I've done quite a few interviews, and the best looking ones were always those where I used natural light coming in through a window.

For this, I park the subject on a chair with the window to his or her right (because I think this looks best most of the time) and use a reflector (I use collapsible reflectors that are easy to pack) to fill in their left side.

Of course there are situations where you don't have a window, or it's dark outside, etc. For that, I wouldn't hesitate to use "Grafflights". For transport of these, you really should pack the fluorescent tubes in foam in a separate box (or a large hard PVC tube) though.

Looks fine to me ,Remember you are still going to need at LEAST a backlight to go with the "Grafflights".

I'm amazed that this is a realistic approach. What about color temperature? I know you can buy color corrected florescent bulbs for home fixtures. I have some of these in my kitchen. Also, what should I be looking for as far as a backlight?

I think Walter said that "his crew" has taken to calling them "Graff-lites", although he doesn't seem to mind it ;-)

I have never used a setup such as this, but by looking at it I would think all the interviews are going to have to be in very small areas for the lights to work. That being the case you could probably get by with an Arri 150 or similar as a backlight, or a 300 with a dimmer, well either way a dimmer.
Good luck!!

Laurence, "... spray mount a piece of 1/4 minus green inside the [fluorescent] fixture for correction."

Hey guys!

<FLAME ON>

How about being a bit adventurous occasionally?

You've all noticed that 99.9% of all interviews use "interview lighting".

OK, that comes in two flavors, "Standard" and "PBS".

Now keep an eye out for the next interview on TV that is done with natural light.

Think about how it feels to watch this.

If you don't like it, don't use it.

If you see an increased "presence" and "human feel," ponder if this could be handy at times.

That's all I'm saying.

Now you can flame me for being an idiot who "obviously doesn't know how to light interviews."

Perhaps I'm parochial because I spent so many years doing documentaries where 90% of the time you couldn't add any light, so you had to make the best of available light.

I won quite a few awards, but perhaps the judges were strange people who wouldn't have known a three-point lighting setup if it had bit them in the ass.

Just try different techniques and create your own style occasionally. This is also good employment insurance...

<FLAME OFF>

I've always used natural light up until now, but sometimes find it a bit dark and would like to augment it somewhat. The reflector you mentioned in your earlier post close to a window makes a lot of sense.

I still use my VX2000 primarily because it makes such good use of natural light.

On this particular project, I'll be doing a number of interviews at peoples houses and I have no idea what I'll run into. I'd like to have a minimal kit mainly to augment natural light when there isn't enough of it.

I'm starting to see the value of natural light - when I've got it. Problem here is that it comes and goes. Now maybe that can be part of your design for the whole movie - and I too have used this. But, as I want the viewer of the final vid, to concentrate on the "speaker", mostly, I will be wanting the lighting to not interfere with the viewer's experience. But then again, sometimes having light fluctuating over the face and or background can create a needed dramatic effect - I did this when interviewing a Carnival organiser where the sunlight and shadows drifted across her face - she looked great - and the external "out-in-the-open" effect was appropriate and effective.

I've only recently got to grips - literally! - with reflectors. They are a godsend, and make "use" of any ambient and artificially induced lighting you can muster. I've used reflectors to "bring-up" the glow on a speaker's face and ALSO benn - carefully here! - to use another reflector to create that much wanted rear lighting to separate the top of the head from the BG. Now, if you can shorten the depth of field AND soften the focus of the BG you are getting the layer that was there before - making the subject even more dominant and therefore more easil for the viewer to concentrate on. This, IMHO, makes the difference from a well lit/shot piece to a remarkable piece - AND makes the viewing experience so much better. PLUS the viewer will tend to concentrate on what is being said.

Again, it has taken me a not a little time to realise just WHAT I am trying to achieve - it is less than of the "how" [ reflectors, tungsten, softies, gaffer tape, dimmers ] and more of the "what" [ impact, quiet, serenity, lively, creative, spontaneous, hopeful, sadness, reality, fear, anger ] I am trying to achieve.

Many people confuse the "how" with the "what" and think that the "how" will pull them through the "what" - When this happens it is very obvious. It's kinda like starting of a song in the incorrect "key" for your backing band? Yes?

So, pull back and be very critical about what you want to achieve - this is the "what". Once kinda figured out the "how" WILL fall into place.

I hope this helps - it is starting to help me! Hey I'm still figuring how to light a room with loadsa natural light without the need to gaffer up rolls of ND on all the windows! I'll get there . . oh yes .. !

Best regards,

Grazie


( . . this site is still mucking about with me! Seesshh )

One of the nice things about fluorescent fixtures is that you can put in 3200K tubes when you need that, and daylight tubes when you want to just add to what's coming in through the windows.

With enough oomph you may not even need to ND the windows...

I've used natural light a lot, just because it was there and the most obvious thing to do. The only issue with it is the unpredictability--on a cloudy day the light goes through large swings in color temperature, which then requires that I run the footage through the color-corrector wheels in Vegas.