Videomaker – Learn video production and editing, camera reviews › Forums › Videomaker › Feedback › Comments re Why Three-Point Lighting, Jan 2005
December 20, 2004 at 9:05 PM #37920RicardoParticipant
I thought Id add one more post commenting on an article from the January 2005 Videomaker. These are my comments on Why Three Point Lighting.
After reading the introduction I thought this article had a lot of promise starting with the premise that three-point lighting is a clich albeit useful. A glance at the article shows multiple pages so its not a quickie. So far, so good. I spy three pictures plus diagrams that look like illustrations plus another from the subjects point of view.
The historical perspective leading off and The Basic Idea are good but they look like theyre 25-30% of the article.
Its in the demonstration of the three lighting approaches that I have to say I was disappointed in the article. There are so many points where Id like an in-progress frame grab or still shot that illustrates your point rather than just the finished product. Build the shot light by light and show it as you add each source. Show the mistakes and cautions that are discussed. Lighting is intensely visual yet the article includes few visuals. I checked the web version of the article and theres NONE except the view from the subjects pov. At first I thought you must have meant for the reader to re-create the demonstrations but to do it right would take a geater variety of equipment than I seem to have. So if you’re going to do the three approaches for us then show us everything about it. If that makes a story too long then do more focused stories or fewer, but more detailed stories. We’re not ADD.
Somehow Videomaker has to add more detail, more meat, more visuals or more of what the story is about. Either in the magazine which I like enough to pay for or on the web site; Maybe in a downloadable pdf for subscribers. If the story is visual then show it.
Sorry about the soapbox rant. Thanks for listening.
December 26, 2005 at 11:07 PM #167785AnonymousInactive
An example of “camoflaging” would be helpful, and validating.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.