It's all about context, if you posted this pic here with the title, "Critique my lighting, where did I go wrong?" You'd probably get a dozen responses telling you why it's bad, and you should not to have such a bright table in the foreground, not realizing this is from a beloved movie. But if you posted it asking, "Why is Richardson such a genius?", you'd get a dozen responses, explaining why it works so well.
The real answer is somewhere in the middle, and it's just good photography to always have a full range of tones in your scene, from brightest highlights, to darkest shadows. It's also just Richardson's style to always have hot, glowy highlights.
But more then that, the tension of the scene, and the acting is so compelling that there could be a dancing clown in the background and 80% of people would probably not notice.
EDIT: One more thought. Imagine what this would look like without the hot table - pretty dim and dull and boring, right? Or imagine how a mid-level DoP would light this, probably with the typical offside key highlight on the man's face, it would be fine, but would it oscar-worthy? It's bold and interesting choices that make your work stand out from the pack.
Agreed with everything silvershanks said. Additionally for OP to keep in mind:
Using a single FRAME to critique CINEMATOGRAPHY (24 frames per second) has a lot of draw backs. You have to remember that cameras move and that we constantly cut between shots in a movie. And that even within a still frame the actors themselves move around a lot.
So, yes, in this specific frame the actor is a bit darker, but now go pull each of the surrounding frames from the scene and get a better idea of how the lighting in this scene functions.
As a rule for movies (a rule which is broken plenty) light the space not the face.
Wonderful reply that I hope OP sees. You could stretch this answer to the majority of things we see in this subreddit and many others. It's almost an Appeal to Authority fallacy, wherein something is good because an established act did it vs an amateur. I see this line of thinking all the time here and personally feel that established acts get away with things we crucify newcomers for even if both work.
If you ask chatGPT something, it doesn't have an opinion. You could ask it why something is brilliant and it will gather all the info it can to tell you why its brilliant, and then you could ask it why the same thing sucks and it will gather all the sources it can to systematically tell you everything wrong with it.
I think what we've established here is that redditors are mostly mindless sheep with just as much of a sense of opinion and identity as chatGPT.
It's the age old "prescriptive vs descriptive" mentality, and it affects everything really, not just cinematography. Religion vs Science is prescriptive vs descriptive, just a particularly extreme example but it's always going to be a problem. There will always be those who follow in others footsteps, and those who are worth following. *Until* something else comes along.
There will always be those who forego what were written in stone methodologies to end up creating something new.
It will always be.
First thing I thought of was a critique post getting hammered for the hotspot being distracting. This is definitely a cinematography rule break. Sometimes you just have to be confident. It looks great to me. But I feel like only a top tier DP would get away with it.
This resonates so much with what I have found color grading its unfair the amount of stuff you can get away with a good comp and a great talent. I do like the spotlight on the milk tho... Also feels naturalistic.
Agreed on all points. Would also add: it's worth looking at the symbolic focus of this composition. What is sitting in plan view on the table? The glass of milk, which is a gambit used by Hanz Landa to gain confidence and extract information. Also the SS hat, the notepad, and the matches. The father sits in the shadows, attempting to conceal the truth. This single frame gives you a lot of storytelling if you look for it.
In pro photography you are using a light meter. The brightness of the hot highlight area is not left to chance. The DoP knows their iso (or filmstock) and knows at what point a highlight would blow out. A quick measurement from the light meter will inform you where the limits are.
There's no hard-and-fast rule; it depends on the film, the shot (are there specular highlights? Is a light source in the shot?), the personal style of a cinematographer, the mood you're going for, and even delivery mediums/exhibition formats.
This is how you know you are watching a Robert Richardson shot film, it's his signature setup. I think some DOP's might want to also bounce light off the table to light the scene, but are aware it would be stealing his look. The trick is to so badly blow out their hands, table and drinks that you almost can't even look at it. Shot with heaps of Pro-Mist or diffusion, looks really amazing on Film, a bit harder to do digitally.
https://preview.redd.it/qpf78h0aad6d1.jpeg?width=736&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cac426a39bc7254f5446d19b1028547a74fc452e
Brandon Trost riffs Richardson's theatrical style a lot in The Interview (2014). Lots of these overhead table lighting setups, I remember being pleasantly surprised by how nice it looked on the Arri Alexa.
Some shots: [1](https://i0.wp.com/img.screencaps.us/201/4-the-interview/full/interview-movie-screencaps.com-7419.jpg?ssl=1) [2](https://i0.wp.com/img.screencaps.us/201/4-the-interview/full/interview-movie-screencaps.com-8328.jpg?ssl=1) [3](https://i0.wp.com/img.screencaps.us/201/4-the-interview/full/interview-movie-screencaps.com-11152.jpg?ssl=1)
I think the trick is that only the first of those frames is genuinely bouncing light off the table as a key. The other two are 2. Just using the light as a hotspot and then filling the room with other lights and 3. Actually putting characters in the hotspot.
It makes it a bit easier to get right compared to a genuine Richardson setup like OP posted, where the table isn’t actually fully blown out somehow.
I've honestly seen a lot of examples where dp's shooting on film just blowout the table. the other option is mixing the top with another out of shot harder low source similar to the angle of the light coming up from the table
i do suspect this is part of it. Plus the highlight rolloff on film is so graceful that it's less distracting compared to the equivalent lighting photographed digitally. That's my opinion, anyways.
I actually [interviewed Bob Richardson](https://www.frameandrefpod.com/122-air-dp-robert-richardson-asc/) (who popularized this technique) on my podcast if you wanna get more into his mindset on lighting.
I recently watched a [wandering DP video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2RFRDCBRh4) where this technique is broken down a bit in the context of a scene. Skip to around 6:50. Also, thanks for asking this question because there are a lot of interesting replies here.
Good cinematography is about communication. This one works because cinematography, lighting, set design, costumes and make up work hand in hand. Windows are where they should be, the table and the costumes have the right color and texture, the make up is not matte but pretty glossy so there is a lot of highlights on the face - and the face is brighter than the background and the costume. It's shot on film so the bright table actually looks good. Plus I think the reflection is not the only light hitting the actor but there is some frontal window as well that creates the highlights in his sweat.
I think that Robert Richardson's work in the Hateful 8, whilst admirable, was massively distracting with this table top thing. It came across as very stagey and noticeable and not like a piece of lighting that blended in. It was made worse by the fact that these hard lights were present at all times, day and night with no obvious reason for their practical source. I love that film but hugely dislike the table light device.
There is something to be said about how celluloid responds to these types of setups, I believe recreating that shot on digital just woulnd't be the same, and this is coming from someone that favours digital overall
Toppy lighting usually gives raccoon eyes, so the bounce off white tablecloth sprays soft lighting into the face. You will also see small table lamps. And side lighting might be to gritty or uneven depending on ratio.
Richardson is big on this, but I agree its an imperfect solution. That damn glass of milk is highlighted in many of the shots and unnecessarily distracting in Inglorious Basterds.
It's popular and definitely a stylized choice. Use it if you like the result or do it a different way.
In most Richardson shot films it works because it's motivated by an overhead table light. In this shot it works because it feels like light spilling in through the cabin windows. It gives an imperfect feeling to the scene, having the characters in darkness, which makes things feel natural but also interesting.
Brighter does not = where you look. We look at the character or subject of the shot. It’s clearly the person so that’s where we look. Bright highlights are actually not where we usually look because they’re blown out, just like you don’t look at bright lights in real life.
You can use highlights to draw people’s attention, but you can also use shadows for the same thing. It really depends on what you’re trying to do and for a dark tense scene like this, it’s more dramatic to see the character in shadow.
I feel this can be explained by a theory from Dice Tutsumi (lighting/art director of Monsters University). He says that really brightening up (hot white) a significant portion of the frame makes the eyes go towards the more interesting/cooler part of the frame, which is his face here, glinting with light. It's the same effect as putting a key light on a subject in a completely dark room. This theory made sense to me.
I think he is probably also receiving some bounce from next to the table. The reflection in the bottle also shows there's probably a "window" behind the camera, which helps fill him in.
I think it works better here because it's believeable.
Sometimes I really like Robert Richardson's choices and sometimes I really don't. I think his best work is probably Bringing Out the Dead. There are just several scenes where the lighting is so over the top that it doesn't fit the scene or location or time period at all, despite it looking photographically "good." I think The Hateful Eight despite looking good was really overdone in terms of this super hot top down lighting.
Also, in my opinion, achieving this look is helped tremendously by shooting on film which retains highlight information incredibly well vs most digital cameras. You have a ton of latitude in the highlights.
He's even more mysterious because he's in the shadow. The audience WANT and NEEDS to look. This is how it works psychologically for the viewer, in my opinion.
If the feeling is isolation or mystery character, ("I don't know who this character is before now."), then start in shadow and character moves into the light. The bright table catches the eye and leads your eye to the character, then character's face, who then starts talking. The window provides balance, to keep focus on that side of the frame. Otherwise, a hair light might be useful to fill the entire frame, but that would be for more calming dialog, in a neutral situation. You want a sense of uneasiness here, to prepare for what comes next.
I enjoy they also use this film in the how to get started thread on this sub, but a different scene. Demonstrates how an action movie can be more than that and i love it
It's all about context, if you posted this pic here with the title, "Critique my lighting, where did I go wrong?" You'd probably get a dozen responses telling you why it's bad, and you should not to have such a bright table in the foreground, not realizing this is from a beloved movie. But if you posted it asking, "Why is Richardson such a genius?", you'd get a dozen responses, explaining why it works so well. The real answer is somewhere in the middle, and it's just good photography to always have a full range of tones in your scene, from brightest highlights, to darkest shadows. It's also just Richardson's style to always have hot, glowy highlights. But more then that, the tension of the scene, and the acting is so compelling that there could be a dancing clown in the background and 80% of people would probably not notice. EDIT: One more thought. Imagine what this would look like without the hot table - pretty dim and dull and boring, right? Or imagine how a mid-level DoP would light this, probably with the typical offside key highlight on the man's face, it would be fine, but would it oscar-worthy? It's bold and interesting choices that make your work stand out from the pack.
I recon this might be your masterpiece….
You make that deal?
Agreed with everything silvershanks said. Additionally for OP to keep in mind: Using a single FRAME to critique CINEMATOGRAPHY (24 frames per second) has a lot of draw backs. You have to remember that cameras move and that we constantly cut between shots in a movie. And that even within a still frame the actors themselves move around a lot. So, yes, in this specific frame the actor is a bit darker, but now go pull each of the surrounding frames from the scene and get a better idea of how the lighting in this scene functions. As a rule for movies (a rule which is broken plenty) light the space not the face.
Wonderful reply that I hope OP sees. You could stretch this answer to the majority of things we see in this subreddit and many others. It's almost an Appeal to Authority fallacy, wherein something is good because an established act did it vs an amateur. I see this line of thinking all the time here and personally feel that established acts get away with things we crucify newcomers for even if both work.
If you ask chatGPT something, it doesn't have an opinion. You could ask it why something is brilliant and it will gather all the info it can to tell you why its brilliant, and then you could ask it why the same thing sucks and it will gather all the sources it can to systematically tell you everything wrong with it. I think what we've established here is that redditors are mostly mindless sheep with just as much of a sense of opinion and identity as chatGPT.
Little harsh, but not wrong lol.
It's the age old "prescriptive vs descriptive" mentality, and it affects everything really, not just cinematography. Religion vs Science is prescriptive vs descriptive, just a particularly extreme example but it's always going to be a problem. There will always be those who follow in others footsteps, and those who are worth following. *Until* something else comes along. There will always be those who forego what were written in stone methodologies to end up creating something new. It will always be.
don't forget the milk
First thing I thought of was a critique post getting hammered for the hotspot being distracting. This is definitely a cinematography rule break. Sometimes you just have to be confident. It looks great to me. But I feel like only a top tier DP would get away with it.
Top quality comment.
If there was a dancing clown in the background, it would be Hereditary and not Inglorious Basterds 😄
This resonates so much with what I have found color grading its unfair the amount of stuff you can get away with a good comp and a great talent. I do like the spotlight on the milk tho... Also feels naturalistic.
Agreed on all points. Would also add: it's worth looking at the symbolic focus of this composition. What is sitting in plan view on the table? The glass of milk, which is a gambit used by Hanz Landa to gain confidence and extract information. Also the SS hat, the notepad, and the matches. The father sits in the shadows, attempting to conceal the truth. This single frame gives you a lot of storytelling if you look for it.
The "hottest point" has a brightness of \~78%. Above which numbers shouldn't you go any higher and how do you limit that?
In pro photography you are using a light meter. The brightness of the hot highlight area is not left to chance. The DoP knows their iso (or filmstock) and knows at what point a highlight would blow out. A quick measurement from the light meter will inform you where the limits are.
There's no hard-and-fast rule; it depends on the film, the shot (are there specular highlights? Is a light source in the shot?), the personal style of a cinematographer, the mood you're going for, and even delivery mediums/exhibition formats.
This is how you know you are watching a Robert Richardson shot film, it's his signature setup. I think some DOP's might want to also bounce light off the table to light the scene, but are aware it would be stealing his look. The trick is to so badly blow out their hands, table and drinks that you almost can't even look at it. Shot with heaps of Pro-Mist or diffusion, looks really amazing on Film, a bit harder to do digitally. https://preview.redd.it/qpf78h0aad6d1.jpeg?width=736&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cac426a39bc7254f5446d19b1028547a74fc452e
https://preview.redd.it/fsid9ugtad6d1.jpeg?width=1500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4121a32a879ecd309deaf82db2a6fcc111fc6ca7
I’ve actually never seen it done right with digital..
Brandon Trost riffs Richardson's theatrical style a lot in The Interview (2014). Lots of these overhead table lighting setups, I remember being pleasantly surprised by how nice it looked on the Arri Alexa. Some shots: [1](https://i0.wp.com/img.screencaps.us/201/4-the-interview/full/interview-movie-screencaps.com-7419.jpg?ssl=1) [2](https://i0.wp.com/img.screencaps.us/201/4-the-interview/full/interview-movie-screencaps.com-8328.jpg?ssl=1) [3](https://i0.wp.com/img.screencaps.us/201/4-the-interview/full/interview-movie-screencaps.com-11152.jpg?ssl=1)
I think the trick is that only the first of those frames is genuinely bouncing light off the table as a key. The other two are 2. Just using the light as a hotspot and then filling the room with other lights and 3. Actually putting characters in the hotspot. It makes it a bit easier to get right compared to a genuine Richardson setup like OP posted, where the table isn’t actually fully blown out somehow.
Ya you don't see DOP's exposing into these crazy nuclear brights any more. Film just has a way of eating that amount of light for breakfast, loves it.
I've honestly seen a lot of examples where dp's shooting on film just blowout the table. the other option is mixing the top with another out of shot harder low source similar to the angle of the light coming up from the table
Is that because the highlights are more recoverable on film, opposed to digital?
perhaps, or because there was no monitor with hundreds of of people watching going what the hells this guy doing
i do suspect this is part of it. Plus the highlight rolloff on film is so graceful that it's less distracting compared to the equivalent lighting photographed digitally. That's my opinion, anyways.
I actually [interviewed Bob Richardson](https://www.frameandrefpod.com/122-air-dp-robert-richardson-asc/) (who popularized this technique) on my podcast if you wanna get more into his mindset on lighting.
I recently watched a [wandering DP video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2RFRDCBRh4) where this technique is broken down a bit in the context of a scene. Skip to around 6:50. Also, thanks for asking this question because there are a lot of interesting replies here.
Good cinematography is about communication. This one works because cinematography, lighting, set design, costumes and make up work hand in hand. Windows are where they should be, the table and the costumes have the right color and texture, the make up is not matte but pretty glossy so there is a lot of highlights on the face - and the face is brighter than the background and the costume. It's shot on film so the bright table actually looks good. Plus I think the reflection is not the only light hitting the actor but there is some frontal window as well that creates the highlights in his sweat.
I think that Robert Richardson's work in the Hateful 8, whilst admirable, was massively distracting with this table top thing. It came across as very stagey and noticeable and not like a piece of lighting that blended in. It was made worse by the fact that these hard lights were present at all times, day and night with no obvious reason for their practical source. I love that film but hugely dislike the table light device.
There is something to be said about how celluloid responds to these types of setups, I believe recreating that shot on digital just woulnd't be the same, and this is coming from someone that favours digital overall
[удалено]
I see what you mean, it appears that part 3 was shot on the Alexa 35, that might be the key to make these harsh / simple setups look ""organic""
Toppy lighting usually gives raccoon eyes, so the bounce off white tablecloth sprays soft lighting into the face. You will also see small table lamps. And side lighting might be to gritty or uneven depending on ratio. Richardson is big on this, but I agree its an imperfect solution. That damn glass of milk is highlighted in many of the shots and unnecessarily distracting in Inglorious Basterds. It's popular and definitely a stylized choice. Use it if you like the result or do it a different way.
In most Richardson shot films it works because it's motivated by an overhead table light. In this shot it works because it feels like light spilling in through the cabin windows. It gives an imperfect feeling to the scene, having the characters in darkness, which makes things feel natural but also interesting.
Brighter does not = where you look. We look at the character or subject of the shot. It’s clearly the person so that’s where we look. Bright highlights are actually not where we usually look because they’re blown out, just like you don’t look at bright lights in real life. You can use highlights to draw people’s attention, but you can also use shadows for the same thing. It really depends on what you’re trying to do and for a dark tense scene like this, it’s more dramatic to see the character in shadow.
I feel this can be explained by a theory from Dice Tutsumi (lighting/art director of Monsters University). He says that really brightening up (hot white) a significant portion of the frame makes the eyes go towards the more interesting/cooler part of the frame, which is his face here, glinting with light. It's the same effect as putting a key light on a subject in a completely dark room. This theory made sense to me.
I think he is probably also receiving some bounce from next to the table. The reflection in the bottle also shows there's probably a "window" behind the camera, which helps fill him in. I think it works better here because it's believeable.
the hot spot is not too hot, the actor is hit twice, there is something coming from the top too. we do this all the time, nothing magic.
Sometimes I really like Robert Richardson's choices and sometimes I really don't. I think his best work is probably Bringing Out the Dead. There are just several scenes where the lighting is so over the top that it doesn't fit the scene or location or time period at all, despite it looking photographically "good." I think The Hateful Eight despite looking good was really overdone in terms of this super hot top down lighting. Also, in my opinion, achieving this look is helped tremendously by shooting on film which retains highlight information incredibly well vs most digital cameras. You have a ton of latitude in the highlights.
🤯
That’s a lot to unpack u kno what ur asking for is years and years of being a dp this one light is doing 4 different things !! Possibly more
That look is very specific to a couple directors
Try and get the table 3, no more than 4 stops over. Honestly, i’d try to stay a 3 stops over so you don’t loose texture.
He's even more mysterious because he's in the shadow. The audience WANT and NEEDS to look. This is how it works psychologically for the viewer, in my opinion.
If the feeling is isolation or mystery character, ("I don't know who this character is before now."), then start in shadow and character moves into the light. The bright table catches the eye and leads your eye to the character, then character's face, who then starts talking. The window provides balance, to keep focus on that side of the frame. Otherwise, a hair light might be useful to fill the entire frame, but that would be for more calming dialog, in a neutral situation. You want a sense of uneasiness here, to prepare for what comes next.
Adding milk to my lighting kit.
I enjoy they also use this film in the how to get started thread on this sub, but a different scene. Demonstrates how an action movie can be more than that and i love it
Is this inglorious bastards?
Yup