low lighting.

This is an anecdote.
Filming this webseries "dark things": on set we have two 1k tungsten Fresnel pointing down. and a 2.5k HMI Fresnel a few yards back to get a back highlight.
we were shooting with a modified sigma 1.8 lens wide open, at 800asa raw.

Point being - we had 4.5 kilowatts worth of lighting (2k 2 feet away from his face). and we didn't even get to 50% exposure... (well, highlights were closer to 60%, but still!).

Lesson - you can never have too much lighting... ever.

that looks great!

That does look great, gotta learn to grade better so I can capture that type of detail although the exposure is low it stills have a great feel

You did say it was called "Dark Things"!

If he had a 2k two feet from his face he'd be sweating more than me. There's no way...

Did you forget to remove the ND Filter in your matte box?
I recorded three operas with my BMCC at ISO800 and the Tamron 17-50 at 2.8. The second and third Operas were at times dark as the night - had trouble with the other video cameras (Sony EX1) to get a decent focus pull. The BMCC footage came out very impressive, the wide dynamic range helped a lot, because the BMCC had been without an operator.

You did say it was called "Dark Things"!

yep, currently one episode out now, we're finishing the others up.

Did you forget to remove the ND Filter in your matte box?
I recorded three operas with my BMCC at ISO800 and the Tamron 17-50 at 2.8. The second and third Operas were at times dark as the night - had trouble with the other video cameras (Sony EX1) to get a decent focus pull. The BMCC footage came out very impressive, the wide dynamic range helped a lot, because the BMCC had been without an operator.

nope, mattbox free. Was considering a BPM filter, but decided against it...

If he had a 2k two feet from his face he'd be sweating more than me. There's no way...

luckily for him he the scene was short, and he didn't have to stay in the light too long! :p

That does look great, gotta learn to grade better so I can capture that type of detail although the exposure is low it stills have a great feel

same here - that was just a quick grade to make sure the info was there.

It's not really about how many lights you have. It's where you place them, that counts. Often when lighting, less is more.

Shutter angle makes a big difference as well, where is your shutter angle set ?

Shutter angle makes a big difference as well, where is your shutter angle set ?

180^

It's not really about how many lights you have. It's where you place them, that counts. Often when lighting, less is more.

I agree.

The anecdote is just a marveling at the latitude of the sensor - and just how much light it can eat up.

It's not really about how many lights you have. It's where you place them, that counts. Often when lighting, less is more.

words of wisdom.

That's a lot of light... I got a good exposure for a couple of interviews in a restaurant, only using a total of 185 watts of halogen bulbs inside two softboxes a couple of days ago. I've so far found the BMCC to be more light sensitive and has less ugly noise than my older Canon DSLRs.... just saying.

This is an anecdote.
Filming this webseries "dark things": on set we have two 1k tungsten Fresnel pointing down. and a 2.5k HMI Fresnel a few yards back to get a back highlight.
we were shooting with a modified sigma 1.8 lens wide open, at 800asa raw.

Point being - we had 4.5 kilowatts worth of lighting (2k 2 feet away from his face). and we didn't even get to 50% exposure... (well, highlights were closer to 60%, but still!).

Lesson - you can never have too much lighting... ever.

IMHO you have way too much light, and no falloff, You said this was a "2k 2 feet away from his face"? then it needed some defusing, gel, or bounce, the harsh line that contrasts from his forehead to his cheek, nose and lower chin is extreme, and unless this was halogens from a cars headlights as it was pulling into a driveway and was adding this kind of extreme light on his face... I would say this looks awful and unnatural if it was from street lights or the moon illuminating his face.

Lighting should set the mood, I feel nothing in the way of "Mood Lighting" when I see your image, Well at least not in the way lighting should be used, it should be apparent as to where the light is coming from, with a single static screen grab we have no idea as to where, or what is creating the light.

I will give it a 7.5 out of 10 for color, skin tones look fine, Lighting is hard to figure out from one simple screen grab, it looks to be on a porch? or the side of a house with Vinyl siding, and unless the lights are home depot security lights, the left side of the guys face has very harsh lighting that is extreme IMHO, Not that location matters, but I see the black void on the right side of your screen grab, and I can't help thinking this was the reason for the over exposure/lighting since there was nothing but a black background/empty space to judge on your monitor, But hey if you can post some video that would be great!

Here is a terrible Photoshop job, but it shows, or gives an example of where the light should come from when lighting your scene, and since you had nothing as a background is more the reason you needed to be more subtle when lighting this particular scene.

+1

If you look at the man's chest and his beard, clearly we're going for gritty here, in spite of his compassionate look. So don't say it is supposed to look soft or have some mood that you think it should have, but you are not the filmmaker. This is a good example of a well-exposed shot that brings in quite a lattitude, yet is not blown out or crushed anywhere. You see nice sharpness and rich textures in the man, even in his dark shirt, which is tough to do at night. The hot light on one side of his face might seem extreme, but I have seen plenty of high budget features with much more extreme light contrasts, especially at night. There is no law that it has to look soft or have a particular contrast ratio on the face. Who are we to say it should be this way or that way? This is well lit and well shot for the look that was chosen. And you don't get into noise issues at night when you can bring light like this.

If you look at the man's chest and his beard, clearly we're going for gritty here, in spite of his compassionate look. So don't say it is supposed to look soft or have some mood that you think it should have, but you are not the filmmaker. This is a good example of a well-exposed shot that brings in quite a lattitude, yet is not blown out or crushed anywhere. You see nice sharpness and rich textures in the man, even in his dark shirt, which is tough to do at night. The hot light on one side of his face might seem extreme, but I have seen plenty of high budget features with much more extreme light contrasts, especially at night. There is no law that it has to look soft or have a particular contrast ratio on the face. Who are we to say it should be this way or that way? This is well lit and well shot for the look that was chosen. And you don't get into noise issues at night when you can bring light like this.

Really? is this Really what you think?