Back To Listings RSS Print

The Simplest, Fastest Interview Lighting Setup—Ever.

Years in the making, this technique works in almost every situation and makes almost everyone look great. That's about the best you can hope for when shooting talking heads on a tight schedule.

By Art Adams | November 17, 2011

Let's look at that diagram again:



Here are two examples of the look that I get from this setup:


This was a three light setup: one light, bounced, on the subject, and two more on the background, which consisted of art glass.



This setup used a single light bounced off a 4'x'4' piece of foam core, plus a negative fill card with a smaller piece of foam core clipped to its face. Camera for both setups was a Sony EX3.


These are screen grabs from a documentary I've contributed to over the last few years. The fill is a bit brighter than I normally like but that's what was necessary to match looks established by other camera people.

There are certain magic numbers and ratios in the film industry, and 4'x4' is one of them. The 4'x4' bounce or diffusion frame is very common in the industry because it does beautiful things in close quarters, particularly to faces. When I first tried this setup, placing a 4'x4' bounce card 2' to 3' from the subject and lighting it with a 650w fresnel, the results were exactly what I was looking for. The nose shadow was very, very soft and gentle, and it almost didn't matter where it fell because it's difficult to see. The source wraps beautifully around the average face and light reaches easily into both eyes. The reflection of the light source causes skin to appear to glow from within. This quality of light, from a large source at close distance, works well on almost everybody.

There were still a couple of problems to solve. The first one was contrast: soft light goes everywhere, and a small room with white walls reflected a lot of unwanted light back onto the subject, resulting in a very flatly-lit face. I had to add some contrast, so I introduced a 4'x4' negative fill card.

"Negative fill" implies an active approach to removing light, whereas the reality is that you're passively replacing highly reflective surfaces with something darker to eliminate stray light. Right now, for example, I'm sitting in front of my computer with a window to my right, and although I'm directly lit from one direction I'm filled from every other by light reflecting off walls, the white ceiling, and the light rug on the floor.

For example, here I am sitting at my computer and lit by natural light (shot on my iPhone):



Here's what happens if I hold a large black card on the left side of my face, blocking ambient light from that side of the room:


The side of my face nearest the card is darker, as a reflective wall outside frame right has been blocked by a non-reflective surface.


Here's what happens when I block ambient light from the ceiling:


Now the top of my face is darker as I've placed a dark surface between my face and the white ceiling.


In 3D computer animation terms this is called "radiosity," and it was a big deal when it was introduced in the 1990's. An algorithm examined all of the surfaces in a 3D model, looked at where the virtual light sources were placed, and added ambient light into the scene to show what the environment would really look like when every surface became a passive reflector. Architectural firms jumped on this technology so they could see, for example, what would happen in a white hallway if they installed red carpeting. (Result: sun hitting the carpet would turn the walls, and everything else in the environment, red.) The reason radiosity is so useful in 3D modeling is because this is what happens in the real world: every lit surface around you, at this moment, is lighting you to some degree.

One of your tasks as a cinematographer is to decide whether this is desirable or not. If not, you have to figure out how to eliminate it or replace it.

Unless I'm lighting an interview in a big room with lots of space between the subject and the nearest wall, I add a 4'x'4 black card on the fill side to reduce ambient light and increase contrast. Ambient light looks okay to the eye, but once we frame a shot it can take on a very different feel. It can be the wrong color, or fail to reach into eye sockets, or just look sloppy. (That's why I found the old Dogme 95 movement so amusing: a lot of "natural light" looks awful once you put a frame around it. Light is a storytelling tool and should not be ignored.)

A really dark fill side, however, is not always desirable. My solution is to use the black card to remove the ambient light that I don't like, and then use a smaller bounce source to add the ambient light that I do like. My fill source of choice on fast-paced corporate and documentary shoots is:

(wait for it)

Copy paper.

You can always find copy paper in an office, and in a pinch I've used my call sheet. It doesn't matter if it has type on it, just as long as it's primarily white and reflective. I'll usually place one sheet on the black card, as far forward as possible and at head height, to create a nearly invisible fill. Putting it forward, closest to the camera, prevents the front of the face from falling into shadow: a bounce that's placed toward the back of the card, on the side of the subject, will light the subject's cheek and ear but will leave a very dark area around the fill-side eye. That's usually not very flattering, so bringing the fill around the front of the face both eliminates that overly-dark eye shadow and hides the fill as a separate source as it no longer casts a noticeable shadow of its own.



If I want more fill, I tape another piece of copy paper next to the first sheet.

There are exceptions to this lighting method, as there are to everything. People with very round or flat faces may require the removal of fill light to create contrast, as the source wraps around their faces too much. A large source doesn't work well on people with reflective glasses. And it really doesn't work well with people who are crazily animated and sit forward into the beam of light that's lighting the 4'x4' bounce. None of this happens terribly often, and 90% of the time a person who sits into this lighting setup will look great.

There are a couple of things to watch for:

Foam core has a little bit of specularity to it. The light it reflects is soft, but there is a little bit of a hot spot that may cast a shadow. This can be remedied by covering the foam core's shiny surface with a matte material, like muslin. Generally this hot spot isn't a problem.

The light source usually wants to be a little higher than the average subject height:



While the nose shadow is very soft it's not nonexistent, so raising the source throws it down a little bit into the smile line.

The black card serves two purposes. The first is negative fill, but the second is to cut direct light from the lamp itself off the subject. All lamps leak a bit, and stray unwanted light wandering through a set is something that I really, really hate. I always walk the set, if it's large, or sit where the subject sits in an interview situation, and look around to see if I'm being struck by any unwanted light. In this setup there are two forms of unwanted light that I see most often: light from the glowing fresnel lens of the light, as seen through the gap between the barn doors and the instrument, or a reflection off the barn door farthest from the subject. The paint on black barn doors is shiny, and folding the far barn door the wrong way can mean catching the light from the fresnel lens and reflecting it directly onto the subject.

The best way to solve all of these problems is to back the lamp behind the negative fill card and use it as a flag, such that the subject can't "see" the stray light. (If they can't see it, they aren't being lit by it.) If you can't back the lamp far enough to hide the barn doors behind the negative fill it's often enough to open that far barn door all the way, eliminating the reflection.


Backing the lamp behind the black card solves the issue of direct unwanted light on the subject. If this isn't possible, make sure the gap between the lamp and the barn doors is wrapped with black wrap and open the barn door nearest the camera so the reflected light goes elsewhere.


Sometimes I add negative fill over the top of the subject, but not very often. Negative fill on the fill side is often more than enough unless the ceiling is very low and very reflective.

I'll often light interview setups with two lights: one on the foreground and another on the background. This makes for very fast setup and breakdown. I don't use back lights in interviews very often anymore, as I prefer the subtlety of placing the subject against a background of a different tone for separation, but this is a matter of taste. (And it's a matter for another article, as back lighting is an art in itself.)

Turn the page and I'll describe the basic interview tools I used for years when shooting hundreds of talking head interviews...

Page 2 of 3 pages « Previous 1 2 3 Next »

Share This

Back To Listings RSS Print

Get articles like this in your inbox: Sign Up

Comments

Jeff Foster: | November, 18, 2011

Awesome post Art!

What are your thoughts on low-voltage portable lights like Kino Flos (not LitePanels)? My experiments using BarFly 200s have been quite favorable only using less bounce and nobody has to sweat. wink

Would like your take on them…

Cheers,
Jeff

Art Adams: | November, 18, 2011

Thanks for your kind words, Jeff. I haven’t done much with the Barflys, and for faces I probably wouldn’t use them unless I was going for a dramatic effect. They’re awfully small sources to use for lighting faces quickly and well in portrait situations. There is the possibility of using several of them to emulate a larger source, but I think the success of that approach depends a lot on a person’s face and the mood of the piece. For dramatic stuff you can get away with murder, but for corporate image stuff where at least some of the branding has to do with how the speakers present I’d lean toward something softer.

The smaller the light the more precisely it has to be placed, and the Barfly seems a bit small for this. I’ve used 4’Kino Flos for this kind of thing and they can work fairly well but while they wrap in the horizontal 4’ axis (I use them horizontally because I really want to control the quality of the nose shadow) they don’t wrap well in the 1’ vertical dimension. Sometimes that’s good for hiding cosmetic neck oddities because it casts a chin shadow, and other times it just has a different feel from a real 4’x4’ tungsten source.

I hope all that makes sense. It is Friday afternoon, after all.

Jeff Foster: | November, 19, 2011

Great feedback Art - thanks!

I have had some luck with them either bounced or through a portable silk, but you’re right about precise placement. The Diva 401 are great horizontally as you say because you have so much more control with noiseless dimming too, but as you say, it’s still a dramatic look, and not nearly as soft as bounced tungsten.

Cheers,
Jeff

Art Adams: | November, 20, 2011

You can make them work if you need to and you like the look… I’ve just found that, for me, bigger is better when lighting faces. Up to a point, anyway: I’ve found situations where I could use an 8’x8’ bounce or diffusion to light one person and I’ll back off to a 4’x4’ because I want more modeling than an 8’x8’ at close range would give me. Bigger isn’t always better; sometimes it’s about picking the right size source for the object you’re lighting, based on your taste and experience.

It’s about learning what your taste level is, what you like and don’t like, and then designing a setup and acquiring tools that you can use to pull that look off quickly and predictably.

I got called to shoot a last minute corporate job last week where I had to use the client’s gear, and I ended up bouncing a Diva 400 off a 6’ long piece of foam core and using a 2’x'3 flag for negative fill. It worked fine. The setting and gear available weren’t ideal but I knew what I wanted to accomplish and I was able to figure out a way of doing something that I liked.

aterkel: | November, 20, 2011

Thanks for another enlightening read Art. The time you take to put these together is appreciated.

I’m always learning something new or at the very least rethinking how I do things.  I look forward to trying this setup on the next talking head shoot.

Cheers,
Amir

narongkorn: | November, 20, 2011

You can make them work if you need to and you like the look… I’ve just found that, for me, bigger is better when lighting faces. Up to a point, anyway: I’ve found situations where I could use an 8’x8’ bounce or diffusion to light one person and I’ll back off to a 4’x4’ because I want more modeling than an 8’x8’ at close range would give me. Bigger isn’t always better; sometimes it’s about picking the right size source for the object you’re lighting, based on your taste and experience.

davhud: | November, 21, 2011

Was on a set with John Toll recently and most of his CU’s for a given setup were bounced in. They were using HMI’s but the idea is the same. You seem to be in pretty good company. BTW they were shooting 5213 on Panaflex.
I’m still using backs though.

Thanks again for the info.
Dave

Zacka: | November, 21, 2011

I dont like it.  sorry.

firstly the example images are softer than an ice cream in the middle of summer.  Focus people, use it people.  I used to own an ex1 and may i recommend using the peaking function on the lowest setting.  Focus was crystal clear everytime.

Also i feel like i can see the light traveling across in front of the subject.  Any particles in the air will be illuminated and unless your going for that as an effect.

I would put the light source ‘house left’ pointing slightly further left, off screen.  Then i would place the white card in front of the light at a 45 degree angle to bounce it onto the subject at an angle, then the black card opposite the controllable fill bounce.  IMO this would work better and provide a nicer image without illumination floating particles in front of the subject.  thoughts?

Art Adams: | November, 22, 2011

The example images are screen captures pulled from Flash video. I didn’t intend for them to be examined for sharpness.

Occasionally there is an issue with dust floating in the beam and showing up on camera, but this is very, very rare. Same with interview subjects who lean forward into the light. This has happened, but not at all very often.

One of the reasons this configuration works well is that it can be crammed into small spaces, but please do modify it to your own individual taste. I never said this is the only way to do this, only that I’ve found that it works for me when I have to work fast and simply.

dtmp: | November, 22, 2011

Thanks for this article Art. It’s good to hear practical advice from those in similar “run and gun” and “one man band” situations, which I’ve been in all my career. It’s good to know that I’m not the only one who feels the pressure to just “get it done” as quickly as possible, but still maintain some sense of professional (and personal) integrity. Thanks, again.

Evom: | November, 23, 2011

Great article, thanks Art!

Whilst working as an ENG News assistant years ago, the cameraman used a portable white board to bounce a red head like you have described. Half way through the Police Commissioner’s interview an almighty bang as the whiteboard ‘popped” out as the glue must have heated to the point it gave way.

cheers!

Burn-E: | November, 23, 2011

I see you do not use hair light. I might think that with shallow DOF that modern DSLRs produce, this technique is less important, as shallow DOF separates subject by itself. The question is what looks more natural: blurry background or hair light. I guess it is a matter of taste.

scottieb: | November, 23, 2011

Wow Art this is awesome! Thanks so much for both the technique and the compelling explanation!

Art Adams: | November, 23, 2011

Burn-E: to use a hair light or not is a matter of taste. The reason hair lights came into being was to create separation from backgrounds in black and white movies: dark hair against a dark background would disappear unless it was lit. These days we can use other techniques to separate people from backgrounds: focus, or making the background a different tone or color from the hair or person in front of it, or composition…

There are no rules for lighting, only loose guidelines. It comes down to your taste, and whether it makes you money. All else is negotiable.

hddv: | November, 27, 2011

could you use a coldlight softbox instead of a bounce source for the main light, while keeping the black foam on the other side?  how would that be different than your method?  thanks for all the information.

Art Adams: | November, 28, 2011

I chose to use 4’x4’ foam core because it was a big enough source, when lit, to softly wrap around a face in a manner that I like. I could do the same thing with a 4’x4’ frame of diffusion, like Lee 129 or grid cloth, or a medium chimera.

A “cold light” won’t make any difference in how the light wraps around a face. The size of the soft box, or bounce, in relation to the face, is everything.

timb: | November, 28, 2011

Thanks for a great article. I really appreciate you sharing your experience. As a working cameraman for the past 20 years, the days I enjoy most are the days that I see how others approach a lighting situation. I find that I take a bit of everyone’s ideas to broaden the range of lighting solutions I bring to a shoot.

I agree that over the years my lighting set ups are simpler and produce constant great results - And that’s whats its all about.

Keep the great info coming !! Thanks again !

tedsta03: | December, 02, 2011

Art great article as always! I’m honored to have seen this technique in action as well.

If you didn’t have access to tungsten fresnel lights, and instead had a set of LED lights how would you go about doing this setup?

Perhaps continue to use the negative fill and then try to back the LEDs away from the subject to mimic the bounce of the white board? 

- Ted Allen

Art Adams: | December, 02, 2011

Hi Ted! I don’t think you’d want to back the LED lights away as that would make them appear smaller to the subject, resulting in harder shadows. I’d put them close and put them side by side in place of the white card, in effect making a large-ish source out of two smaller ones.

Or you could put them behind a larger diffusion frame, although you’d lose a fair bit of light.

tedsta03: | December, 02, 2011

Thanks Art,

  I’m definitely going to try that next time. I didn’t realize that by backing up the LEDs it could create harder shadows. Fortunately I can dial down the intensity of these LEDs so putting them closer is a great idea. Two LEDs side by side on a low power setting could do the trick.

Chris Lawes: | December, 19, 2011

Would this setup work equally well with a CDM (Ceramic Discharge Metalhalide) bulb such as the Cool Lights CDM 150 Fresnel? It is supposed to be equivalent to a tungsten 650w fresnel but it can use 5400K bulbs and it is cooler.

This setup should apply the same right?

http://www.coollights.biz/clmf0150-cool-lights-fresnel-p-63.html

Art Adams: | December, 19, 2011

It could… it’s not really about the light you use, but how big you make the light source, which in this case becomes the bounce card. If your light is big enough to illuminate a 4x4 bounce card and give you enough exposure on your subject then you should be fine.

Chris Lawes: | December, 19, 2011

OK..
I am wondering because I want to use this lighting setup but will sometimes be in rooms with windows. I can turn off the lights but I sometimes can’t avoid the windows or balconies.

So in that case my only options are:
- to gel a tungsten (which requires a really big tungsten to meet 650w)
- Use this CDM light from coollights.
- Use kino flo fluorescents bounce’d off of the card? Would that work?

What do you think?

Art Adams: | December, 19, 2011

That’s a little beyond the scope of this article… if you have a big enough light to compete with the ambient light in the location then you should be able to make this work.

I find that if I put the key source (lit bounce card) on the same side of the frame as the window light the effect is more convincing. Competing with window light is hard, but going with the window light is a lot easier.

Chris Lawes: | December, 19, 2011

Thanks for the info Art. We are starting a new documentary soon and I would like to try this out, only issue I can see is what to do when there is 5600K sunlight in the room.

Good tip about putting the key coming from same direction as window. But what do you normally use as a key? A tungsten fresnel gel’d to daylight? Wouldn’t you need around 2000 watts after the lightloss from the correction gel to be equivalent of your suggested 650watt fresnel?

Art Adams: | December, 19, 2011

It depends… a lot of office windows have green tint in them, so the light levels are lower and you can shoot across them pretty easily as long as you don’t shoot out them.

Also you can try using ambient skylight as your key and just add negative fill to taste, as long as the windows aren’t passing raw sunlight.

This technique works for a lot of situations but it doesn’t eliminate the need for powerful lights against bright backgrounds, or having the proper colored light to match the background.

If it helps, full CTB on a tungsten unit is often unnecessary. Try half CTB, and either white-balance to the foreground and let the background go a little blue or balance to the background and let the foreground go a little warm. Different cameras like different combinations, so experiment to see which of those works better for you.

Chris Lawes: | December, 19, 2011

Great info.

I was describing this setup to a sales rep at a lighting store to buy some lights for this, and he asked me what the point of buying a 650w tungsten fresnel was instead of just buying tungsten flood lights or lowel tota-lights etc. if they were just to light the whiteboard and were going to end up diffused anyway?

Also, if I am going to gel the lights, what wattage do I need to achieve in the end after light loss? 650 is an important number or just depends on your camera’s sensitivity?

The half-CTB sounds like a cool trick, thanks again for all your valuable advice!

Art Adams: | December, 19, 2011

Tota lights are largely pure evil. Great for Chimeras, not so great for anything else. Buy burn insurance.

An open face light for this kind of setup works really, really well. I used a 1K open-face Arri for this for quite a while but modern cameras are so sensitive you can get away with a lot less. Still, a 650w isn’t going to go up against sunlight very well.

If you’re going to do a lot of daylight interviews it might be worth buying or renting a light with more punch. I also own 2 6’x'6 grid clothes (full and half) and when I need to combat sunlight on a budget I can take all of the lights I have and line them up behind the diffusion to create one large soft source.

Chris Lawes: | December, 19, 2011

“A four-light Arri kit, typically with a 1k open face unit, two 650w fresnels, and a 300w fresnel. The 1k open face was great for situation where I needed more punch out of my key light, such as when I was lighting an interview in a sunny room or looking out a window. Depending on the senstivity of the camera I could use either a 300w or 650w fresnel to light my bounce card.”

Sorry that I’m a bit confused by this. With your four-light kit how exactly would you light a subject in a sunny room?
You use the 1K open face to light the bounce card which acts as your keylight or you use a 650/300 to light your bounce card and then use the 1K open face to do something else?

Trying to understand your daylight setup and see if I need to buy just a single 1K open face or if I need a 1K open face plus a 650w fresnel.

Art Adams: | December, 20, 2011

I guess I should take that out, a 1K versus sun won’t work. The 1K works pretty well in rooms with indirect light, but you either have to block the sun or work with it if sunlight is streaming in.

If I have to work with sun then I’ll try to diffuse it with big pieces of fabric or block it with blinds or foam core.

Chris Lawes: | December, 20, 2011

When you say “The 1K works pretty well in rooms with indirect light” you mean as a stronger light on the bouncecard right?


So if I understand your article correctly to setup a fast and simple lighting kit for single-person interviews in sometimes sunlit rooms I can do this:

Kit:
650w fresnel
1K open face flood
Two 4’x4’ white foam cores
Two 4’x4’ black flags
Two C-stands
1/2 CTB gels

For indoor I can use 3200K and control the lighting, use a few fluorescent tablelamps and stuff if I want to. Just use a flag, a foam core, and a 650w fresnel. Done.

For indoor with some ambient sun I can gel to 4400K, WB for the sunlight/windows and stack the 1k open face and the 650w both on the bounce and have the bouncecard aiming from the same direction as the windows are, and use the flag to control reflecting light from the other side of the room.


Is this thinking correct?

Review Maze: | February, 06, 2012

Going with the direction of the existing light (i.e. window) should work better indeed. It is also a common technique in movies. For example, this is a popular trick for enhancing practicals which are not strong enough. Putting a decent size bounce just out of frame at the side of the practical creates a nice face-wrapping soft source which is seemingly indistinguishable from the practical.

DJMears: | February, 20, 2012

Hi Art,

Just wanted to say this is a great post and a great lighting set-up too! I gave it a go myself on a recent shoot and it works incredibly well! So much so I have even written a little blog post about it… http://tinyurl.com/859wdk5

Keep up the good work!

Daniel

Please login or register to comment