McCandless across a big stage

When lighting using the warm and cool sides of McCandless, do you usually keep all the cool lights coming from one direction and the warm from the other, across the stage? Or do you change the direction as you light across the stage?
 
After reading the glossary entry Arez referenced, it doesn't seem to exactly answer your question. The answer is generally yes. If following strict McCandless, all your warms might be coming in at 45* SL of the actor, while all the cools would be coming from 45* SR. However, it doesn't matter which color (warm or cool) you want coming in from SR or SL, just as long as it's consistent across the entire system.

There have and will continue to be many heated discussions regarding McCandless Method. Without getting into another one of those, let me just say that there are literally no "rules" of lighting - if you have a reason to change which side each color is coming from as you go across, then by all means go for it! Don't get into the mindset that if it's not strict McCandless, it must be wrong.
 
I second what rochem says. Remember, McCandless called his book "A Method for lighting the stage", not THE method. I find that its useful to decide what a production NEEDS to have happening with the light rather than deciding "well, im going to go straight McCandless on this one", unless thats what the show needs. Thats my $.02 US.
 
Shiben is correct there is no wrong was or right way to do anything in lighting, however there is a way that looks bad and a way that looks better. If nothing special jumps out from the script then yes I tend to keep the cools and warm coming from the same direction.
 
For the area lighting you are trying to do, yes, you try to keep every stage area lit in the same way--same colour coming from the same direction. That being said, you will generally have to cheat a bit on the end of your pipes for your side areas. Don't worry if you can't get exactly the same angles as your DC area. I find you have about 40 degrees leeway before the angle shift starts to get really noticable.
 
Here's been my experience with McCandless.

I have found very few situations where McCandless did not produce a better result than using other approaches. That's not to say that I haven't had to modify the approach in order to accomodate particular requirements for a particular show. After having lit over 70 shows, I approach a show in this way.

I lay out a McCandless plot, with each acting area defined and assigned a warm and cool front light (R01, R63). Depending on my lighting inventory I may assign a single back light (warm), or two back lights to each acting area.

This gives me a fairly broad pallette to apply mood to the front lighting of each acting area.

I then begin lighting the set via downlighting and washes. I try to ensure that I've got enough downwash to adequately light the stage, then my McCandless plot can be held to low levels to get the actors to punch out from the set and wash lighting. When choosing wash and downlighting, I begin to examine things like environment and mood. Am I trying to light a living room realistically (difficult since most people know what a living room should look like when lit, but creating diffuse natural lighting using theatrical instruments can be a challenge) or stylistically, using color and shadow to inflict mood and emotion.

The reason McCandless has worked so well for me is that McCandless takes care of dramatically lighting my actors, while at the same time (with levels kept low) gives me the dynamic range to apply set and downlighting choices without worrying so much about washing out the stage from excessive front lighting.

And to answer your question, all my warms come from house left, with my cools coming from house right. I do think it's important to have all the warms on one side, but I don't think it matters which side. I just do it this way for consistancy from show to show, and saves me from having to think too much during programming.

To those who haven't really given McCandless a chance, I'd encourage you to try the approach I've outlined for a few shows, and then decide how well McCandless works. Having the ability to light the actors with warm and cool from different angles gives me a lot of latitude when trying to express mood, and when the warm and cool strike the actors face, there is so much interesting shadow tone that I find adds a very interesting element and keeps the audiences eyes on the actors.


When lighting using the warm and cool sides of McCandless, do you usually keep all the cool lights coming from one direction and the warm from the other, across the stage? Or do you change the direction as you light across the stage?
 
gpforet:
That is an excellent synopsis on how to approach most shows. Start with the standard acting areas then let the show tell you what else has to be done. I have had shows where I have doubled or even tripled the acting areas with different combinations of warm and cool because the show dictated it.
 
gpforet, you are very accurate about how it makes for an even wash, and has a lot of variability. I rather like McCandless, but I was simply pointing out that its usually best to figure out if it will work for the show before going with it, I have seen quite a few shows recently that are using more and more "specials", or very defined areas, and a lot less washes. I think its just that I prefer going to more "experimental" or "artsy" (not that most theater isnt artistic, I just like going to the ones that are straight art theatre, less interested in comercial viability) shows, and they do a lot of odd things there. :)
 
My old professor used to say "do what the show wants and you can't go wrong". Some shows want McCandless, some shows need it, and for some shows it simply doesn't matter (there are also of course the ones where you don't have enough lights to do it even if the show wants it).

I have done procenium shows with 3 point and 4 point actor light, I have done thrust shows with a modified McCandless front light, I did a show once where my only "front light" were breakup templates everything else was side light, I have even lit an entire play with specials. McCandless's approach is A technique. There are many others as well.

Mike
 
gpforet, you are very accurate about how it makes for an even wash, and has a lot of variability. I rather like McCandless, but I was simply pointing out that its usually best to figure out if it will work for the show before going with it, I have seen quite a few shows recently that are using more and more "specials", or very defined areas, and a lot less washes. I think its just that I prefer going to more "experimental" or "artsy" (not that most theater isnt artistic, I just like going to the ones that are straight art theatre, less interested in comercial viability) shows, and they do a lot of odd things there. :)

I have never used McCandless for washes, only for lighting actors. In fact, by defining acting areas and assigning a McCandless design for each acting area, I find I have more isolation. I have never used "specials" to light actors, only set pieces and props, if I'm lighting an actor, I don't consider it a special but treat it as a acting area.

I handle all my washes with top, side, and backlighting.
 
I have never used McCandless for washes, only for lighting actors. In fact, by defining acting areas and assigning a McCandless design for each acting area, I find I have more isolation. I have never used "specials" to light actors, only set pieces and props, if I'm lighting an actor, I don't consider it a special but treat it as a acting area.

I handle all my washes with top, side, and backlighting.

You are correct. McCandless is a method for lighting actors. Although all McCandless really is is a method of washes. Washes do not have to cover the entire stage. I light actors and set separately as well, but it is all just a way of using terminology. Also, there are times I use an "acting area" to light actors, btu sometimes I use a special (a single light as opposed to a system) to light them. But it is all in what you call it.

Mike
 
Can you guys go into detail about your methods for lighting set pieces as opposed to acting space? Should I make this a new thread maybe?
 
I don't light set pieces per se. I use spill from my washes (tops, backs, sides, patterns, etc) to highlight and tone the set. But I do not specifically use lighting instruments as "set lights" (assuming there is a traditional set).

Mike
 
Can you guys go into detail about your methods for lighting set pieces as opposed to acting space? Should I make this a new thread maybe?

This is almost an impossible question to answer, as every set requires something different. I'd say as a general rule, use colors and angles that enhance the colors and textures used in the set. When texture is used in the design of the set, it is to your advantage to light it in a way that helps reveal it - often from extreme side or top angles. Lighting a set with a very out-of-focus breakup gobo is also a good technique as it keeps the set from sticking out so much. You want to make sure the set doesn't become brighter and more attention-grabbing than the actors, unless of course you want to do that.

For color choices, you need to choose colors which work with the set and don't mess with the color palette that the set designer used. If you work closely early on with the set designer, he may leave parts of the set a very light neutral color, with the expectation that you will throw colored light on the set to change colors throughout the show. Other times, you will just be expected to choose light tints which enhance colors in the scenery and make everything appear naturally lit. Always be sure to keep contrast between the actors, the costumes, and various parts of the set. If the cast is all wearing bright red costumes, you don't want to light the set in red or the actors will all blend in. Similarly, if you have multiple layers of scenery (maybe a scenic unit and a cyc), you generally want to light them in contrasting or at least varying colors so they stick out from one another.

My favorite photos to use as examples of set lighting are taken from the Stage Lighting Design 101 tutorial:


These two photos are of the exact same set during the same show, just with different lighting. I assume the set was painted in a neutral white color, then the lighting designer just threw different colored light onto it for different scenes. Also note the contrast between the back walls and the lit archway supporting the "Grease" sign.
 
Again, depending on what I'm trying to accomplish, but even if it's just a set of warm and cools, I try to get the surface of the set pieces to be lit separately from the actors and washes in order to provide some sense of separation. I find that by providing a different angle, (usually very steep as I don't want the set lighting to change shadow line when the actors are moving around on stage), I can really get the actors to jump out from the set. Lately I've experimented with saturated color for set lighting but the problem is that my actor front lighting tends to spill onto the set pieces and look distracting. This usually doesn't happen if I use less saturated downlights on the set.

My instrument of choice for sets are colortrans, the light is just so smooth and even, but I'll use any fresnel that can provide me with a smooth and even surface with soft edges. Depending on what I'm trying to accomplish and if blocking allows, I may even uplight some set pieces to keep the audience's eyes lower in the field of view.



Can you guys go into detail about your methods for lighting set pieces as opposed to acting space? Should I make this a new thread maybe?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back