A few months ago, my frequent colleague, DP, Roger Grange, called me to gaff a series of videos for him for Jaguar/Land Rover USA. It was a fun, productive 2-day shoot at the US headquarters of the company. It was varying sizes of talking-head shots in front of and inside these very nice - and very expensive - cars. We had a relatively small crew for this - Director, DP/Operator, AC, Gaffer (me), Key Grip, PA, Hair/MU, Art Director and some brand reps - but we managed to make it work. Take a look at the final product(s) below (click the pic).
The most fun we had was lighting the cars right. Lighting talent for this sort of thing is pretty straight-forward, but on top of that, we had to work hard to capture the unique style of these vehicles. We had to, of course, get exposure, but beyond that we had to accentuate the contours of the bodies while at the same time managing reflections and glares. It took time, but in the end we got what the client desired. Below are some snapshots of the set and some of our lighting setups.
Side note: we regularly made use of 2 of my favorite lighting tools on this shoot. Blondes (2kw open-faced fixtures) and "The Whale" (a 3'x4' white softbox with removable black skirts which allow you to use it traditionally or, with the skirts removed, as a large space-light).
Roger and Me in front of a Range Rover we were working with.
Late last year, while in the middle of work on the Ruth Messinger video I shot for Philip Dolin of Particle Productions, we found ourselves in the middle of a production day with nothing to shoot. As is always possible with high-profile (or powerful) interviewees, someone on our schedule was called away for something big that couldn't possibly be moved. So, we had to figure something out. Check the link out below for the result.
This was a fun one - we were given a nice, large, interesting space to shoot in (which is becoming a rarity in industrial work these days). I also had the benefit of controlling the stage lighting, so I set my frame, built my key and adjusted the stage light levels to be about a stop under my key. My key was a diffused 4bank fluorescent, with bounces for fill and edge. I also used two 250w Pro Lights to shape the seats in the background. Sound was recorded by my cohort, Bret Scheinfeld.
If you've been following this blog, you'll remember a certain star-studded video I shot last year for Philip Dolin of Particle Productions and the American Jewish World Service ("And Many Happy Returns..."). In March, Philip and I headed down to Florida to shoot a follow-up piece on one of the founders of AJWS, Larry Phillips (of the Van Heusen apparel company). It's a simple interview-based piece, like the Ruth Messinger tribute, with a similar style to the previous video. Enjoy.
Produced, Directed & Edited by Philip Dolin & Molly Bernstein
Cameraman: Me
Sound recordist: Roy Chase
Production Company: Particle Productions
One of the staples of documentary filmmaking is the interview. It's a useful device for providing exposition, transitions and so much more. Ken Burns's films, which are largely based around archival material, rely heavily on interviews for coherence. Errol Morris's works, use them as the main narrative - and his use of the Interrotron (a contraption designed to allow the subject to comfortably address the camera directly) provides an amazing intimacy. "The Office" (I know, it's not a real documentary), uses them to deliver joke setups and often, punch lines. "District 9" (another fake documentary) uses them as a setup to the mystery/story at hand. However they're used, shooting interviews well is an important skill any good documentary cameraman has to master.
If you look to your local news for an example of good interview shooting, stop a second, go jump in the shower (use COLD water), then dry up, come back and never do that again. The News, which is VERY dependent on interviews, does only one thing good - it delivers content quickly. The camera and lighting setups are designed to be quick. In the lamest of news interviews, the cameraperson will turn on the on-camera light, set the subject much too close to the wall and roll. The result is a nasty, flat - albeit properly-exposed - shot. Got the job done, though... delivered the content about as quickly as it's happening.
The next step up is the news magazine - your "20/20" or "60 Minutes" programs. Better? Yes. Cookie cutter? Hell yes. Soft, pleasing, almost frontal key light. Add some fill to flatten the faces out. Then a hair light and edge. Then put some sort of element in the background that has something to do with the story. Usually books. Light those with some colored light. Usually blue and frequently gobo'ed. Done. Sure, this is pleasing. The subjects look nice, there's some nice modeling going on, and they're separated from their background. Sometimes this setup is the very best setup for the sake of the story, but not always and not often.
The good documentary cameraman goes into a project without preconceived ideas for how to light the interviews. Different projects will call for different styles. Sometimes, there's a look to the piece. Perhaps all the interviews need to be dramatic and contrasty, or maybe they need to look natural or bright or whatever. Sometimes, there are protagonists and antagonists (like in fiction), and the good guys should be more modeled and bright, and the bad guys, more low-key. It depends on the film.
Here's a piece I shot recently for Philip Dolin of Particle Productions/Circle Terrific Media. It's almost a narrative of interviews. I'm quite pleased with how they came out.
For this piece, Philip and I decided that all of the interviews needed to be bright and pretty but of course, throughout it all, not flat or over-lit. My approach to the lighting was to make all non-key lighting elements subtle and based on reality. That is, I was never going to just setup a kicker and work in a hard edge for the hell of it. I wasn't going to just throw a light up on the background. It's got to flow. See below for an example.
In this setup, the subject, Joy Levitt, is somewhat of an academic and the bookcases were something the producer definitely wanted to include. The room was DARK. I started with a large key, a 4 bank fluorescent through a 40" square diffusion frame. I used an unbleached muslin bounce for a warm, soft fill. For the rear bookcase, I bounced a small 250w fixture off of the column you see in the shot. It was a nice, soft, subtle illumination that gave me what I wanted without drawing attention to itself. Lastly, I knew I needed further separation for the subject so I added an edge light. My first choice for an edge is always a bounced one. It's much more subtle a touch. Typically, it's a small gold/silver stipple flexfill reflecting the key. In this particular situation, having such a soft key with limited throw (positioned high to avoid reflections in the subject's glasses), I had to do something a little different. My edge for this shot was another 250w fixture shot into a 22" white flexfill, bounced back onto the subject. You can see how nicely it plays over the subject, separating her from the background in a nice, subtle way.
Another example of my favorite setup for a natural-looking interview setup can be seen in this grab from our interview with Elie Wiesel. Simple key from the fluorescent, bounce fill and bounce edge. As you can see in the still, it's modeled, all the necessary separation is there, but it doesn't look "lit." In my opinion, that's the best lighting - when the technical work doesn't draw attention to itself and lets the subject matter take the leading role. You can view the setup in the still below (featuring my frequent collaborated, sound mixer Bret Scheinfeld).
So all this lighting stuff is well and good when you've actually got lights and power, but what about outside? On a project with a large budget, I'd bring on some big HMIs and a load of grip (and a big crew to help manage it all). In doc work, though, we're often working on as small a budget as possible. So what if it's just you and natural light? Well, there's a way for that, too. A good example of that from this specific piece with Philip was our interview with Mia Farrow at her home.
As you can see, the modeled lighting present in the rest of the interviews certainly carries over, even though I was working with just the sun. The first step is deciding how to use the sun. Diffuse it and use it as a key? Sometimes, that's the best way to go. For Ms. Farrow, though, I decided the best use for the light as we had it was as a backlight (which also let me shoot the direction you see with the very nice background). For Ms. Farrow's key, I used a large white flexfill to bounce the sun back on the far side and then used my trusty unbleached muslin flexfill for some fill. And that was it. As you can see, it looks natural and Ms. Farrow looks good.
So you've got the lighting aspect down. Great! Now what? It's a shame, but so many up-and-coming camerapeople tend to light their subjects beautifully in front of boring or oddly-composed backgrounds. Blank walls of various colors, weird architectural lines, or dead on flat with some sort of background element... Yuck. Us doc guys are usually stuck with whatever space we're thrown into. No production designer, no set dresser, nothing. We have to be able to look at a space cinematically and find the one great angle in an otherwise-crappy location (there is always one somewhere). Find interesting lines and use them well. Take this grab below, of our interview with NY Times columnist, Nicholas Kristoff.
Look at the lines in the background. This is an example of using lines in your composition. The floor, the walls, the vertical windows are getting smaller and smaller. They lead your eye to Nick. What if we had left our cameras where they were, but flipped nick and the lighting setup. Well, A) the key light is less motivated, but B) the lines don't lead anywhere. They're just there. They don't do anything.
Beyond lines, you should also look at elements. As mentioned with the interview with Joy Levitt, the bookcases were an important element of the shot (and by the way, the lines also work to our advantage in that shot). Sometimes in the "20/20" stuff, it's a flag or a poster or some other prop. My favorite personal use of relevant background elements is in an interview I shot with video artist, Bill Viola.
This was for a short documentary on an installation of his. The piece was a deeply personal expression for Bill, an exploration of memory and the subconscious. I suggested to the producer that we integrate him into the piece for the interview. As you can see, we incorporated part of a screen into the shot. Even moreso, though, I positioned him in such a way that the actual projection would play over the fill side of Bill's face. His key side is exposed properly and modeled and I bounced some back for an edge to pop him out from the black on screen-right. But the fill is all projection. It's subtle but what I loved about it was that it only plays out in that left-most (screen left, that is) part of his face. I lit the key side bright enough that the projection doesn't interfere with it, but only reads in the deepest of the shadows. It plays over much better in the video as the projection moves, but you can still see a bit of the effect in the stills above.
And then you have projects where there is no background - the black void interview (or the Apple-style white limbo). These types of setups are hardly my favorite, but sometimes they're necessary. Perhaps the production intends to put text or graphics in the blank space. While it is simpler to not have to worry about lighting or composing a background, there are a number of commonly overlooked elements. You start with your subject and light them (again, you can do any number of things and light them for beauty or for drama). Now what? Just put up a black cloth and shoot? Uh... no (see the photo above - there's a lot going on, lighting-wise). One of the most frequent problems folks have shooting black void stuff is noise in the blacks or, heaven forbid, detail (a wrinkle or fold of the background, or maybe even a shadow). The key for keeping the black black is separation. First, like with most other backgrounds, put as much distance as you can between the subject and the back. A shallow depth of field will take care of all but the worst wrinkles and other sorts of imperfections in the background. Also, the distance will make it easier for you to control your light and keep it from spilling all over your clean black void. Use flags and blackwrap liberally. Lastly another frequent issue - and this is specific to the black void interviews - is lack of separation. Most of the time, you won't want the subject's shape to just melt into the background. To prevent this, you'll want some sort of edge or kicker or hairlight. Framing is also pretty crucial. If you've got a void that won't have graphics or text laid in (see below, left), you want to play your shots on the closer end. This rings more true for shooting 16x9 or wider. If you pull back too wide, you will have a ton of negative space on the eye-side of the frame. When shooting 4:3, it's less of a problem because there's less horizontal frame space, but it's still something to remember.
I guess the point of this post is to illustrate the importance of versatility in the documentary cameraman. This is important for your work that is seen on screen (being able to produce different types of lighting for different situations) and off screen (using your tools effectively). Going into situations with little to no information (which happens all too often in doc) also means being prepared and being experienced enough to know what will work before you even get a chance to set it up. For instance, I know for a natural-looking interview, my key-bounce-bounce interview setup is a good place to start - that saves a lot of time on the first setup. I always remember that physical separation between subject and background helps A LOT. Through and through, though, I'm always ready to break my rules if it fits the story or the goals of the film. So get out there and light. The more you do it, the more you understand it. You'll discover what works and what doesn't, you'll figure out creative solutions to common problems. Take your girlfriend/boyfriend/mother/father/
brother/sister/whatever, sit them down, and light them. See what happens...
Here's a link to a great art video I worked on with Philip Dolin of Particle Productions/Circle Terrific Media. It's a short doc about Sherry & Joel Mallin and their amazing outdoor art collection on their expansive estate in Bedford, NY.
On this piece, I shot b-cam for the sit-down interview and a bit of the walk and talk stuff. Then, as the D.P. and producers continued with the subjects, I roamed the grounds and did beauty work - the landscape, full coverage on the art (details, wides, etc.). It was a lot of fun to be able to just set off and shoot.
Produced, directed & edited by Philip Dolin & Molly Bernstein
Director of Photography: Mead Hunt
B-Cam, 2nd Unit Photography: Me
Location Sound: Mark Mandler
Production Company: Circle Terrific Media
**For the geeks, the A-cam was a Sony PDW700, and the B-cam was an EX1.
Over the last few months, I've been shooting a piece for Philip Dolin of Particle Productions for former Manhattan Borough President and humanitarian, Ruth Messinger's 70th birthday. The video was commissioned by the organization she currently runs, AJWS (American Jewish World Service). Though there is some nice archival material throughout, the piece rests solidly on interviews with an impressive roster of names including Mia Farrow, Elie Wiesel, former NYC Mayor David Dinkins, and NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.
I shot all of the interviews (except for the Bill Clinton one, which was provided by his own office's media people). The A-cam (close coverage) was a Sony EX-1 and the B-cam (locked-off wide) was my trusty 550D. Just to note - the last interview was shot last Monday and the piece was completed and screened to an audience of around 1000 people on Thursday night. It's already a great piece, but even moreso considering the rapid turnaround. Take a look...
Produced, Directed, & edited by Philip Dolin & Molly Bernstein
Cameraman: Me
Sound recordist: Bret Scheinfeld
Production Assistant: Alex McBean
Production Company: Particle Productions
For the lighting geeks... for most of these interviews, we were very limited in terms of time and space, so our setups and gear needed to be versatile but compact and quick. My lighting package for this whole piece consisted of my trusty 4bank fluorescent, 2 Lowel Pro Lights (250w), a 5-in-1 reflector, my faithful unbleached muslin reflector, and a small soft gold/white flexfill. Philip and I decided that the look was to be naturalistic but not boring. Whether motivated or not, every key was an inside key. If there was a window in the right spot, I could force in an edge. Without motivation, I would try to sneak one past if I needed the separation. This package was the perfect compromise of versatility and compactness.
On the camera end, the 550D was almost always fitted with my 28-50mm Contax/Yashica Zoom. In general, I (and many others) find it to be good practice to have zooms on hand in most doc situations (though on a recent Gevalia shoot, I shot for a solid hour on just a 50mm prime). Especially when time is so tight, being able to nudge a few mm tighter or wider is so valuable. In the Joy Levitt interview, however, I decided to go with my 24mm Pentax, because I wanted a wider field of view than the C/Y could give me.
One of the more difficult things about this shoot was crippling the DSLR to match the EX as best as possible. The standard picture styles and some of my favorite non-standard ones are incredibly beautiful in how they handle contrast and skin tones. However, the A-cam EX1 has a much flatter image. I didn't have the prep time to go in and match everything as well as I'd have liked. It would have required days of testing as the settings are vastly different. The EX has gamma and knee adjustments as well as a dozen other things that make a difference, while in-camera, the DSLR has contrast, saturation, sharpness and a couple of others. On most of these shoots, I opted for a more flat setup on the 550D to match the lower contrast EX but it's funny - even held back like that, I much prefer how the DSLR shots look. With a reasonable amount of time, Particle Productions could have matched the two perfectly but to be honest, I'm glad the finish was so quick - it's really nice to see the two cams side-by-side in the same lighting environments.
Here are some of my setups. In some situations, I used everything I brought and in some I didn't. Mia Farrow's interview, for instance, was shot using just the flexfills.
The only time I used a diff frame. Joy Levitt's interview.
UnemployedWorkers.org has launched and features the material I blogged about last. I shot the interview with Christine Owens (bright office) and Roger Grange & I shared the duties of shooting all of the interviews against black. Those particular interviews were shot on greenscreen (see "A Greenscreen in Harlem") - the decision to go black background was done late in the game. Otherwise, we'd have shot it on black for real.
And... segue... Here's another video I worked on recently that features interviews against black.
Producer/director Larry Locke shot the b-roll, while I lensed and lit the interviews (against actual black). There are a lot of digital effects over the video, diffusion, color stuff FX, etc., but the solid work is there. I'm happy with how the interviews came out.
The setup (forgive the Blackberry photo quality):
Simple duvetyne backdrop (velvety side towards camera), 4bank flo for key, Lowel Pro Light for edge, and an unbleached muslin reflector for fill. A lot of blackwrap and black foam core for control (which, along with a good amount of distance between subject and BG, is essential for good interviews against black).
Soon to come - a big post on interview lighting (and shooting). Stay tuned!
In my last post, I referred to myself as format-agnostic when discussing the choice of camera for one of the projects I'm currently working on. For a variety of reasons, lately, I've been thinking a lot about the multitude of cameras and video formats and film stocks available for motion-picture production. As a note I enjoy shooting both film and video, though the breadth of my recent work has been exclusively some form or another of digital capture. I am not, however, pro-digital.
So what is "the right format?" I think every filmmaker has an idea of what is the best format for their project. To some it's just whatever is the best quality, highest definition they can afford. To others, it's what looks the most appropriate - a gritty, grainy stock for a post-apocalyptic drama? Maybe a slick, clean, noise-free format for a romantic comedy? All these requirements they have are certainly valid, but ultimately for me, the right format is neither of the above. If I'm hired to shoot a project, I am responsible for delivering the image. If the production has no money and I insist on shooting 35mm and we run out of money before we're done, I've failed in my job. If the production blows their money on a RED package I wanted and then skimps on lighting, production design and other stuff that goes in front of the lens, all I'll be able to deliver is high definition crap. See, there are so many more important look-related elements than just the format we shoot on. With right stuff in front of the camera, it almost doesn't matter what's inside. Good lighting, good composition, good production design, and good talent can help even the cheapest camera look great. That's not to say that a Flip cam is the next wave of filmmaking gear. But if there's a story to tell and the talent is all there, maybe a handycam could work if that's all the filmmakers can afford. That said, there is one basic requirement I do have for the format I work with; control - the camera must not be Full AUTO. I must be able to control iris, focus, shutter speed (at least to lock one down) and whitebalance. With that, anything can deliver a good look for your film.
In the last 6 months, I have gladly shot the following formats and delivered results that very much pleased my clients with their respected release and exhibition types:
Panasonic DVX100 (mini DV, 480/24p). Webisodes, feature documentary, TV segment.
Sony EX1 (XDCam EX, 1080/24p). Feature documentary, TV segment.
Sony EX3 (XDCam EX, 1080/24p). Wide-release DVD/Blue Ray concert, music video, live multi-cam concert (big screen projection)
Sony Z1U (HDV, 1080/24f). TV segment.
Canon 5D MkII (1080/30p). TV spot, webisodes.
Panasonic HMC150 (AVC-HD, 1080/24p). Feature film.
Panasonic HVX200 (DVCPro HD, 720/24p). TV spot.
Sony V1U (HDV, 1080/24p). Webisodes.
Panasonic HDX900 (DVCPro HD, 1080/24p). TV segment, feature documentary.
Samsung Piece-of-Crap-Quicktime-Camcorder. Viral video for the web.
Again, as a final note, I must reiterate that every format needs good lighting and appropriate visual design like sets, costumes and such. A cheap handycam with no (or bad) lighting will look terrible. But the same thing goes with a pro HD cam. But that very same handycam shooting a well lit scene and exposed right can look really nice - and if that handycam is the only thing you have that will shoot your story, it's the "right" format for you.
