with a fresh pair of eyes to the work that was done without me present.

The class did a lighting comparison between different sources, attempting to replicate sunlight coming through a window. Speaking to Tash, the wonderful model of the shoot, the original plan was to have direct proper sunlight for the first comparison, but it wasn’t strong enough. ‘Available Daylight’ was still used, but I was under the impression it wasn’t ideal. Never the less, watching through this comparison with little to no prior knowledge of it really let me judge the artificial light sources and how naturalistic it looked on camera.

On the initial viewing, the light looked semi-realistic, but if I was told the artificially assisted versions were all direct sunlight only, I would have been sceptical. To me, this is because the fill of the 2K Fresnel w/ Full Blue Gell bounced off core board w/ Fill was just a bit too dim to be sunlight, maybe very cloudy sunlight, but not direct sunlight. There are a few too many shadows on the camera right side of Tash’s face, maybe needing some more bounce and fill to even out.

Thinking like this is helpful in thinking about lighting a set I am actually on, such as Thursday’s exercise. Even though I was only an actor,  once I had my lines down, I was fully invested in thinking about how everything on set worked, specifically the lighting rigging. I was always trying to think of a new way we could light the scene and be sneaky about it, and while I only offered minimal help from my position, I was constantly taking stuff in, lets hope it sticks!

In the reading Robin posted this week by Sven Nykvist documenting his life and views on filmmaking, one specific part stuck out and felt relatable to my whole outlook on lighting. He wrote, ‘Light is a treasure chest; once properly understood, it can bring another dimension to the medium’. This is the exact sort of epiphany I had the first time I really tried to light a scene, seeing how much potential there was in the art, and how much it can drastically change the potential of a scene.

Whilst we didn’t exactly achieve that sense of enlightenment in Exercise 4, the group definitely felt how difficult and mind straining it can be, even when a simple solution is right in front of you!

On Tuesday, Noah, Jagger, Elenor, Amelia and I were tasked with filming two shots for Exercise 4, with one of the shots requiring a lighting change, with the sun coming through the window. Luckily, we didn’t have to show the window, so this could all be done behind the scenes.

The team got really creative brainstorming different ways in which we could make this exposure change look as natural and directed as possible, like how the sun would bounce into a room. We decided we wanted to use one of the 1k Fresnel lights in some sort of way, just because we had our hands on them. Below is the video in which our test shoots are shown, starting at 3:00.

I think the main problem was that we may have thought too hard about how to make the sunbeams enter, with an easy solution there all along.

I really like how the scene is lit all together. The light itself feels really natural, and our faces are well lit. However, in the first take of the second shot, there is a glaring hot patch of over-exposed wall next to Amelia’s head. Luckily, that is not the case in the second take!

How we made the ‘sun’ come in was by moving a black bounce board away from in front of the Fresnel light. While the brightness of the light I feel looks fine, it cuts too hard a shaped shadow on the wall, being a very direct edge.

What was later pointed out to us, was that we should have just raised the blinds in the room, which would have probably worked better, and been easier! Never the less, experiences like these teach you so much about lighting, so I wouldn’t trade this version for the best version in the world! (maybe for a portfolio piece though!).

During this third week of the Film Light studio, for me, it was all about getting in front and behind the camera, and putting the information and techniques discusses and documented in week 2 into practice.

We had a few planned group members not show up, so Tash and I teamed up with Jagger, Elenor and Noah on exercise 3, which was great! They are lovely and talented people. Tash and I acted (born to be stars) in the dramatic telling of Barney and Rachel’s dinner plans. Being in front of the camera was a lot of fun, and whilst it wasn’t as technically involving (definitely want to be behind the camera next exercise, just so I can continue to familiarise myself with these depth of field and camera lighting techniques, we were both still very much involved in how it all looked. Below is a cut of what we did.

We wanted to really play around with a greater depth of field, making the shot more dynamic and interesting than a basic two-shot. The location we shot at serendipitously helped out with this, as there was a window behind the railing in which we could capture myself walking past clearly, as to notice Barney, and approach her. I feel like this worked really well, however, if this had been a professional shoot / if we had lighting kits, I would have suggested we light Rachel (myself) with a light panel or dido (not a Fresnel light though, way too much wattage). This way, I would be more visible, and my facial expressions of interest would have been clearer.

We used a white coreboard to bounce light onto Tash and I, and whilst it could have used a few more light sources to bounce off (just something that was out of our hands at the time), it worked way better than without, which has really given me a lot faith in white cardboard.

As stated before, being an actor was lots of fun, but I am very keen to get behind that camera or do something that gets me directly involved in the action!

I felt a lot more comfortable and at home with week 2’s Film Light classes. I was more used to the early wake-up times, started sitting with old and new faces, but most importantly, I am getting more and more involved in lighting thought and theory.

Some of the most useful information I gathered from these classes was the terminology. While not always directly relevant to the physical and practical aspects of lighting,  actually having more than a base understanding of camera and lighting terms and tools such as International Standards Organisation (ISO) and how it determines and can influence exposure is now integral information to me. Heck, even knowing that ISO stands for International Standards Organisation is a feat in itself. This and relatively in-depth looks at how shutter speeds and the size of the iris (known as the aperture of the lens for all us smarties over here) is information I’ve always wanted but never been motivated to learn. I am really glad we are getting into all of this stuff, because it’s definitely going to help my filmmaking, no matter what position I hold.

However, I am not a fan of how these terms are often calculated in opposite ways, such as how the higher the f-stop, the less light is able to enter the lens. It completely throws my prior knowledge of bigger and smaller numbers out the window!

I also enjoyed learning about more adjustable camera features, and how they can affect lighting a scene, such as focal length, depth of field and the surprise underdog, ensuring your viewfinder is set at the ideal settings so what you see on there is what you get in post-production. This is something I had never thought of, but will now always be cautious (more like paranoid) about it before a shoot.

I’m interested to see where this class goes, and very excited to start lighting scenes, with both natural and artificial light!