The Pros and Cons of Bouncing Light off the Ceiling

[tfunch24]

Recently there was a post in which someone described how they illuminated their subject by bouncing a light off the ceiling rather than causing their subject pain by pointing the light directly at him or her.

I recently did this to get some jpgs with my webcam, which you can view here:





What are any disadvantages of this type of lighting? I was considering lighting a scene this way, using two 750-watt Lowell Totas aimed at the ceiling to provide ambient light, and smaller lights to eliminate shadows on faces, etc.

Tom

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ March 24, 2003 09:59 PM: Message edited by: tfunch24 ]</font>

[Jon P]

I see bounced light as a fill and think you should still have a key light. Try bouncing off of walls and even floors as an experiment. I also bounce my 'backlight' off a lastolight to help fill and knock out bad shadows. I am not sure this is in the BSC hand book though and have had varying results.

[Matt Pacini]

I always do this if I can; if the ceiling is low enough, and white enough.
But I don't use this exclusively as my lighting, but I do use it as fill light,
It's especially good for Super 8, because it's so contrasty.This really keeps you from having huge areas of shadow, but then again, this assumes you want a somewhat flat lighting.
Sometimes, you DO want lots of shadows.
By the way, Conrad Hall did this a lot. I read this from an interview in American Cinematographer.
He would set his key, back and skip lights, then bounce off the ceiling to get ambient light.
I would use one of your 750 watt lights for this, and use the other as a key, but use a fairly large diffuser in front of it.
Hard light from an open face unit like that does not look pretty on people.

Matt Pacini

[Greg Crawford]

Look deeply in to the eye of your 1950's Browney camera. ....Can't see anything can ya! That's the major problem with using this lighting style with people. Dark eye sockets ..devoid of catch lights that make the eyes sparkle.

Solution: Add a directional key light to your set up and perhaps a frontal fill ...You'll know when you have it the eyes will come alive.

See Ya!

[tfunch24]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Solution: Add a directional key light to your set up and perhaps a frontal fill ...You'll know when you have it the eyes will come alive.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

That what I was planning on doing. I just wanted to confirm it with the pros and see if there were any other type of setup I could do.

Most of the time, I've been shooting with this type of setup:



I took this from Filmmaking: A Practical Guide by Carl Linder (anyone ever read it? Published back in the late 1970s when S8 was still king.)

I've gotten better at doing it and I'll get better with practice, but some of my films still have the "spot-light" look to them. Also when I shoot nighttime interiors with K40, the subjects will be well and evenly-lit, but the background is completely in shadow--no details whatsoever!

Tom

[PhilF]

Hi all,
In my honest - yet humble oppinion, I have usually tried to stay away from bouncing a light off the ceiling because the image is just too flat, although granted using a fill and / or kicker will help 'mold' your image.
I always suggest to people to study really good black and white photography and try to apply that style to your image.
The problem that I've had with bouncing light off of the ceiling is that your background has no unique lighting of it's own. But as was mentioned, Conrad Hall made it a point in a lot of his movies TO bounce light off of walls, ceilings, whatever. I guess the pont that I'm trying to make is, find a style that you like, play with it, and continue to mold it.

PhilF

[Matt Pacini]

To clarify, I do not suggest anyone does this as the SOLE lighting scheme, nor do I think it is the best strategy for all photography.
Super 8 reversal film needs a lot of fill light, because it NEEDS to be lit somewhat flat to look good.
So I do suggest this technique, with supplemental lights like backlighting, key, etc.
By the way, you're wrong about the deep eyesocket look if you lit this way.
Having an entire ceiling at 8 feet high acting as a fill light, you will NOT see any deep eyesockets, I can assure you.
Keep in mind that all this soft light coming from the ceiling then bounces off every object in the room, creating even more soft fill.
I have actually lit like this, and there are certainly no problems with shadows, as you're imagining there would be.
A ceiling is a HUGE freakin diffused light source! The reason you need key & backlight, is to CREATE what you're talking about: contrast in your scene.

Matt Pacini

[MovieStuff]

If you want to see an example of almost total ceiling bounce with little or no fill, watch the Godfather. Dark eyes run amok. But it worked for the type of film it was.

Roger

[Matt Pacini]

I know it was top-lit, but was it really celing bounce?
Those studio ceilings are WAY UP there, so if they used ceiling bounce, the light source would be effectively much smaller than an 8 foot living room or whatever, eh?

Matt Pacini

[Greg Crawford]

tfunch24,

The best think for you to do is try it both ways. In fact you don't even need to shoot any film just light your set area and take a look.

Keep in mind your eyes mind combination can inform the brain that you can indeed see into the shadows when the film or video tape range is more limited. If you have the time and money shoot a test, or take a still photograph.

As to the dark eyes, top lighting has a tendency to produce dark eye sockets. Again depending on a number of factors. Including, the facial features, Is the light source set on spotlight or fill? As previously pointed out walls and the ceiling color and distance can also add variations to the mix., and in some cases can help to reduce the deep scocket look.

Take a look at the March edition of American Cinematographer, page 58. The shots and lighting diagram, represent not a bounce situation but a more a more directional look. By having the Zip light close and nearly on top of the talent. A zip light gives a very even fill but at close working distances it has a more directional look, I know, I own one.

If you are interested in getting a good look with one light try bouncing it into the corner, illuminating a little bit of the ceiling and the two side walls, this setup on a white wall will give you a look similar to a large umbrella or soft box, but in most cases will not light the whole room.