"Good lighting, for me, is really simple lighting."

Cinematographer Geoff Boyle explains how good lighting can be very simple.

This whole channel is great. But this video is worth looking at, too, as is relates in part to the first video:

Of course, good film noir lighting is rarely confined to talking heads in silhouette and often requires a bit of skill and technology as well. Take a look at the cinematography of Gregg Toland (who collaborated with Orson Welles) and John Alton who worked on some of Anthony Mann’s incredible noir flicks.

_______________________________________________________

I find no compelling reason why simple is better than complex despite the multitude of cliche quotes about the virtues of simplicity.

Is there anything other than simple lighting given that a subject is either lit, partially lit or not lit?

(I’m referring to light that is under our control not, for example, street lighting)

Is there anything other than simple lighting given that a subject is either lit, partially lit or not lit?

 

(I’m referring to light that is under our control not, for example, street lighting)

Yes.

How to Create Photographs with Complex Lighting Scenarios on a Budget

A subject will often be lit in a complex manner, and it will get even more complex when there’s a secondary subject and one wants to create mood, atmosphere, and/or style in the environment and background.

Fred, thanks for the link. Thinking aloud, again, I don’t think lighting more subjects in a scene makes the lighting complex as it’s just a collection of simply lit objects. I think complex lighting only exists when the light from one subject interacts with the light from another possibly due to one subject being more reflective than another.

As I say, just a thought.

I guess it depends what the meaning of “complex” is.

By your definition, writing a symphony is no more complex than writing for a solo instrument, but it is.

What’s a complex compared to a simple sentence? It’s a sentence containing a subordinate clause.

A . . . simple . . . definition of “complex”: consisting of many different and connected parts.

When you light more subjects in a scene, or include more than one instrument in your musical compositions, your are having to deal with INTERACTIONS. It’s not just that another subject is simply lit. It’s that the lighting of the other subject changes the ambient and reflective lighting for the first subject as well as for the background, and so on.

Furthermore, even with one subject, lighting can be more or less complex, for example, if you include lights in the shot that are props, lamps or car headlights, for which the lights lighting your subject will have to be rearranged and adjusted to accommodate. Or, if you want a particular pattern of shadows to fall across an individual’s body and face, sometimes different quality of shadow for different contours and surfaces of the face and body, your lighting setup may get more and more complex.

Also just thinking out loud. I don’t hold myself out as an expert on lighting.

Fred, I think all you are describing are the simple, additive properties of light.

Okie dokie.

Okie dokie.

No, think about your music example. If the tuba player plays a really loud note. he might drown out the piccolo but he won’t change the sound of it. If you add light to a scene, all you do is change what’s being lit and you don’t change the existing light. That’s what i mean by interaction, I think.

I don’t think lighting more subjects in a scene makes the lighting complex as it’s just a collection of simply lit objects. I think complex lighting only exists when the light from one subject interacts with the light from another possibly due to one subject being more reflective than another.

In an artificial setting, you cannot achieve a collection of simply lit objects without reflection of one affecting the lighting of another! In other words, light from one object will most certainly interact with other objects in the scene, unless the light is extremely low, the objects are placed sufficiently far apart / of dark shade etc, or both. These are extreme cases in artificial lighting though. So, in general, whenever you have multiple objects in a scene, they will interact to some extent with one another, creating diffuse reflections and shadows, in addition to direct harsh lighting and shadows, producing a complex effect.

The only thing i can think of that changes light in a complex way is a black hole.

I thought we were not talking about light itself, but the effect of light (lighting), as captured by a camera.

Norman, I think it would be helpful if you said what you mean by complex. You may have an idiosyncratic idea of what it is, or at least one I'm not familiar with. You mention "additive properties of light" (and I'm not quite sure what you mean by that either) but, to me, adding more lights, in itself, is making the lighting setup more complex. 2+2+2=6 is more complex than 2+2=4.

If you add light to a scene, all you do is change what’s being lit and you don’t change the existing light.

I don't believe this is true. If you have a red spot on someone, and add a blue spot, unless I'm mistaken, you will certainly change the existing light. Not the source of the light, of course, but certainly the light as reflected on the subject it's lighting.

2+2+2=6 is more complex than 2+2=4.

I don’t see the former as being more complex but your comment about adding blue to red has got me thinking.

Norman, I think it would be helpful if you said what you mean by complex

I’m not sure what I mean, tbh.

Examples.

1. I don’t think adding symbols to an existing list of symbols changes things in a complex way- eg 2+2+2 isn’t more complex than 2+2 it’s just longer (a different shape?)

2. Adding a word to a sentence can change the length and meaning as in

he is a good man => he is a good man not

which suggests a complex change

To me, adding more light is an example of 1 but adding blue to red is more like example 2, I think, but am not sure ;-)

2+2+2 in itself isn't complex, because we are just looking at one dimension, i.e. simply an increase in magnitude. However, adding 2 lights / objects in 3D space does more than just changing the magnitude of light. It also alters the spatial distribution of light depending on the relative orientation of the objects/lights, and that becomes complex, since there are multiple possibilities of arranging objects and those possibilities grow as more objects are added to the scene.

Also, Fred pointed out something which is very important I think, perception. In many cases, the physical components contributing to an effect may be simple, but the perception may not be.

No, think about your music example. If the tuba player plays a really loud note. he might drown out the piccolo but he won’t change the sound of it. If you add light to a scene, all you do is change what’s being lit and you don’t change the existing light. That’s what i mean by interaction, I think.

I think there are probably several different kinds of interaction, and all of them can make something more complex. Let's talk about two kinds of interaction.

I'm not sure of the words I'd use, but I'll try this: You seem to be limiting complexity to an almost chemical kind of interaction. You add hydrogen to oxygen in certain parts and you get water. You add a blue light to a red and come up with a third color. Or you add a fluorescent light to an incandescent light and your light gets cooler in temperature. We can call that a kind of chemical or organic interaction.

I also think complexity can be added, as in the case of the tuba and piccolo (poor little piccolo), by what I'll call relational interactivity. Literally, you're right, adding the tuba might drown out the piccolo but doesn't change the actual sound of it. [i tried to do a cursory search but wasn't coming up with much on whether or not the tuba's sound waves can literally change the sound waves of the piccolo, which would be more the chemical or organic reaction above. But, let's say it doesn't.] To me, the change in perception of the sound of the piccolo when the tuba is added can be huge. If the two are playing simultaneously, the notes of each TOGETHER will cause either a harmonic or more dissonant sound. Harmony will have been introduced which wasn't there with the piccolo alone, and there's your interaction that I don't think can really be ignored when talking about complexity in sound or music. I'm not sure I could safely say the sound of a piccolo doesn't change to my ear when it's heard along with a tuba vs. when it's heard along with a violin vs. when it's heard in isolation. On one level, the piccolo is making the "same" sound, but the relation, to me, becomes a third element and that adds complexity. And, whether the actual sound changes, I think my perception of the sound of the piccolo does not remain the same when heard against a tuba or violin.

If we're talking about lighting complexity, and we note that added light on a second subject affects the ambient light, or if we're talking about the difference between lighting a subject with a fairly simple setup against a black background vs. lighting a subject with a fairly simple setup against a more multi-dimensional background where the added background lighting can create degrees of depth and shadows on which the subject's shadows can now be cast, I just don't see how we wouldn't want to call that more complex lighting.

No, think about your music example. If the tuba player plays a really loud note. he might drown out the piccolo but he won’t change the sound of it. If you add light to a scene, all you do is change what’s being lit and you don’t change the existing light. That’s what i mean by interaction, I think.

Except if the light is a different color temperature. sorry, didn't mean to bomb the conversation:) just wanted to throw in an exception.

barry, welcome. no need to apologize.

i’ve been thinking about this and i’ve tried to put my thoughts in order. i think increasing the number of inputs (light sources, coloured lights, strobes, flashes, etc) doesn’t make lighting complex, it just changes things in an obviously simple, well understood way.

If we're talking about lighting complexity, and we note that added light on a second subject affects the ambient light, or if we're talking about the difference between lighting a subject with a fairly simple setup against a black background vs. lighting a subject with a fairly simple setup against a more multi-dimensional background where the added background lighting can create degrees of depth and shadows on which the subject's shadows can now be cast, I just don't see how we wouldn't want to call that more complex lighting.

if you shine two or more lights, coloured or otherwise, on a subject, and know how it responds to light, the maths is known.

if you shine two or more lights, coloured or otherwise, on a subject, and know how it responds to light, the maths is known.

I was talking about the difference between shining lights on a subject with no background (just black) and lighting both a subject and a multi-dimensional background (say a nighttime city street) simultaneously. The latter is a more complex task.

I don’t know what you mean by “the maths is known.” Are you now telling us that complex means something you don’t know in advance? If the math is known about how one light pointed at a subject is going to differ from five lights pointed at a subject at different angles and intensities (that’s a lot to magically know in advance), that would be a matter of experience, not complexity. The latter is more complex than the former.

it just changes things in an obviously simple, well understood way.

Then why do you think adding the word not to a sentence adds complexity? It, too, changes things in a simple, understood way.

More importantly, is this more than a semantical exercise? Is there something your viewpoint is meant to be saying about light and lighting. Are you suggesting that, for example, lighting design is an easier job than sound design and should be worth only half an Academy Award? Is working with light and shadow in a photo easier or automatically less complex than making compositional choices?