thematthewman
Member
I was just wondering if anyone knows of Lighting Designers that work on films. Im sure there has to be someone that heads up the lighting in films.
Thanks
Thanks
Movie/Film Lighting Designers
- Thread starterthematthewman
- Start date
Theatrical LD's don't head a film lighting department typically. Head of lighting and electrics are called Gaffers. They're primary assistant is called the Best Boy. They report to the DP -Director of Photography. In the US and if union they are members of IATSE, which in the NYC area is Local 52, as BTW. Note that IATSE film locals only claim jurisdiction over "film", with TV a somewhat different situation.
As to Lighting designers, Jules Fisher and Peggy Eisenhauer have worked on more then a few films, Chicago, The Producers and Burlesque comes to mind, but they are usually lighting the "theatrical" segments of the film, in coordination with the DP and Gaffer. Don Holder is the LD on record for the NBC show Smash.
That's what briefly comes to mind.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
As to Lighting designers, Jules Fisher and Peggy Eisenhauer have worked on more then a few films, Chicago, The Producers and Burlesque comes to mind, but they are usually lighting the "theatrical" segments of the film, in coordination with the DP and Gaffer. Don Holder is the LD on record for the NBC show Smash.
That's what briefly comes to mind.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Have a look around Lighting - Cinematography.com .
DarkFlipDog
Member
kicknargel
Well-Known Member
Funny, I was thinking about this on my drive in this morning. Specifically that there are no Oscars (at least not in the main event) for lighting, though there are two for sound, and costumes, hair, makeup, etc. The reason is, of course, that film lighting is in the same department as photography (cinematography), and in most cases the DP is also the "lighting designer." Because of course the two are inextricably linked - lighting affects exposure, etc etc.
In the old days, film lighting had an element of magic. The DP had to use his experience and intuition (and light meter) to create lighting that would work on film. You didn't see results until the film was developed at the end of the day. These days, with video assist or just digital shooting, you can see the results of the lighting in the monitor, and make tweaks to make it look good. And now everyone can annoy the director and DP with suggestions.
I think with modern technology and style, it might be time to start recognizing the artistry of film lighting as distinct from cinematography. They go hand-in-hand, but really composing shots and camera movement is a different art than lighting.
In the old days, film lighting had an element of magic. The DP had to use his experience and intuition (and light meter) to create lighting that would work on film. You didn't see results until the film was developed at the end of the day. These days, with video assist or just digital shooting, you can see the results of the lighting in the monitor, and make tweaks to make it look good. And now everyone can annoy the director and DP with suggestions.
I think with modern technology and style, it might be time to start recognizing the artistry of film lighting as distinct from cinematography. They go hand-in-hand, but really composing shots and camera movement is a different art than lighting.
DarkFlipDog
Member
What you're saying is exactly right. The digital age has removed a lot of the art of lighting for "film." And if something isn't right, lets just wash it through a couple computers and we've fixed what we should have done right in the first place. I consider myself very lucky to have been able to wander around with a light meter and film on actual film cameras. Sadly, most film students will never know the joy and pain of waiting to see if your lighting actually worked out with the stock of film you were using or if you totally boned the production...or fumbling around in the dark to load cans with unexposed film...or loading one of the most complicated 16mm cameras ever built (I'm fairly sure the CP16 was invented by a bored warlock).
And lighting for Black and White film...that's a whole separate ball of insanity...it better be right because you don't have any colors to correct, just monochromatic tones.
And lighting for Black and White film...that's a whole separate ball of insanity...it better be right because you don't have any colors to correct, just monochromatic tones.
Jay Ashworth
Well-Known Member
Y'all won't get offended if I tell you that you sound like 70-year old Extra-class hams lamenting these new No-Code whippersnappers, will you? 
DarkFlipDog
Member
No offense here...it's just another one of those 'innovations' that make it so people can be lazier instead of getting it right the first time. Yes, yes, I know that it has it's benefits, but I believe the heart of the current discussion is a little bit of the loss of the art of lighting for motion pictures.
I got sick of hearing 'enh...we'll fix it in post...' when I was on set.
I got sick of hearing 'enh...we'll fix it in post...' when I was on set.
Jay Ashworth
Well-Known Member
kicknargel
Well-Known Member
My point is actually different than that. Digital cameras can work in so many more lighting environments than film cameras, that I think they open up new worlds of lighting in movies. My point is that movie lighting now has the ability to be less dependent on the needs of photography and more of an independent art form. And should get its own category.
I'm of the opinion that there should not be a separate "award" or recognition for the lighting.
I think back to lighting class when I was taught that the lighting designer in a live event can control - Selective Visibility, Revelation of Form, Composition and Mood.
Many if not all of this, while being initially and partly determined by the lighting in a film or TV event, is ultimately acted upon by the choices of the DP and/or director. Thus I debate whether lighting should be a separate category when it's actually only one of the aspects that determines the image the audience sees.
On the other hand, they award Emmy's to lighting designers and the team associated with the lighting, in television.
I think back to lighting class when I was taught that the lighting designer in a live event can control - Selective Visibility, Revelation of Form, Composition and Mood.
Many if not all of this, while being initially and partly determined by the lighting in a film or TV event, is ultimately acted upon by the choices of the DP and/or director. Thus I debate whether lighting should be a separate category when it's actually only one of the aspects that determines the image the audience sees.
On the other hand, they award Emmy's to lighting designers and the team associated with the lighting, in television.
kicknargel
Well-Known Member
Well, the original score can really only affect the mood, and is ultimately in control of the director, but it gets an award.
kicknargel
Well-Known Member
DarkFlipDog
Member
I would disagree with that statement...there are plenty of films out there where the score is so involved that it almost becomes a tertiary character.
Additionally, your comment regarding how not using a film camera opening up new avenues of lighting that's not dependent on photography seems like a contradiction. The whole point of the DP is to make sure the Director's vision (assuming he or she has one) is what appears on screen. If someone just uses practical lighting to light a scene and then use digital tricks to fix or even create the lighting effect wanted, that doesn't fall under the DP's department. You've now gone from the Photography Department to Post and Special Effects. By that rationale, the idea of having a separate award only for lighting could only apply to lighting done *on* set which would immediately die out because there's always *some* corrections made in this digital age.
Similar threads
