In many shots you confuse contrast light and hard light, they are not the same thing. Hard light can easily be low contrast, just as soft light can be contrast.
@@THE.N1KO Quality of light refers to how light transitions from light to dark on a surface. The slower the gradient, the softer the quality of light. It has nothing to do with how light or how dark the areas are, just how sharp the transition is. If you have hard sources, but use a lot of fill (4:1 lighting ratio for example) the contrast is very low, but the light can still be hard.
Thank you to say this. I was very frustrated because it's a mistake that beginners often do, and this video contributes to confuse them a little bit more.
Great video. Its worth noting should u ever update this video that hard and soft light is about the size of the light source relative to the subject. Diffusion materials increases the light source size and thats why its softer.
I think you got it mixed up at 10:13 The closer a bounce, or any diffuse source, is to a subject, the softer it will be. As size increases either literally or relative to the subject (by getting closer), light quality gets softer
Exactly, maybe it has to do with the fact that it'll appear more contrasted the light the closer the bounce and seems there's some sort of confusion in the video for quality of light and contrast
Great video!! I didn't know it was a thing to light the two protagonists in a different manner, but it sound very interesting! I was wondering if you could start adding the titles and years of publishing to a movie scene if you show it in the videos, that would be great.
It's not true that a bounced light is softer if the bounce is farther away. The bounce becomes the new light source, and the farther away a light source is - the harder it is.
As seen in the comments below there is a lot of mistakes in this video. I propose to consider the size of the light source in relation to the object and its influence on the hardness/softness of the light. Sincerely.
So can it be said that hard light in cinema is like chiaroscuro in painting? For example, if Caravaggio was a filmmaker, his films would have hard light, and if, for example, Vermeer was also a filmmaker, he would have lit softly?
Yea many mistakes here... intensity doesn't determine hardness... size of source relative to subject determines hardness. Can be soft and very contrasty it's just harder to achieve.
If I remember correctly, in one of your videos, you talk about a cinematographer who likes hard lights, like, he believes strong dramas require hard lighting, something like this you mention in that video. I can't find the video. Who was it?
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
In many shots you confuse contrast light and hard light, they are not the same thing. Hard light can easily be low contrast, just as soft light can be contrast.
banco mucho lo que dice este flaco. the best example of soft light with contrast is fight club. or any movie of deakins
Yes, i noticed the same. Even in the thumbnail, the shadow lines are razor sharp, but there's some fill in the picture on the right.
If you have time can you please explain it a little more?
@@THE.N1KO Quality of light refers to how light transitions from light to dark on a surface. The slower the gradient, the softer the quality of light. It has nothing to do with how light or how dark the areas are, just how sharp the transition is. If you have hard sources, but use a lot of fill (4:1 lighting ratio for example) the contrast is very low, but the light can still be hard.
Thank you to say this. I was very frustrated because it's a mistake that beginners often do, and this video contributes to confuse them a little bit more.
Just want to say, this is one of my favorite channels.
THANK YOU for putting the add at the end. Great video as always.
Great video. Its worth noting should u ever update this video that hard and soft light is about the size of the light source relative to the subject. Diffusion materials increases the light source size and thats why its softer.
I think you got it mixed up at 10:13
The closer a bounce, or any diffuse source, is to a subject, the softer it will be. As size increases either literally or relative to the subject (by getting closer), light quality gets softer
Exactly, maybe it has to do with the fact that it'll appear more contrasted the light the closer the bounce and seems there's some sort of confusion in the video for quality of light and contrast
I agree. the inverse square rule needs a mention imho.
3:23 the shadow are crisp on both sides... they both look like harsh light, except the woman looks illumintade from above
love this channel so helpful 🎉
Fun fact, on the cover of the of the video the right picture has a harder light than the left image )
Great video!! I didn't know it was a thing to light the two protagonists in a different manner, but it sound very interesting! I was wondering if you could start adding the titles and years of publishing to a movie scene if you show it in the videos, that would be great.
Justo tenía esa duda de las luces y haces un vídeo de eso. Eres el mejor canal sobre fotografía!!
Great video
What’s the best way to light a face with a fedora? Would it be to bounce the light from underneath?
3:20 These are both hard light. The biggest difference in the key is the angle.
I agree. The soft focus type effect on the actress might have contributed to the mistake
Another difference is that a defusion filter was used on the actress to look bloomy
Never heard of Grid Cloth as Half, 1, or 2. I only know them as Full, Light, and Quarter Grids.
It's not true that a bounced light is softer if the bounce is farther away. The bounce becomes the new light source, and the farther away a light source is - the harder it is.
is there a list of movies you showed in this clip?
As seen in the comments below there is a lot of mistakes in this video. I propose to consider the size of the light source in relation to the object and its influence on the hardness/softness of the light.
Sincerely.
apart from that. I love this chanel. Cheers!
Great video.
So can it be said that hard light in cinema is like chiaroscuro in painting? For example, if Caravaggio was a filmmaker, his films would have hard light, and if, for example, Vermeer was also a filmmaker, he would have lit softly?
Yup
What's the 2:05 movie?
Living (2022)
I once read Peter Greennaway said that Sacha Vierny could light anything with just a light source and a newspaper!
Great video! Quick question, what are the best settings for an 8bit Sony camera
Yea many mistakes here... intensity doesn't determine hardness... size of source relative to subject determines hardness. Can be soft and very contrasty it's just harder to achieve.
If I remember correctly, in one of your videos, you talk about a cinematographer who likes hard lights, like, he believes strong dramas require hard lighting, something like this you mention in that video. I can't find the video. Who was it?
Bro can breakdown dante spinotti cinematography
❤
Are you telling us that the solution to an engineering problem involves tradeoffs?
God the Whale looked ugly.