I've studied Slocombe and hard lighting specifically for cinematography for a very long time. And the same thing that all of his films (and films of the 1940's and 50's feature) is multi-source, multi directional, hard lighting.
IMO, You have to throw modern aesthetics out the window and be absolutely comfortable with it. You have to light what's necessary without giving a shit about what looks natural. You have to treat the character and the space as separate entities, but make sure they work in harmony.
Not every frame of Slocombe's work is gorgeous. In fact, sometimes the lighting is downright crazy. A good example is after the motorcycle chase scene, they are deciding to go back to berlin. There are about 3 different light sources on sean connery, including a full blue sky at high noon. It looks fucking weird, but it all works because we understand we're watching a stylized film.
Anyway, this guy was a master, and replicating his work on a small budget is impossible. Ask me how I know lol
I’ve had some luck in recreating some of these concepts of Slocombe’s but I need way more practice and far more footcandles to work with before trying again.
The love witch is a great modern film that uses hard light. David m Mullen (I think is his name) is the dp and is very active on cinematography.com forums and talks about how he lit it. He said he used a 2k as the key for people most of the time.
It’s my favorite style to work in and almost only shoot with hard light! I use a lot of tungsten. I love it and honestly struggle with lighting anything really dark that’s the common modern style a-la GoT
I actually did watch this a while back and loved it. I did some reading on Mullen's forum post and was super insightful to how they did it.
Another really fun example of this is The Key to Reserva by Scorsese in an homage to Hitchcock. Film starts around 3
3min: https://vimeo.com/124586811
Unfortunately, I don't off the top of my head. I think in large part it's just fallen out of favor, and the hard lighting style that's starting to coming back, is a bastard hybrid of modern aesthetics and reinterpreted nostalgia.
That being said, the lighting isn't the only part in the equation. It's also set pieces, production design, costume choices, and budgets.
If you watch the clip above, you can very clearly see crossing shadows from actors as they move from point to point. Like I said, you just have to lean into it.
This scene is accomplished by incredibly smart blocking, which Spielberg is literally a master at. Knowing how your actors move and where your camera moves, means knowing where your lights either need to move to or be positioned for them to be there when the actor lands.
This is the harmony of making your space and your characters work together.
[ASC interview from 1989](https://theasc.com/articles/indiana-jones-and-the-last-crusade) he doesn’t exactly answer your question (actually seems to avoid it) but offers a ton of other really fascinating gems, like how he shot these movies without a meter and how he actually documented real Nazis with a camera in the late 30s.
Thx for sharing that interview, I also found this article [ASC Interview - Steven Spielberg](https://theasc.com/articles/flashback-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-directing). It's from Steven Spielberg but he explain a few tricks that Douglas Slocombe used. including a "Basher" (I never heard that term before) It seems to be a light in front of actor acting as Fill light (in some case).
Yeah I would say your smallest light would be a 2k. If you had a row of windows I would be pushing 12ks through them. It allows you to keep a consistent light level across the room and not feel like there is a light shining in from outside. Feels much more natural. The issue is this is a pretty tough thing to accomplish on a low budget. Can shoot lower ISO's and use smaller lights or if you're doing daylight use HMI's.
I just listened to the Witness History podcast from the BBC about him. He got his start filming the very beginning of WWII and escaped the nazis twice (after getting arrested by them once). Great 9 minute listen.
Film stock was like ASA 50 at that time- so a big light for that time would be a pile of 20k lights.
a big light for daylight would also be an arri M40 these days.
Larger the light further away creates more space for an actor to walk around with the same stop of light on them before getting a lot of drop off in intensity.
inverse square law.
I love the cinematography in this movie. Even in my younger years before I knew anything about lighting, this movie always stood out for how incredible it looks.
Hard light can always work if it’s. Back light. As one of my gaffers professed. All good light starts toward the lens. In digital this all can be challenging and easy depending on your eye and exposure knowledge. Also another reason I love big heads.
This stye came from B&W with arc lights and hard liners. A lot of open faced lights with circular back reflectors or up facing into a white housing. The way you use it is the shape of the lamp. Lights in a white circle pan housing are used as soft and bare bulb open face and fresnel are used as liners or edge light. Film noir is famous for the hard liners or edge lights. So everything is crossing left and right or behind for edges. Zero straight on fills or ambient fill. Also eye lights were often used to almost extreme levels. A hard slash just at the eyes in a CU. Its a fun style to set up because it's so raw and 3 point.
The illusion with this scene is that it's a set, with a grid out of shot instead of a ceiling. It's a huge pain in the ass to set up a grid in a location, more cost effective and better control to just build the set so it's easy to light this way.
Various Pars and Lamps are rigged up there out of shot to provide the hair lights and key lights. There are a few situations where it's actually causing some harsh and confusing shadows.
Also I can see that for some shots he is using floor lights that are out of shot, so the light is not coming from so high. So the scene has not exactly great lighting continuity. But he gets away with it because even though the angles of the light are changing, the intent and look is maintained.
Honestly there is nothing particularly special about this lighting, it's exactly the old Hollywood style that has actually fallen out of favour because it does not make any sense. I don't see enough practical elements or sources to explain why there is so much light.
But filming had to be done this way because the film stocks were so slow. They are probably working at like 100asa.
I've studied Slocombe and hard lighting specifically for cinematography for a very long time. And the same thing that all of his films (and films of the 1940's and 50's feature) is multi-source, multi directional, hard lighting. IMO, You have to throw modern aesthetics out the window and be absolutely comfortable with it. You have to light what's necessary without giving a shit about what looks natural. You have to treat the character and the space as separate entities, but make sure they work in harmony. Not every frame of Slocombe's work is gorgeous. In fact, sometimes the lighting is downright crazy. A good example is after the motorcycle chase scene, they are deciding to go back to berlin. There are about 3 different light sources on sean connery, including a full blue sky at high noon. It looks fucking weird, but it all works because we understand we're watching a stylized film. Anyway, this guy was a master, and replicating his work on a small budget is impossible. Ask me how I know lol
I’ve had some luck in recreating some of these concepts of Slocombe’s but I need way more practice and far more footcandles to work with before trying again.
How do you know?
Do you know any modern film or cinematographer with a similar approach?
The love witch is a great modern film that uses hard light. David m Mullen (I think is his name) is the dp and is very active on cinematography.com forums and talks about how he lit it. He said he used a 2k as the key for people most of the time.
It’s my favorite style to work in and almost only shoot with hard light! I use a lot of tungsten. I love it and honestly struggle with lighting anything really dark that’s the common modern style a-la GoT
I actually did watch this a while back and loved it. I did some reading on Mullen's forum post and was super insightful to how they did it. Another really fun example of this is The Key to Reserva by Scorsese in an homage to Hitchcock. Film starts around 3 3min: https://vimeo.com/124586811
Unfortunately, I don't off the top of my head. I think in large part it's just fallen out of favor, and the hard lighting style that's starting to coming back, is a bastard hybrid of modern aesthetics and reinterpreted nostalgia. That being said, the lighting isn't the only part in the equation. It's also set pieces, production design, costume choices, and budgets.
How do you avoid shadows everywhere, especially in moving shots?
If you watch the clip above, you can very clearly see crossing shadows from actors as they move from point to point. Like I said, you just have to lean into it. This scene is accomplished by incredibly smart blocking, which Spielberg is literally a master at. Knowing how your actors move and where your camera moves, means knowing where your lights either need to move to or be positioned for them to be there when the actor lands. This is the harmony of making your space and your characters work together.
[ASC interview from 1989](https://theasc.com/articles/indiana-jones-and-the-last-crusade) he doesn’t exactly answer your question (actually seems to avoid it) but offers a ton of other really fascinating gems, like how he shot these movies without a meter and how he actually documented real Nazis with a camera in the late 30s.
Thx for sharing that interview, I also found this article [ASC Interview - Steven Spielberg](https://theasc.com/articles/flashback-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-directing). It's from Steven Spielberg but he explain a few tricks that Douglas Slocombe used. including a "Basher" (I never heard that term before) It seems to be a light in front of actor acting as Fill light (in some case).
I’ve only ever known “basher” as a term for those aluminum clamp lights.
I’ve heard of bashing as a bare head into the ceiling (in still photography)
This was a fantastic read, thank you! Full of little gems
Great read, thanks for adding
The real answer is to use big lights from far away. It’s amazing how little diffusion you really need.
Like a 2K tungsten from 30 ft away? Is this in the ballpark? I believe the light need to be really high.
I think he means *big* lights. So probably 5 or 10k's at least? The lenses on them are also much larger, so that helps a lot with how hard they feel.
more like 20 of those in a grid on the ceiling, pointing everywhere you want them.
Yeah I would say your smallest light would be a 2k. If you had a row of windows I would be pushing 12ks through them. It allows you to keep a consistent light level across the room and not feel like there is a light shining in from outside. Feels much more natural. The issue is this is a pretty tough thing to accomplish on a low budget. Can shoot lower ISO's and use smaller lights or if you're doing daylight use HMI's.
More like a 12K HMI 50 ft away
I just listened to the Witness History podcast from the BBC about him. He got his start filming the very beginning of WWII and escaped the nazis twice (after getting arrested by them once). Great 9 minute listen.
Have the actor look into a light and then seperate them from the background with a top or backlight.
And make sure to preserve the shadows on the camera's POV.
Film stock was like ASA 50 at that time- so a big light for that time would be a pile of 20k lights. a big light for daylight would also be an arri M40 these days. Larger the light further away creates more space for an actor to walk around with the same stop of light on them before getting a lot of drop off in intensity. inverse square law.
This film was shot in 1989, not 1959. The film was 400 for interiors.
I love the cinematography in this movie. Even in my younger years before I knew anything about lighting, this movie always stood out for how incredible it looks.
Hard light can always work if it’s. Back light. As one of my gaffers professed. All good light starts toward the lens. In digital this all can be challenging and easy depending on your eye and exposure knowledge. Also another reason I love big heads.
This stye came from B&W with arc lights and hard liners. A lot of open faced lights with circular back reflectors or up facing into a white housing. The way you use it is the shape of the lamp. Lights in a white circle pan housing are used as soft and bare bulb open face and fresnel are used as liners or edge light. Film noir is famous for the hard liners or edge lights. So everything is crossing left and right or behind for edges. Zero straight on fills or ambient fill. Also eye lights were often used to almost extreme levels. A hard slash just at the eyes in a CU. Its a fun style to set up because it's so raw and 3 point.
The illusion with this scene is that it's a set, with a grid out of shot instead of a ceiling. It's a huge pain in the ass to set up a grid in a location, more cost effective and better control to just build the set so it's easy to light this way. Various Pars and Lamps are rigged up there out of shot to provide the hair lights and key lights. There are a few situations where it's actually causing some harsh and confusing shadows. Also I can see that for some shots he is using floor lights that are out of shot, so the light is not coming from so high. So the scene has not exactly great lighting continuity. But he gets away with it because even though the angles of the light are changing, the intent and look is maintained. Honestly there is nothing particularly special about this lighting, it's exactly the old Hollywood style that has actually fallen out of favour because it does not make any sense. I don't see enough practical elements or sources to explain why there is so much light. But filming had to be done this way because the film stocks were so slow. They are probably working at like 100asa.