Posts Tagged ‘frontlight’

Frontlight as a sculptural element

Monday, November 29th, 2010

I hear a lot of lighting designers say things like “frontlight is boring” and the more I think about it the less I find myself agreeing with this statement. Sure the typical, straight in front light at a 45 or even 30 degree angle is not the most dynamic. It does provide the useful function of clearly, cleanly, and evenly lighting faces.

A lot of the boredom comes, I think, from a certain resignation. Because “frontlight is boring” no effort is made to find an approach to frontlight that is sculptural. Frontlight can be quite interesting when the time and care is taken to treat it as a sculptural aesthetic element rather than a grudging necessity one hangs and focuses for bows.

This problem is largely an American problem. I say this because the American school of design, which traces itself in one way or another back to Stanley McCandless, treats a 45 degree angle as the base for all lighting. Sidelights, backlights (when possible), and frontlights all start from an assumption of 45 degrees up from the stage. While the “McCandless Method” has gone out of fashion along with its multi-colored diagonal frontlights, there are some ideas contained therein which might prove useful when applied within a contemporary aesthetic environment.

McCandless’ “Method” was born in an era of limited power, control, and instrumentation. These are not concerns we have as much today, but it forced him into a rigorous line of thinking which may be useful to return to. He developed his method as a means of providing the maximum variety and sculptural qualities to performers under extremely limited situations.

The somewhat blunt color approach to his use of diagonal frontlight may not hold up under contemporary aesthetic analysis, but the underlying intent is worth looking at. That intent being a well sculptured figure on stage. His specific solution may not apply, but we can all resonate with wanting to create a sculptural figure on stage. Using diagonal frontlight, though with consistent color, thus creating texture and variation through differing intensity levels, would be a more contemporary approach.

This is a sort of archeology of lighting aesthetics. It returns us to a foundational moment from which we may then build back up into the present to address our current aesthetic concerns. Simply modifying McCandless only goes so far. If our goal is creating a sculptural figure, we must base our decisions and analysis of lighting angles upon that premise.

Diagonal frontlight is far from the only means of creating a sculptural figure. In many circumstance it is also far from the ideal visual aesthetic. At a practical level, it doubles the required instrumentation needed. This can eat up valuable gear in limited situations and, of course, doubles the focus time for FOH positions. Then there is the matter of it lighting up a much more broad stage area than frontlight which comes straight in. Diagonals illuminate almost twice as much stage area as straight in frontlight, yet still only light about the same area at face level.

Footlights are a popular, though slowly going out of fashion, approach to finding a sculptural solution to frontlight. More so than diagonals, footlights light up a very broad area and are thus not right when maintianing a contained space is another requirement of the design. While beautiful under the right circumstances, the look is so emotionally specific that it can rarely be employed for general use.

An approach that is quite common in Europe, but surprisingly rare in the US, is steep angled frontlight. Pushing the lights up, past the 45 degree mark, to 70, or even 80 degrees, can turn this once boring lighting angle into a dramatically powerful storytelling device. What you lose from using so steep an angle is illumination of eye sockets and underneath any hats with brims. But what you gain is a tremendously powerful and evocative look.

Steep frontlight like this can easily be used on its own without being boring. It is very sculptural. It can also be readily used in conjunction with sidelight to get under hats and into eye sockets, or as fill to eliminate the harsh dark line caused by the exclusive use of sidelighting. Another wonderful benefit of steep frontlight like this is the very limited stage real estate taken up by the light. It is possible to isolate a performer distinctly and discretely while leaving as much stage space as possible unlit.

There are plenty of times where a flat angle is desired in one’s frontlight. Musical comedy and farce often want the bright faces and crisp eyes made possible by a flatter angle of frontlight. Perhaps the show is exploring themes of boredom and what is desired is blank, plain, lighting. In such cases a very flat frontlight may be just the right choice.

The larger question we are exploring is, “are you making a choice?” Is your lighting palette based upon an exploration of the dramatic needs of the piece in question or is it a formula? Thinking through these questions and really exploring the frontlight needs of the specific show will help to make the finished product not just good, but great.

The Angles of Light – Towards a Conclusion or Beginning an Advanced Exploration

Monday, July 27th, 2009

When I began my series on lighting angles I was exploring the idea of how one may find almost limitless options with regards to problem solving. As I expanded the discussion with an examination of backlight followed by sidelight and finally frontlight I did a return to basics. Now it is time to put those basics aside in order to delve into the world of conceptual thinking.

As I outlined in the first four segments of this series there are three primary angles of lighting. But the larger point to be made is not that we have a limited palette to work from. Instead quite the opposite is true. While we can essentialize light down to these fundamentals the reality is that there are limitless possibilities in terms of lighting angles and certainly combinations of angles. The very conceptual approach that one would take to think in terms of angles as outlined in those essays is its own fundamental that must be put aside.

Learning the basic angles of light is a useful exercise when first learning the medium. It is akin to those first exploring color theory creating a color wheel to examine the six basic colors and relationships contained therein. While a useful exercise and certainly information every lighting designer must have stored in their memory, it is not as if we sit around thinking, “Gee, that scene would certainly benefit from sidelight, with some assistance from a bit of backlight and a breath of frontlight.”

What we do is explore the conceptual space within which the piece occurs. This leads us to an exploration of the physical space, the environment, in which the performance happens. What we are first concerned with is the “How.” How does light move in this space? How can light naturally flow into this space? How is the light blocked from various directions? How may we create an authentic understanding of this space with light?

Our job is to bring light into a dark volume of space. Every space is unique and the manner in which light moves into and through a given environment will vary tremendously depending upon what that space is. Having the fundamentals of what lighting can be and can do is necessary to free us from that mode of thinking and simply see where lighting can go.

I have seen far too many designers force a particular vision upon a space and quite literally force the lighting to move in a way counter to the natural flow of the environment. Or worse, hear them say that such and such a space is “unlightable” because it does not conform to their preconceived notions of how light must move. Too often beginning from either of these premises will result in failure. The light in these cases does not flow with the architecture. Rather it exists on a discrete plane of conceptual understanding. While this would probably not be noticed by the majority of the audience it none the less detracts from the experience. When the lighting and the physical environment are moving in a harmonious manner the effect is quite stunning.

Architects design buildings paying very close attention to the orientation of the structure and how it relates to the passage of the sun throughout the day. Windows, awnings and so forth are all designed and oriented to maximize the functionality and aesthetic possibilities of the building. Working as a lighting designer we must reverse engineer this process and looking at the scenery, determine what manner of light would best show off the various structures.

This conceptual approach ties in to the notion of visual translation that I outlined a few weeks ago. More precisely it is a visual analog to the textual archaeology I discussed last week. While not applied to text, it is the same mode of thinking put to work to understand a physical space.

Approaching a space as something to be engaged as opposed to something that must merely be dealt with is necessary for a deep visual reading of an environment. We must take that environment on its own terms and listen to what it has to say with regards to how lighting may move through it. Knowing the many possible lighting angles available allows the designer to approach a space with limitless possibilities in terms of how to fill it. At the same time the designer must not let that knowledge prevent them from seeing possibilities built into the very structure of the space itself. Being receptive to the needs of the space is the true test of ones understanding of these fundamental concepts.

Concerning problems of time and money

Sunday, December 17th, 2006

What do you do when all your cross light gets hung two feet too far upstage? Rehang it in the correct place, right? Well, not if you are already at budget and a four to six hour work call is not possible. So you make do.

This happened on Becoming Adele. I tried to make it work. I changed a few easy to change things and lit the performer in a different way than I had originally intended. Its fine. I think it looks nice. It is not what I intended, but so it goes sometimes.

The theatre we are in is small enough that a few feet can really effect the whole design. The stage is far too dark downstage, certainly more than it should be. The result is an increased need for frontlight. The overall effect is a form that lacks the full molding and dimensionality that she deserves. Perhaps this is the kind of thing that only a lighting designer would notice, but it still bothers me. There are actually a few specific acting/blocking moments where this issue does become critical and actually impacts the experience of watching the performance. But that’s why we have previews! And notes calls!

The Theatre is so interdependent and when one link in the chain is stretched or broken it can effect a lot more than its own little world. I had to convince the director that he did not need to reblock the show, that our actor would be lit where she needs to be on stage. The frustrating thing about this is it is not a problem I caused. Really no one did. The architecture in the space is odd and one of the lighting pipes got missed when counting so the fifth pipe upstage got mistaken for the fourth. Really, all the lighting equipment is too far upstage, its just that since I was planning on lighting the show primarily via crosslight that it is of so much importance.

The crosslight looks like this when our performer steps downstage.

xlt

Deep shadows are cast on the face because the light is not forward enough to fill it in. The result is that I have to crank the frontlight way up to fill in. There is nothing wrong with this approach to lighting the performer, it is simply very different than I had intended. Dramaturgically it is not as strong a choice, but there is little to do. What I mean by that is that it weights the play more towards the presentational side and further from the naturalistic side of the text. Both valid choices, I happen to believe the latter is the stronger of the two.

Its frustrating because I keep watching the show and see these problems with the lighting and begin to kick myself for overlooking something, and then I remember what the problem is. And I have to remind myself, I did not draft the lights wrong, and while they were hung in the wrong place it is not really the fault of the electricians. The drawing I received of the space did not indicate this odd architectural issue that set off this whole fiasco.

I just hope that this is one of those issues that in the end is not noticeable by the audience. The work behind the play should be invisible. By that I mean the experience of watching the play should be effortless. One should not spend their time wondering “oh look honey she sure seems dark” unless of course that is the point. The audience should experience the play and all its emotions and journeys as the creative team intended, not as fate dictates.

We have a few notes to take care of before Monday’s preview that should clean the whole thing up. The problem will be solved, I just wish it had never been there in the first place. But then, as the Buddhists say “there’s always something.”


Creative Commons License

All text on this site, unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. All other rights reserved.