Lighting For Multiple Use

Stage Presentation, Video, Photo, Publicity, Promo, CV, Bio, History, Archives, Unforseen Future Needs

Over the years I've come to realize that the photographs and videos of individual dancers and of company performances will sooner or later be requested for any number of purposes. Often, especially when requesting photographs for publication or publicity, the request is for high-quality pictures which can be reproduced in large sizes.

When the photographs were shot in lousy light, they fall apart when they are too large. This is one of the reasons you see so many studio shots, done with full studio strobes and repeating a handful of movements until the shot is finally acheived. In performance, or in dress, you don't get to keep repeating a handful of movements until you get a good quality shot.

So, either you set up a separate studio or production session (on stage with strobes or special lighting in lieu of going to a photographer's studio). That takes time, usually planning well ahead, extra money for the photo shoot and when you are done, it still may not look as dynamic as action taken in the middle of dress or performance.

Live shooting is also much less predictable because you have to be ready to get the shot and it may only come once or twice within a piece. Performance shots mean a larger number of exposures compared to the number you will eventually pick. Studio work limits the number of shots because you know the pose or poses you want (for a poster, ad or program) and you just repeat the pose or poses until you have the shots.

I used to think that was just the way it was. I thought of myself as someone on the side who needed to get shots while basically remaining out of the way and not overly conspicuous. Whatever condition existed I would just have to work within it. I've shot in environments which were too dark for my camera/film combinations right from the beginning, since the summer of 1967. Sometimes I even think of myself as a specialist shooting in too-dark-for-the-camera rooms.

The photographer and the videographer are normally considered last in the food chain, if accomodated at all, and then seldom is the light designed with photography/videography in mind. That leaves you with these choices:
1 - Just accept the poor technical results
2 - Set up a separate session just to shoot for the record, for the archives, for publicity with totally different light
3 - Light from the start so that you can get technically high-quality photos as you perform

It is one thing if the only person wanting these pictures is the person shooting and if they have no real purpose for either the company or the individual dancers. In that case the shooter will indeed just have to put up with conditions and get what photographs they can. In practice, I've been asked for publicity-usable, CV-usable, news-usable, archive quality work, after the original shoot. At that point you can't go back and change conditions or shoot for certain persons and certain spots in the production.

Either you got it or you didn't. With good shooting conditions you have it. When the original shooting conditions were not good enough (usually very bad), either the pictures or video could not be used, especially to send out for resumes and promotional material or they just didn't exist at all because the performance was simply un-shootable. All because the lighting conditions were not set right, from the beginning.

Live theater is something you view in the moment, but the archive will sustain you into the future, or even offer opportunities for continued revenue. A prime example here is New York's Metropolitan Opera which not only broadcasts their live shows the week after but also streams the shows over the internet for fees (single use and subscription plans) and The Met sells the videos on disk.

So The Met not only gets revenue from ticket sales, The Met also gets future revenue from after sales of the recorded performances. If they don't have a decent recording, they don't have those downstream revenues. They put a lot of money into recording their performances and it doesn't just go to the archive and sit there. They use it.

One of the first photography lessons I learned was that everything had to be in place, and set correctly on the camera for the intended use, before I ever pressed the shutter button. That meant I had to have the exposure (film, f/stop, shutter speed), focus, framing and expected chemical development process, printing method and intended display environment in mind before pressing that button on the camera. Once the button was pressed the chemical development, the printing, the print size, the print density/contrast, printing paper and the light for the display space all followed. Each dependent on the previous step.

All of those considerations would be part of the calculation when determining the camera settings - - - before pressing the shutter button. If you don't get it right from the beginning everything which comes after is fixing. And it will look fixed, like a repair job. But if you get it correct from the start it looks like a poster, or an exhibit print.

Setting up light for a video production

On a movie set the DP (director of photography) has dictatorial powers over everyone. There is a good reason. The cameras are the entire production. Every audience will see through the cameras, not with their own eyes watching performers on stage. If something is wrong, it is wrong in the film or video forever. It doesn't disappear after a few night's run. So, everything has to be right for the camera. The DP is totally on the spot. If it isn't right the DP takes the hit.

The same thing on a video set where the intention is to go to DVD or to television broadcast. Everything must be lit for the camera. If, after spending that much money for the cameras, your DP is not insisting that the stage is lit for camera (i.e. lit for the sake of the money you are spending), then you need another DP. The DP is not being a prima-donna shooter. The DP is making sure your money isn't wasted - when all is said and too far done to redo.

  1. Setup a television and connect it to your video camera
  2. Start with the brightest set, evenly lit from wing to wing with all lights filtered for 5600k
  3. Set up a single exposure setting on the camera which will work for this bright set
  4. Manually set the white balance. Because you've already set the lights to 5600K this should be a small tweak
  5. Never change the exposure on the camera.
  6. Make sure all light changes are evaluated on a television monitor hooked to the camera.
  7. The darkest dark on the stage is whatever looks dark on the television. Not what looks dark to your eyes.
    • Your eyes are constantly adjusting and compensating for brightness changes.
    • So adjusting by eye, rather than TV monitor, will be misleading

Always light with the camera in mind. You may think you can get by now and the photographers will just have to put up with conditions or maybe you don't want to put up a fuss. But that isn't the deal. You will want results later and if you don't set lights now which are usable by cameras you won't be able to fix them later. They will be like those sand pantings which are destroyed when done. Gone. Poof! Followed by, "Oh, crappppp."

So let me say again: On a stage production the camera is usually the last consideration, if considered at all. Until later. That is when you run into trouble because you want to show other companies what you did - maybe you are selling them on your choreography to get them to produce your piece, or maybe you are looking for a job as a dancer with them, or maybe you want something for YouTube because you see that as free advertising.

Whatever you want pictures for now (or maybe you were not thinking of this), I can tell you from experience, you will want to go back later and use pictures and video you had from earlier. So, you should be in the habit of setting things up so that your future picture and video needs will be possible.

The most important single ingredient in getting successful, usable-in-the-future photos and videos is having enough light, and at the right color temperature.

  1. The Photos and Video you are able to record now will be needed in the future.
  2. If you don't light for camera: ...
    1. you will pay a lot later to do them in a studio or
    2. you will have to re-create them for additional money/time or
    3. you will miss opportunities for
      1. grant application material
      2. funding requests
      3. publicity
      4. news stories
      5. resumes as a dancer or teacher including tenure reviews
      6. promotional materials
      7. advertising
      8. re-create lighting for a new performance
      9. re-construct choreography for new performance or another company
      10. attract students (if you are a school) who will judge their selection partly on photos of you
      11. DVD sales - either for perfomers and families
      12. DVD sales for professional reproduction sales (where contracts allow for commercial sale)
      13. and just a lot more
  3. The lighting designer should also take these multiple uses into account
    1. patrons who don't see as well in the dark (usually older)
    2. funders - often those same older patrons (believe me when I say I've heard grumbling from the same folks)
    3. photographers and videographers covering your stage production
      So that they can meet list item #2 (see above)

 

Good Lighting - KCB

Lighting in the pictures below is by Kirk Bookman. Next time at KCB, look to see how he lights. When I see him there I am always reassured, knowing I will be able to shoot good video or stills. I know that I can set the camera for a daylight white balance (avoiding a lot of digital noise which otherwise crops up mostly in the blue channel), that the stage will be evenly lit avoiding hot spots, that specials won't blow out highlights and that the audience will not even notice that the stage lighting is also good for camera.

For the shots below I was able to shoot at
ISO-800,
shutter speeds of 1/320th second,
white balance for daylight (5600k)

  • The ISO of 800 rather than my usual 1600 means a longer tonal scale
  • The high shutter speed reduces motion blur and sharpens detail
  • The use of a daylight (5600k) white balance means little or no digital noise
  • Overall this means the ability to reproduce in large print sizes
  • Makes it easier to have material from this shoot for later publicity, etc.

It is important to remember that low light is not moody it is just low.
If you really want moody use contrast - a lot of light next to lower light
Check out the old noir films from the 30's and 40's.
The film in those cameras needed tons of light, but the pictures have tons of mood.
The noir films get their mood from contrast in light, not low light.
Low light is not just harder to see, humans loose color sense as it gets darker
At its worst, low light can look like a dim garage at the end of a gray day.
Cameras have a worse time in low light than do humans:
Cameras in low light have to boost output which causes digital noise (blotchy "grain")
Or cameras can't get enough light for a shutter speed which will stop motion.

For those who remember CRT televisions with the gray tube:
When the television was off it had a light to medium gray surface and was illuminated only by light in the room. When the television was on it seemed to have white to black and tones in between. That was our perception.

The television tube didn't turn black anywhere on its surface. Parts of the TV tube just got very much brighter. When our eyes saw the relative difference in brightness, the gray appeared to us as black. The brighter the bright spots, the darker the un-illuminated areas - by comparison.

Likewise, you can get just as much or more black onstage with a lot of light as you can with little light. It is the contrast between lit and un-lit areas which forms the appearance of white and black, not the absolute amount of light (as measured in lumens).

Were you to use a meter to measure the "black" area of the screen with a picture showing and then measure the same area with the picture off, the lumens would be the same. Nothing changes at the low end. Changing the top end creates the range of tones including the black appearance of the gray area.

Starting with a lot of light gives you a wide range of tonal scales you can use.
Limited light limits your working range (see below).

Take a good look. Kirk's lighting (above) is copious, even across the stage, without hot spots or drop offs, doesn't bring attention to itself, yet it does illuminate the production. Very pretty lighting.

Frankly, I bellyache about lighting. Over the years it seems to me that stage light has gotten progessively worse, a small amount at a time, just sort of drifting downward, darker by a quarter-stop, or a half-stop a year. I kept wondering whether it was just me but then I've been shooting with more and more capable equipment (able to shoot in darker climes) and more expensive equipment just to keep up. However, I haven't been sure whether it was just my faulty recollection. This time I have at least one visual comparison.

Bad to Miserable Lighting for Camera

To be fair, some of the worst lighting has given me some of my best shots. Below are a few of those shots. The shooting was miserable because I have to always be aware not only of what is happening in the dance but also when they are in a location where I can use the light. For as much as I am talking about the need for good light, what a photographer does is to find what light there may be in front of your face.

If, as a photographer, I just want some picture from anywhere in the production this doesn't really matter. Newspapers may run one shot only. But if this is your production and you want pictures from all of it or from somewhere which is your favorite part or something on which you really wanted good shots, it may not be available if the pictures couldn't be taken or if when taken they were not viewable.

At the 30th Anniversary of El Grupo Folklorico Atotonilco
Lighting comes from early-version LED lights on poles at the front corners of the platform stage. That lead to extreme hot spots as any performer approaced the downstage corners (note the blown highlights in the dress and on the girl just behind). Not to mention the wierd spectrum from this generation of LED stage lights. They really mess up the way the filters in a digital camera records color.
What it can look like
Cinco de Mayo 2008 at Guadalupe Center - actual daylight, unusual for me. But the colors are rich, the detail is sharp and most of the shots are usable even if I don't select them all. I can easily move to different spots and expect good exposure conditions. This is a good shot for publicity, posters, promotional material, although not planned for that purpose.
 
 
Olé Flamenco

Olé Flamenco at KC Fringe 2007 - The lighting was nothing but a few badly placed parabolics, creating mostly hotspot lighting. I had to shoot as people moved into the hot spots. The lighting works out as dramatic, though not by intention.
 
Downtown nightclub


Dave Stephens at McFadden's in the Power and Light District, KCMO - July 2009 - The only light comes from a couple of very narrow beam programmed spots directly above. Anything outside the light cones was just way too dark to register. In addition, the light was not constant for any length of time. It kept changing more or less randomly. (No lighting person, just lights the club bought).

Some neat looking pictures, but tough to shoot anyway. In this case you just have to position yourself for the fiew lights and wait until people move into them and they are all on at the same time

 

 

 

Same piece, Two Productions

"Autumn" - Wylliams/Henry Danse Theatre - Choreography: Mary Margaret Gianone-Talmi, Music George Winston

Jennifer Black, ..?., Gerard Alexander
DeeAnna Hiett and Gavin Stewart, Carol Monnerat and Chris Barksdale

At least one dancer's legs are not blurred (Joe Pilgram's, left) - while in the 2009 shots the percentages are far less.
Christina Mowrey, Kaely Tieri
Above - "Autumn" - 14, 15 May 2004
6mp Nikon D70, 1/30 sec, f/4.5, ISO-1600		 Above "Autumn" - 10, 11, 12 September 2009
12mp Nikon D5000 1/15th sec, f/3.5, ISO-3200
   

The exposure specs from the EXIF information in the photo file indicate that the May 2004 concert had about 4-times (my estimate) the amount of light on stage as the September 2009 performance. From the photos the lighting is clearly different, without the well-lit pattern on the scrim. That left the 2009 show looking a bit stark by comparison to the lush look of the 2004 production. But beyond that, what were the shooting conditions for ISO (sensitivity), shutter speed, f/stop? Exasperating.

In the 2004 show, with a "lesser" 6-megapixel camera I was able to get nice, clear, detailed shots even at the shutter speed of 1/30th second - a speed better suited to taking pictures of the family, standing very firmly still. Having to use a shutter speed of a mere 1/30th of a second says the light really needs to be at least one to two stops brighter (2-times to 4-times the amount of light).

In the 2009 show, I had to drop to a really unusable shutter speed of 1/15th second and got those "butterfly" extremety blurs on darn near everything. Only some of the most static shots at higher shutter speeds had detail which looked better but usually at the cost of visibility (too dark) meaning loss of shadow detail.

And although the shutter speed for 2009 was half the shutter speed used in 2004 (2-times the light), the ISO setting of 3200 is twice the 1600 value used in 2004 (another 2-times the light - leading to my estimate of 4-times the light in the 2004 show).

If I add together how much darker this show's light level was with what I would have liked from the 2004 show this show really needed some 3 to 4 stops more light (8-times to 16-times the light levels). An f-stop is rated in powers of two. So one stop is 21=2-times. Two stops is 22=4-times. Three stops is 23=8-times. Four stops is 24=16-times.

Although the color rendition looks similar between the two sets of concerts, it comes at the expense of mid to low-level detail. That is also partly because at an ISO of 3200 the camera's own noise reduction software caused loss of small detail, even with a sensor (12 megapixels) which had twice the number of pixels as in 2004 (6 megapixels). In addition the sensor for the D70 is a CCD which leads to a blotchier blue-channel when pushed at a higher ISO rating than the CMOS for the D5000 in 2009, which tends to leave a cleaner image under the same boost.

One more item. While it is not obvious from the web-size pictures shown here, the 13x19-inch prints from the 6-megapixel Nikon D70 used in 2004 blow away any 13x19-inch prints from the 12.1-megapixel Nikon D5000 used in 2009. Same photographer (me) with more five more years experience shooting dance on stage with a camera with twice the resolution, twice the sensitivity and a cleaner CMOS chip - and the old stuff just looks better than the new stuff. That shouldn't be and the reason is the light. This time, just not enough.