Thread by @valentinavee

No, you’re not crazy! Night scenes DO LOOK darker now than they did in the decades prior.

But it’s not because cinematographers refuse to light their scenes (common misconception). It’s because the STYLE of lighting has changed. Let me explain. 🧵

https://twitter.com/nemxfoenirevlow/status/1887043343034552648

As cinematographers lighting a scene, we ask ourselves: “Where is the light coming from, if it were naturally in the environment?” Then we try to supplement that with our own lights. Here for example: the key light on the face could potentially be coming from a nearby storefront.

https://twitter.com/irose_r2/status/1887038353255883145

In this, he is top-lit. The key light source could be believed to be the moon or building floodlights (red), bouncing on the surface (green), and reflecting back onto him.

Key term to know: MOTIVATED LIGHTING. This is lighting that “could” be in the environment.

Sometimes the lighting motivation is on-camera. This is what we call PRACTICALS (table lamps, string lights).

But here in 2001 - they’re fantastical. It is a STRETCH to say that the table lamps “are”lighting the faces (key) and the string lights are adding the back lights (rim).

This lighting here from 2002 is mostly UN-MOTIVATED. Where is the key light (red) supposed to be coming from? They’re in an alley. Where is the top (rim) light coming from? The moon? The moon doesn’t cast light this sharp or this warm.

And you know what? Audiences don’t care!

The reason so many movies look like this is because the filmmakers are trying hard to make the lighting realistic to the environment.

Think: there wouldn’t be lights inside, it’s a storage shed. The only light would be coming from the window behind them. Hence: silhouettes.

https://twitter.com/mavericksmovies/status/1850994274743304470

It also has to do with grading (coloring). They didn’t light this with the ACTUAL moon. They lit it with giant lights on condors (cranes). And they likely exposed for the entire shot so no data was lost. In grading, they lowered the exposure and crushed the blacks, losing detail.

https://twitter.com/acedetective002/status/1887148216472289301

Another factor is the CONTRAST RATIO - which is the ratio between the bright and dark parts. Believe it or not, these actors ARE lit separately from the background (red). But the bg light (green) is already blown out, so the foreground (red) is hardly seen.

For Spidey here, they could have raised the exposure more (in post) or they could have added a harsher “moon light” on set (green) but they didn’t. Why?

Because they didn’t want to! And that’s okay! Because this is art and the artists get to decide.

Every shot is lit and planned for meticulously - whether it is a narrative scripted project or a commercial. Here are 2 examples from my recent work.

For the fist, we did virtual pre-viz and for the second, I did a lighting plot (diagram).

Another example from a recent project I shot. For commercials, it’s easier to get away with “unmotivated” light because the audience doesn’t question it. Why are the walls green and why is he so well-lit when the only practicals we see are little table lights? Who cares!

Thanks for reading. I scream about lighting constantly on here, btw.

https://twitter.com/valentinavee/status/1808883128728977761

Most folks are misunderstanding. I’m not going to directly critique my peers for their work. It takes a lot of effort just to get hired, let alone shoot a movie.

However, I personally agree with everyone here, so I light my dark scenes with “unmotivated” light. Recent example: