Thanks Bob. I will get my screwdriver out! I like bouncing light and making pictures with light - hence my reflects. Each on their own stands. I'm happy. Not having a third light forces me to be creative. Dreary ole England needs lights.

Here's what I've been using for the past year or so. Two Ego lights from Lowel. http://www.lowelego.com/LWE.portrait.html

I bought this kit from B&H. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/379776-REG/Lowel__Ego_Fluorescent_2_Light.html. You won't find better lighting for the money ($225). Their light weight, very portable, quick to set up. No heat. The light itself falls off very quickly, so there's not a lot of spill behind the subject.

Here's a frame grab from a shoot I did recertly using just the two Egos--one off to camera right and slightly high, the second off to camera left directed straight at the subject.

Serena:

I agree my best starting light kit actually included http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/32862-REG/Matthews_209495_Foam_Core_Holder.htmlfoam core holders[/link] and http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/307479-REG/Avenger_A608B_Mini_Century_C_Stand.htmlC-Stands[/link]!
(Get some http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/283851-REG/Matthews_350584_Minigrip_Head.htmlMinigrip heads[/link] too) and sand bags.

I have used http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/284109-REG/Lowel__DV_Pro_Light_Two_Light.htmlLowel DV Pro Light Kit[/link] and with some practice can light background with a gel and
provide source for bounce.

Laurence:

I understand you want to look professional with a tall Rifa (I prefer tall units because you will find
problems with hot spots with eye glasses and bald heads with small Rifas) but I can tell you when you have time,
Vic's Nano can be made to look very professional and your talent will
love you for cooler CFLs!

I've always favoured low contrast lighting (bounce, broad source, etc), probably coming out of the days when colour reversal had little latitude. Vic pulled me up on my lighting being much too flat, lacking in character, and he was right. Shadows are important. In fact artists talk about seeing the darks, as Grazie will know.

I love the look Philip Bloom gets in his interviews. I sent him a note the other day asking what he did lighting-wise and got this response:

Hi Laurence,

Beautifully lit Jay. I can see the two faint, soft shadows on the side and back wall. Also, look at how her blonde hair, tan features and pink shirt "pop" against that clinical white wall cabinet. Now THAT is contrast!

Shadows and darks make for contrasts and assist with the construction of layers. This holds true for all the visual arts. Negative and complementary shapes add to the sense of attention and make for an absorbing image. And, more importantly, the lack of these features in a "frame" will quickly bring about the opposite: Boredom, frustration and lack of interest by the viewer - whether they KNOW it or not. Our job, which is the fun part, is to continually pursue and hunt down this quarry at every turn.

We are all hardwired to notice and react to engaging visuals. We learnt this from running away from animal threats! In my own work I can ignore this fact at my peril. If my viewer looks away, studies their last “nail” job and stares out of the window, then I haven’t done my job. I have failed in some part of my process. Maybe that is why much effort is handed over to the effect of screenings, focus and viewers feedback forms to confirm/deny areas of weakness within dallies/drafts/pre-draft sign-offs ( whatever you want to call ‘em!) and so on, so that 3rd party reaction can be gauged. What do you think?

If the visuals aren’t there to start with – well!

Laurence, just seen the response from Phil. Those 2 sources, Rifa and a Dedolight, and the use of availables is exactly my own approach too. Going high is good - spectacles . . of yes . . I bounce light by pointing the Dedo at the white reflector and using the light's dimmer for more or less intensity. On the Dedo there is a slide focus/zoom adjustment too. It also has a natty way to allow me to slide inserts - Gobos and Filters.

Thank you, Grazie, for the kind words.

The lighting is far from being the most "dramatic" ever, but lighting an object (the beverage dispenser, the "real" subject) and a spokesperson are always a challenge. The white kitchen (walls and ceiling) this time worked to my advantage.

Your remarks concerning contrast are spot on the mark! There must be opposites or nothing would exist. The lighting wasn't "flat," that's something I try to avoid if at all possible. The female subject has, in my opinion, a beautifully sculpted face. I'm pleased the lighting was able to bring that out without deep, dark shadows.

In the corporate video world, the producer/director does not always have control over the content. However, we do have control (for the most part) over the visuals. In such situations, I try to give the audience, as you said, reasons not to look way even though the message may be a tad tiresome.

Insofar as "feedback" is concerned, I think it is important to a point. My experience has been, more often than not, that too many clients fancy themselves as experts when it comes to video production (after all, they own a video camera too). I just finished another little corporate project. Every step of the way, starting with the script, I got written approval from client before hiring the voiceover talent to record the narration. When I began gathering stills (at their request), I had them approval the images before buying them. They approved the music. Now that the video is complete (and it matches the script exactly), they want changes. I don't know what they are yet, but I'm hoping they are minor. If not, there is going to be more expense! Is there really anything wrong? Probably not. I fear it's the usual case of "you say tomato, I say tomahto."

Video is a visual medium. Yes, the script is most important. Yes, the sound makes up a great deal of the viewing experience. However, in a "visual" medium the visuals (whatever they may be) are paramount (no pun intended).

Check out http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/500422-REG/Interfit_Paterson_INT117_Super_Cool_lite_5_Two.htmlthis[/link] inexpensive light kit. Unfortunately it is sold out right now at B&H:









The manufacturer's info is http://www.interfitphotographic.com/here.[/link]

Looks like that one (interfit) uses standard edison mounts on the lamps. You could always swap out the cool bulbs for 2700k or 4000k lamps from the hardware store if you needed to. Beats using gels because you don't sacrifice the additional light.

I'd really want to "see" these perform in a real situ - yeah?

I have now sourced these in the UK. I am interested too. Thanks for sharing the research, Laurence.

Those sure look like a pretty nice adjustable pair of lights for the money, I wonder if they can handle much higher wattage bulbs in them?

Dave

Here is just one light without a stand:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/500159-REG/Interfit_Paterson_INT116_Super_Cool_lite_5.html

The only thing that worries me is it looks like you can't put the softbox cover on without unscrewing all the bulbs and putting them in after the softbox is attached. At least that is what this B&H user review says:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/500159-REG/Interfit_Paterson_INT116_Super_Cool_lite_5.html#goto_itemInfo

well, that certainly would be annoying but if you just knew it ahead of time, I figure it would just be that way, however the small ones suggested earlier seem like they would be pretty fast set-up too. Don't know, hard to say.

Dave

I just finished another little corporate project. Every step of the way, starting with the script, I got written approval from client before hiring the voiceover talent to record the narration. When I began gathering stills (at their request), I had them approval the images before buying them. They approved the music. Now that the video is complete (and it matches the script exactly), they want changes. I don't know what they are yet, but I'm hoping they are minor. If not, there is going to be more expense!

I hope you mean "there is going to be more expense for the client."

It's in human nature to want to tinker.

If tinkering is free, there will be lots of it, potentially bankrupting the service provider.

If tinkering costs money (as advised up front), there will be very little or none of it.

No expense for me, but for them! Their changes were nothing more than "tinkering" to be sure.

I just wanted to chime in here with my two cents after reading this very informative thread. (I want some of those cheap chimera's) No one has mentioned (or I missed it) a key ingredient to great looking interviews, which is camera placement. Not to discount good lighting, I consider that a given, and for headshots, fairly easy to accomplish.

I worked on celebrity interviews for about 10 years straight, pretty much full time with scores of different freelance camera operators in Los Angeles. It was always instructional working with different guys, watching their methods and tricks.

The best of the best had a great talent for choosing the right spot to do the interview. The producer would usually have a suggestion as to where to conduct the interview, usually along linear lines, like "he's a writer so let's do the interview at his desk" that kind of thing. Not without merit, really, and a good producer should have some input into how the interview should look. But some of these camera guys (who were also acting as DP) would do a little walking around, not saying anything, but clearly looking for something, finally suggesting that we put the chair here and put the camera there and we'll have this in the background, etc etc. Most of the time, these guys has sterling reputations (the good ones) and the producer would wisely agree to try.

I remember once putting the interview chair in a hallway, the camera in another room, and the backround was yet another room altogether. It looked incredible. We always look to create depth of field and the easiest way to do that is to use real depth, as in distance. Not so easy to do when you're thrust into a location not of your own choosing. By taking the framing into account, that is, a medium headshot, one can create a frame that is rich and lush and out of focus by finding the right place to set up your camera.

Not as easy as it sounds, either. I worked with many dp's who were great at lighting, but would frame up the actress on the couch, in the hotel room, with the dreaded lamp (or flowers) 2 feet away from her. The lighting was good, the shot was unextraordinary. (to put it kindly)