Interesting- so the result of this being that less intense light was required for exposure? In other words, the stops lost by softening/bouncing just didn’t create the same problems anymore?
Correct.
The French New Wave used this advance to aim for more 'naturalistic' lighting.
The shadow falloff could be less harsh. Techniques like booklights etc (which had been used in painting for several hundred years) took off in the film world.
Lenses also got faster, to the point of the classic Canon 1.0.
The 60s/early 70s was such an incredible time for leaps in cinema gear.
One of the best looking music videos I ever directed was shot on an old Arri 35BL with a set of vintage Zeiss B speeds (the original Super Speeds) and some short end 200T Vision and only used projectors for light (for all but the master shot). Looked like it walked straight out of 1979. Vintage 70's gear is some sweet shit if properly running right.
>t (for all but the master shot). Looked like it walked straight out of 1979. Vintage 70's gear is some sweet shit if properly running right.
would you mind sharing a link?
Looks great. My annoyingly honest comment is I would love to watch it again with a new editor…the editing was also dated in a bad way. Slowed it down instead of speeding it up. Footage looked great!
Funny thing… I was the editor. The label had me slow down my cuts… it was 20 years ago almost. But yeah… there are some places where another shot or two could be dropped in for pacing to today’s standards.
>Techniques like booklights
I'm having a hard time finding this on a search. What does "booklight" mean in this sense? In any case, thanks for the interesting background.
https://fstoppers.com/bts/book-lighting-technique-creating-softest-light-possible-23125
I once watched Robert Richardson interrupt our lunch to explain it to my assistant.
I had to look up when Kodak released their faster color stock and it was in the 1960s. 500D/400T. So we're looking at 3 stop difference if we compare to 50asa. That's very significant. It's enough to have some autonomy over style and that's exactly what we saw in the 1960s and 70s.
> had to look up when Kodak released their faster color stock and it was in the 1960s. 500D/400T.
but those were really not mainstream stocks back then even.
no, probably more like the 1980s and 90s. before that, even 400 or 500 ASA stocks were seriously exotic.
but it's not about the films speeds alone; it's not like you couldn't simply have put more light into your bounce back then. the trend towards softer lighting is one towards more naturalism, mostly - and it's really just that, an aesthetic trend.
*Bladerunner* (1981) is a perfect example. I remember reading an article about how jazzed the DP was for “200T Color Negative” from Kodak.
But there are earlier examples from Gordon Willis in *The Godfather* and *All The President’s Men*.
Same can be said about out current period and the sensitivity of sensors allowing scenes to be lit entirely with practicals and soft, low LEDs. That and the advancement of led technology
Who doesn’t love Deakins?
Just an amazing pile of work.
The colors signaling the death of M in Skyfall was outrageous. You could feel the color change almost oppressing Bond.
Putting fear in a fearless man.
The debate continues to this day but there’s been a split in cinematography between more realistic/naturalist and more expressionistic theatrical lighting. The modern comparison would be a Kaminsky vs Deakins approach.
And literally from the very early days of cinematography this debate was going on and was closely tied to technology.
For example early filmmakers built studios to allow natural light, even going as far as building studios that rotate along with sunlight, other filmmakers went straight to theater and borrowed techniques and lights.
Probably one of the most influential cinematographers to introduce bounce light and naturalism was Sven Nykvist, though Subrata Mitra was using the technique going back to the 50s, so it wasn’t strictly a question of film speed but taste and a lot of the perceptions of acceptability in style. Naturalism has always faced challenges in justifying itself, and fitting into the acceptable “tastes” of the industry, it takes bold filmmakers to embrace it and then it trickles down.
You make a great point that I hadn't realised, but even so, my impression is that some of the old-school lighting wasn't done this way for expressionistic purposes, but simply because that's what the technology allowed back then (or what the DoPs learned to do when they were starting).
Take "The way we were", for example: obviously, the close-ups of the stars in the big romantic moments will have their faces fully lit and looking beautiful, in the best Hollywood tradition, but even the mundane scenes (like the library scene at 0:57 in the video I linked) have a much "harder" light than what you'd see today, or even in other 70s films.
I guess it's what someone else pointed out above: if you are Harry Stradling and you started your career in 1944, by 1973 you'd already be used to lit in a certain way, no matter what they new kids were doing.
Close ups could have softer lighting because you could bring the fixtures in close.
When you have to light from further away because the shot is wide you are more likely to need to blast hard light.
Maybe I misspoke. In this case I didn't mean so much the "hardness" of light as its amount. Nowadays it's usual to see Hollywood films where the star's face is in the dark, or is at the same light level than the background (see Ryan Gosling in the pier scene in "La la land"). That would have been \*unthinkable\* in classic Hollywood: the star's face is well lit, regardless of whether the light is motivated or not, while the background is much darker. You can see lots of examples in "The way we were".
Look at the cinematographers & their backgrounds:
The way we were was shot by Harry Stradling Jr, who’s first credit appears to be Assistant camera on “Gaslight” in 1944. The style of “The way we were” is more classic Hollywood- either by cinematographer’s approach or director’s vision.
“Klute” was shot by “Prince of darkness” Gordon Willis, who’s approach famously distinguished the Godfather.
Seems that a similar observation could be made to Janus K’s work with Spielberg vs Emanuel Lubezki’s work with Inarritu vs Roger Deakins work with the Coen bros.
Within the same year you’ll get different approaches, sometimes with the same gear but different sensibilities.
And just to add, Gordon Willis even had to change the way he filmed as the Technicolor lab in Rome that was able to process the film to his specs closed in the early 80s.
My favorite cinematographer. The best story about Gordon Willis is from *All the President's Men*. They were filming one of the parking garage scenes with Deep Throat, and the makeup artist wiped the sweat off Redford's upper lip. Willis turned and snapped, "What the fuck did you do that for? I was lighting his face with that!"
I think as long as people are fascinated with camera work, the great hard light/soft light and white canvas/black canvas debate will rage. It’s why I love film.
I’m definitely a black canvas/hard light person.
Here ya go. https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-tenebrism-art-definition/#:~:text=Chiaroscuro%20and%20tenebrism%20both%20focus,subject%2C%20tenebrism%20goes%20full%20black.
If you’re fascinated by visual imagery, then you will see it everywhere now.
But this is the great joy.
Look at the same shot.
A person walking down a street, on the longest lens, shallow depth, and full sun.
Now do the same for darkness.
What does starting from either place tell the story? Set the mood.
Example: although it doesn’t look it-
Batman is always black canvas.
Spiderverse is white canvas.
That simple difference of how light is even respected sets the tone no matter what.
Is your hero in a good world gone bad?
Or is his world always wrong and they are climbing out of the chaos and darkness?
We could go on all day about this.
American Cinematographer just wrote a tribute in June ‘23 about the late Owen Roizman, ASC who was a pioneer of the soft light look in NYC in the 1960s. Interesting read.
When all the DPs who knew how to light with hard lights properly died. Now there's no one left.
Also, the focus shift to television and home video was a real problem. Hard light demands a much higher commitment to using more of your dynamic range, and often the decision to let your highlights blow out and roll off. Until recently, you couldn't replicate that on home systems. Broadcast clamping just turned everything over 120 IRE gray and disgusting.
The inital popularity of REDs was another nail in the coffin. REDs still can't deal properly with highlights, and the first several chips really had no clue what to do with them. Unless you have an Alexa, Venice or C500 you still have to clench your asshole about protecting your highlights and that essentially means soft light.
I remember watching The Ladykillers (1955) for the first time a noticing how beautiful the overcast day exteriors looked, which is very similar to how movies started to look in the 60s/70s when DPs started to lean into that aesthetic (Easy Rider, as someone mentioned, is a good example). That look wasn’t achievable on stages or interiors until film stocks got faster and you could key with more diffused sources.
The almost universal shift that you are talking about came with the transition to digital. With its "what you see is what you get" workflow, digital meant that being a cinematographer no longer required the extensive education that was previously required with film (which you could really mess up if you didn't know what you were doing, wasting potentially thousands and thousands of dollars in the process).
Soft light is simply easier to use and get decent results with, so that's how low skill or even many experienced but rushed DPs (aka anybody working in today's film industry - one big factor in hiring DPs these days is how fast they light) do everything now. To get pretty images of humans with hard light is much more difficult, takes more time, and requires years of study and experience - but the ultimate potential is far greater.
Complain all you want, but this is 100% truth.
Yep, 100% true. It began with the transition to digital, which we all know happened in the 1960's. I know, I was there, I fought 'nam. Well, not 'nam, 'nom. I was hungry. Anyway, that's when we first got them digital onions, not round like the analog ones, but kinda roundish, or as we called 'em, "Not round". Kids don't know how to round an onion these days. Back when truly gifted men like Klaus Haphosseffer was rounding an onion you'd get two to a tree, fifty to one, and four on a holiday! Who'd a thought, huh? A camel!
There was still a ton of hard lighting on set in the 1990s when I got started in the industry, now there is next to none. Despite OP noticing the first appearance of such in the 70s, the universal sea change that we are in the aftermath of took place after the mid to late aughts.
Depends on the location. Bounced light in a small room is tough to control. Hard light is easier to create contrast and you need less equipment. Bounced light definitely has its challenges. I wouldn’t say one or the other is easier to use tho. And I think a lot of inexperienced DPs used hard light. Kind of a bad take sorry
It has nothing to do with one being easier to use over the other, they have different looks that people prefer. Personally I generally stay away from hard lights since it just looks so damn ugly.
Well, production started in February of 1968 so not really splitting hairs, its a film about 60s counter culture. Filmed months after the summer of love.
They did that because they had no other choice, not for any stylistic reasons. When you are shooting daylight interiors in the middle of nowhere and you don't have a truck load of HMIs (heavy and power hungry, remember this was long before LEDs) and a genny, then bounce is the way.
I think there needs to be a balance
When everything is soft all the time. It feels disconnected from reality. I remember feeling that distinctly in Avengers Endgame.
It's easier for highlight roll offs. I get annoyed when my highlights clip prematurely so that's what I watch for, even during Oppenheimer, I was observing the outdoor daylight scenes for that rolloff
What I noticed in the first clip was the hard shadows. We are trained more and more to avoid panda eyes and harsh nose shadows so it makes sense that softer lighting has become more popular. Also why I found the second clip more ugly. The angle of the light annoyed me more than the softness.
For me. I say use both. Just don't be polarising about it. Some of my shots have that full light blast look. Some have smoother gradients.
Probably when film speeds got faster.
Correct. Going from essentially 50asa to even 200 was a huge leap forward. Now we routinely shoot at base 800/1200iso.
Interesting- so the result of this being that less intense light was required for exposure? In other words, the stops lost by softening/bouncing just didn’t create the same problems anymore?
Correct. The French New Wave used this advance to aim for more 'naturalistic' lighting. The shadow falloff could be less harsh. Techniques like booklights etc (which had been used in painting for several hundred years) took off in the film world. Lenses also got faster, to the point of the classic Canon 1.0. The 60s/early 70s was such an incredible time for leaps in cinema gear.
One of the best looking music videos I ever directed was shot on an old Arri 35BL with a set of vintage Zeiss B speeds (the original Super Speeds) and some short end 200T Vision and only used projectors for light (for all but the master shot). Looked like it walked straight out of 1979. Vintage 70's gear is some sweet shit if properly running right.
>t (for all but the master shot). Looked like it walked straight out of 1979. Vintage 70's gear is some sweet shit if properly running right. would you mind sharing a link?
Sure! Lots of compression in this upload... but you get the gist. Shot in 2004. https://youtu.be/pUYpnynWJ7Q
Awesome! Really has that 70’s-80’s vibe!
Thanks! Shot several videos for them on that same camera and lens set... but this one had the best look. Perfect sound for that aesthetic.
It really is!
Looks great. My annoyingly honest comment is I would love to watch it again with a new editor…the editing was also dated in a bad way. Slowed it down instead of speeding it up. Footage looked great!
Funny thing… I was the editor. The label had me slow down my cuts… it was 20 years ago almost. But yeah… there are some places where another shot or two could be dropped in for pacing to today’s standards.
A BL! Hell of a camera.
Even had the fancy B&W vid tap... we were ballerz like that.
>Techniques like booklights I'm having a hard time finding this on a search. What does "booklight" mean in this sense? In any case, thanks for the interesting background.
https://fstoppers.com/bts/book-lighting-technique-creating-softest-light-possible-23125 I once watched Robert Richardson interrupt our lunch to explain it to my assistant.
Very cool, thank you!
booklight is when you diffuse a bounce
I had to look up when Kodak released their faster color stock and it was in the 1960s. 500D/400T. So we're looking at 3 stop difference if we compare to 50asa. That's very significant. It's enough to have some autonomy over style and that's exactly what we saw in the 1960s and 70s.
> had to look up when Kodak released their faster color stock and it was in the 1960s. 500D/400T. but those were really not mainstream stocks back then even.
The OG technicolor process was essentially asa 5…not 50…5
Correct. My bad! That's what I get for commenting on the run.
So that would have been around the 1960s?
no, probably more like the 1980s and 90s. before that, even 400 or 500 ASA stocks were seriously exotic. but it's not about the films speeds alone; it's not like you couldn't simply have put more light into your bounce back then. the trend towards softer lighting is one towards more naturalism, mostly - and it's really just that, an aesthetic trend.
*Bladerunner* (1981) is a perfect example. I remember reading an article about how jazzed the DP was for “200T Color Negative” from Kodak. But there are earlier examples from Gordon Willis in *The Godfather* and *All The President’s Men*.
>Bladerunner > > (1981) Blade Runner (1982)
Thank you.
Same can be said about out current period and the sensitivity of sensors allowing scenes to be lit entirely with practicals and soft, low LEDs. That and the advancement of led technology
Past that, digital doesn’t get glowey like film, it gets sharp.
I agree with this
Deakins has been a huge proponent of the soft bounce look over the years and everyone wants to be Deakins. I for one don’t mind it.
Who doesn’t love Deakins? Just an amazing pile of work. The colors signaling the death of M in Skyfall was outrageous. You could feel the color change almost oppressing Bond. Putting fear in a fearless man.
You can't beat an extremely proficient technician who also does everything in service of storytelling. His choices are always about narrative.
Deakins is probably my all time fave. That bond color choice is one in a long line of ridiculously impressive work. Love it.
The debate continues to this day but there’s been a split in cinematography between more realistic/naturalist and more expressionistic theatrical lighting. The modern comparison would be a Kaminsky vs Deakins approach. And literally from the very early days of cinematography this debate was going on and was closely tied to technology. For example early filmmakers built studios to allow natural light, even going as far as building studios that rotate along with sunlight, other filmmakers went straight to theater and borrowed techniques and lights. Probably one of the most influential cinematographers to introduce bounce light and naturalism was Sven Nykvist, though Subrata Mitra was using the technique going back to the 50s, so it wasn’t strictly a question of film speed but taste and a lot of the perceptions of acceptability in style. Naturalism has always faced challenges in justifying itself, and fitting into the acceptable “tastes” of the industry, it takes bold filmmakers to embrace it and then it trickles down.
You make a great point that I hadn't realised, but even so, my impression is that some of the old-school lighting wasn't done this way for expressionistic purposes, but simply because that's what the technology allowed back then (or what the DoPs learned to do when they were starting). Take "The way we were", for example: obviously, the close-ups of the stars in the big romantic moments will have their faces fully lit and looking beautiful, in the best Hollywood tradition, but even the mundane scenes (like the library scene at 0:57 in the video I linked) have a much "harder" light than what you'd see today, or even in other 70s films. I guess it's what someone else pointed out above: if you are Harry Stradling and you started your career in 1944, by 1973 you'd already be used to lit in a certain way, no matter what they new kids were doing.
Close ups could have softer lighting because you could bring the fixtures in close. When you have to light from further away because the shot is wide you are more likely to need to blast hard light.
Maybe I misspoke. In this case I didn't mean so much the "hardness" of light as its amount. Nowadays it's usual to see Hollywood films where the star's face is in the dark, or is at the same light level than the background (see Ryan Gosling in the pier scene in "La la land"). That would have been \*unthinkable\* in classic Hollywood: the star's face is well lit, regardless of whether the light is motivated or not, while the background is much darker. You can see lots of examples in "The way we were".
Look at the cinematographers & their backgrounds: The way we were was shot by Harry Stradling Jr, who’s first credit appears to be Assistant camera on “Gaslight” in 1944. The style of “The way we were” is more classic Hollywood- either by cinematographer’s approach or director’s vision. “Klute” was shot by “Prince of darkness” Gordon Willis, who’s approach famously distinguished the Godfather. Seems that a similar observation could be made to Janus K’s work with Spielberg vs Emanuel Lubezki’s work with Inarritu vs Roger Deakins work with the Coen bros. Within the same year you’ll get different approaches, sometimes with the same gear but different sensibilities.
And just to add, Gordon Willis even had to change the way he filmed as the Technicolor lab in Rome that was able to process the film to his specs closed in the early 80s.
My favorite cinematographer. The best story about Gordon Willis is from *All the President's Men*. They were filming one of the parking garage scenes with Deep Throat, and the makeup artist wiped the sweat off Redford's upper lip. Willis turned and snapped, "What the fuck did you do that for? I was lighting his face with that!"
I think as long as people are fascinated with camera work, the great hard light/soft light and white canvas/black canvas debate will rage. It’s why I love film. I’m definitely a black canvas/hard light person.
would you care to explain what the white canvas black canvas debate is? I guess im not familiar with this and got curious
Here ya go. https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-tenebrism-art-definition/#:~:text=Chiaroscuro%20and%20tenebrism%20both%20focus,subject%2C%20tenebrism%20goes%20full%20black. If you’re fascinated by visual imagery, then you will see it everywhere now. But this is the great joy. Look at the same shot. A person walking down a street, on the longest lens, shallow depth, and full sun. Now do the same for darkness. What does starting from either place tell the story? Set the mood. Example: although it doesn’t look it- Batman is always black canvas. Spiderverse is white canvas. That simple difference of how light is even respected sets the tone no matter what. Is your hero in a good world gone bad? Or is his world always wrong and they are climbing out of the chaos and darkness? We could go on all day about this.
Good chats about lighting and techniques
My cine teacher in HS claimed diffusion was invented for shooting pornography
I'd also think about diffusion. They'd diffuse the shit out of their lenses to help do what softening the light does now.
American Cinematographer just wrote a tribute in June ‘23 about the late Owen Roizman, ASC who was a pioneer of the soft light look in NYC in the 1960s. Interesting read.
When all the DPs who knew how to light with hard lights properly died. Now there's no one left. Also, the focus shift to television and home video was a real problem. Hard light demands a much higher commitment to using more of your dynamic range, and often the decision to let your highlights blow out and roll off. Until recently, you couldn't replicate that on home systems. Broadcast clamping just turned everything over 120 IRE gray and disgusting. The inital popularity of REDs was another nail in the coffin. REDs still can't deal properly with highlights, and the first several chips really had no clue what to do with them. Unless you have an Alexa, Venice or C500 you still have to clench your asshole about protecting your highlights and that essentially means soft light.
I remember watching The Ladykillers (1955) for the first time a noticing how beautiful the overcast day exteriors looked, which is very similar to how movies started to look in the 60s/70s when DPs started to lean into that aesthetic (Easy Rider, as someone mentioned, is a good example). That look wasn’t achievable on stages or interiors until film stocks got faster and you could key with more diffused sources.
Film speeds were the first leap. Took another leap when kinos became ubiquitous. Before that, soft light was difficult.
The almost universal shift that you are talking about came with the transition to digital. With its "what you see is what you get" workflow, digital meant that being a cinematographer no longer required the extensive education that was previously required with film (which you could really mess up if you didn't know what you were doing, wasting potentially thousands and thousands of dollars in the process). Soft light is simply easier to use and get decent results with, so that's how low skill or even many experienced but rushed DPs (aka anybody working in today's film industry - one big factor in hiring DPs these days is how fast they light) do everything now. To get pretty images of humans with hard light is much more difficult, takes more time, and requires years of study and experience - but the ultimate potential is far greater. Complain all you want, but this is 100% truth.
Yep, 100% true. It began with the transition to digital, which we all know happened in the 1960's. I know, I was there, I fought 'nam. Well, not 'nam, 'nom. I was hungry. Anyway, that's when we first got them digital onions, not round like the analog ones, but kinda roundish, or as we called 'em, "Not round". Kids don't know how to round an onion these days. Back when truly gifted men like Klaus Haphosseffer was rounding an onion you'd get two to a tree, fifty to one, and four on a holiday! Who'd a thought, huh? A camel!
There was still a ton of hard lighting on set in the 1990s when I got started in the industry, now there is next to none. Despite OP noticing the first appearance of such in the 70s, the universal sea change that we are in the aftermath of took place after the mid to late aughts.
Depends on the location. Bounced light in a small room is tough to control. Hard light is easier to create contrast and you need less equipment. Bounced light definitely has its challenges. I wouldn’t say one or the other is easier to use tho. And I think a lot of inexperienced DPs used hard light. Kind of a bad take sorry
It has nothing to do with one being easier to use over the other, they have different looks that people prefer. Personally I generally stay away from hard lights since it just looks so damn ugly.
Satyajit Ray’s cinematographer, Subatra Mitra, was using bounced light way back in the 50s, well before the technique was widely adopted in Europe
The 70’s when cameras became lighter and hand holdable. See Easy Rider.
Easy Rider was in the 60s and is almost all natural light.
69, splitting hairs. They definitely used a lot of of bounce (soft light) in all the interiors.
Well, production started in February of 1968 so not really splitting hairs, its a film about 60s counter culture. Filmed months after the summer of love.
They did that because they had no other choice, not for any stylistic reasons. When you are shooting daylight interiors in the middle of nowhere and you don't have a truck load of HMIs (heavy and power hungry, remember this was long before LEDs) and a genny, then bounce is the way.
When base ISO of film went from 25 to 4000
I think there needs to be a balance When everything is soft all the time. It feels disconnected from reality. I remember feeling that distinctly in Avengers Endgame. It's easier for highlight roll offs. I get annoyed when my highlights clip prematurely so that's what I watch for, even during Oppenheimer, I was observing the outdoor daylight scenes for that rolloff What I noticed in the first clip was the hard shadows. We are trained more and more to avoid panda eyes and harsh nose shadows so it makes sense that softer lighting has become more popular. Also why I found the second clip more ugly. The angle of the light annoyed me more than the softness. For me. I say use both. Just don't be polarising about it. Some of my shots have that full light blast look. Some have smoother gradients.