There's no right color for every situation. The choice between pink and amber can be as simple as the tone of the
play, but I also consider what cools I'll be using with it. If they have a strong green component they often
play better with ambers, which also has a more pronounced green component. If I plan to use 'warmer cools' that have less green and a little more red in them, then I will often pair them with pinks so that they blend together better. If the ability to actually mix to a truer white were important to me (which is almost never is) then I would make sure that I was using either amber with warm blues or pink with cool blues (blues that contain more green) to make sure that I was bringing all three primaries to the subject.
As to your other question... There are a lot of good designers who have had great careers with the McCandeless Method... and it was a revolution in its time to be sure - both of which should be acknowledged every time we get ready to
rail against it....
The task of a
lighting designer is always to balance the technical with the artistic, and I think a designer who says "I am a
McCandless style designer" (which you didn't say in the OP... you stated a preference, which I understand is different.) is stating that they value technique over art, and that doesn't work for me personally.
McCandless is a single technique to get a certain look, and properly executed it will give adequate lighting almost every time... and there's value in that.
My principle argument against it, when I
lay out a
plot for most of my shows... is that it takes too much instrumentation for not enough
effect. I don't like front light. I doubt I'm alone in saying that here.... but I don't. I hang it. I use it. I probably turn it up higher than many designers ( but
gel it a little more saturated than many designers... so it balances out.) But I never like it. And
McCandless uses two thirds of my hang for front light. And the last third of the
plot is for straight in back light in a (to be properly
McCandless) light enough tint to halo the shoulders and separate the actor from the background.
I'm sure someone wants to tell me now that you can add sidelight on TOP of
McCandless, and you can... but why? Why do I use two thirds of the
plot to provide facial visibility? Yes it's important but I can get facial visibility with one straight in front light to each area and I've freed up 20 or 30 instruments for other tasks... this might be enough to provide two or three colors of sidelight, or
template washes on top of my frontlight, or diagonal backlight which separates the actor from the background AND creates a strong sense of direction.
Several things have changed since Stanley
McCandless was working (1932)...
1. Set design has become more creative. We're spending a lot less time trying to get light into naturalistic box sets... and when we do it, good scenic designers have now figured out how to give us architectural breaks to
sneak sidelighting into these sets as well.
2. The philosophy of lighting scenery has changed some too... from 'Don't do it' to '
point a light (preferably several of different colors and textures) at every visible piece of scenery so that we can control composition and separate the actor from the scenery in ways OTHER than dumping a mostly white backlight on them.'
3. The purpose of lighting design has changed from '
reveal the scene in a less than boring way' to 'emotionally
grip the audience and drive them through the theatrical experience.'
4. The aesthetics of lighting design have changed from 'lights aren't noticed unless they screw up' to 'Wow that deserves a Tony! I don't know how they did that!'
In the end... for me... the process of deciding what angles lights come from is something I go through each and every time I design, and I try to start with no preconceptions - with the idea that I know what the
play should look like. What is the dominant source of light in the world I'm creating? Where does it come from? Now what does the rest of the world I want to create look like? Is it in harmony? Is there a visual argument? How do the characters relate to their background? How MUCH do they need to stand out and how much do they need to 'fit in?' Only after I have some strong ideas about what the lighting should look and feel like will I let myself consider the technique of it... the 'where else do I need some amount of light coming from to satisfy the technical requirements of this particular
play in this space for this audience? Sometimes I'll arrive at a very
McCandless plot... sometimes I'll arrive at a more modern 'Broadway style'
plot with straight in fronts, sides, and backlight in stronger colors... and sometimes I wind up deciding that the dominant light in the scene will be from a back diagonal window and that the light from the front will be from 180 degrees to that and in the same color as the floor to feel like '
reflection.' In each case, I've provided for visibility but in each case I've also designed what was right for the
play, not what was right for me as a designer, just because I have one style or another.
Art Whaley
www.artwhaley.com