Is light boring?

[Roderick]

Thought I'd spice up things a bit ;)

 

My statement is:

"Lights are boring, it is the shadows that makes them interesting"

 

Comments anyone?

[mark_s]

With my amateur-designer hat on:

 

In my opinion it's the combination of light and shadow which contributes to the success of the effect/state/whatever, and not just light or shadow on its own. A good designer needs to be able to use both effectively in his design.

 

(Speaking from the point of view of theatre. I'm not sure people at a big rock concert would care about shadow as long as they could see the performer ;))

[w/robe]

"Lights are boring, it is the shadows that makes them interesting"

..and the haze?

[Sarah Q]

It all depends on the "lights" you refer to.... I find d0mestic lighting quite dull most of the time....

 

As for shadows, they are only interesting when they are supposed to be there. I personally love atmospheric, mean and moody lighting - but wouldn't design most musicals that way!

 

Also, with the changes in technology recently, particularly through intelligent and moving lights, I can find "lights" really interesting, and enjoy seeing their effects on stage... no shadows there...

 

So, I suppose the point is the intent of the lighting designer as to whether the shadows are interesting or just down right annoying.....

[Trunker]

I love lighting contempory dance shows, because I get to use loads of side lighting. The lights may be dull in themselves, but its the way that it catches the dancers shape that is the interesting part. FOH washes are the most dull for me though as they tell no story whatsoever.

[u_dakka]

personally I love moving lights (and the light not shadow). It's the feeling of being completely happy with your program and then watching them doing their thing knowing that you were responsible for.

Anything that you do which gets a nice audience reaction is good.

 

andy

[niclights]

You get an audience reaction?

 

Something went wrong!

 

:D

[mac.calder]

Well, if you want to get phillosophical - there is no light without dark, therefore, it is the dark which gives meaning and definition to light.

[Boggy]

Shadows can be good (but if overused they can loose their impact).

No shadows can also be good (I know there is always a shadow but if you put them in the wings the audience won't see them).

[Maddison]

Thought I'd spice up things a bit :D

 

My statement is:

"Lights are boring, it is the shadows that makes them interesting"

 

Comments anyone?

 

Light is boring. Gels, gobo's, haze, cloths, direction, focus and cuts make it interesting. Work is boring too...

[Speedy]

To have a shadow you must have a light, and to have light you must have a shadow (although not always very well defined and often easily washed out by other lights/bounce etc.) I wouldn't say that either light or shadow is more interesting than the other, Of more interest (to me at least) is the contrast between light and shadow and how you can use this to create the look you want- at least in theatrical context.

[Gwion]

I find reflective objects to be interesting, in the context of lighting, and the gaps between the source of 'illumination' and said objects to be dull.

Never as dull as the awards show I lit tonight though.

That took all biscuits out of circulation, and made me wonder if extracting my toenails with a Leatherman could improve my standard of living.

Oh well.

Home now, and time for bed

[tom_the_LD]

Light on it's own is boring. It is WHAT you do with it and HOW you use it that makes it interesting :D

[MrBoomal]

Thought I'd spice up things a bit :D

 

My statement is:

"Lights are boring, it is the shadows that makes them interesting"

 

Comments anyone?

have to disagree with eveyone. Look at your favourite object (car, wife, sheep!) And then look at them in the dark. Is light boring? No! Without light there is no Colour texture or form.

 

Some light is certainly more boring than others, but , that is our job, make the subject seem more interesting and dramatic with our light.

 

This is certainly why I became lighting designer/lampie/technician.

 

I'll admit that we have the most underrated job in theatre. I had a complete failure in an opera last week and had to start the second half under house lights. When it had finished I asked some of the audience their opinion. Not ONE noticed that the lights had failed. I feel we do the job for ourselves and our own professional satisfaction, but to me, it is the most important part of theatre. If you cannot see who is speaking/singing then you have failed.

[djw1981]

But a spotlight only works because you allow darkness around it. A floodlight would not have the same effect.