TheatreFace
Putting a Face on Theatre
Lighting Methods
I tweeted yesterday about how I had learned the McCandless and “Jewel” system of lighting this past weekend. I’m enjoying learning more about lighting and electricity, and it was fun -- and informative -- to read about how all my LD buddies do it.
To recap: The McCandless method is a way of lighting a theatrical show that presents a good, general wash over a performer and provides a little depth and shadow for the audience, so the performer doesn’t look “flat.” It uses two front lights (key and fill) placed at 45 degree angles from the performer. A backlight fills things out. The Jewel method uses only one front light, aimed directly at the performer, not offset 45 degrees. It places two side lights on either side of the performer, and a back light. This creates a much more even field of light, which is beneficial if you’re using video. It “flattens” the actors if you’re just looking at it via the naked eye, but on video the sidelight adds depth and shadow.
So -- all of this was great to learn, and I had a much better idea of lighting techniques, so I tweeted about it. Most of the LD’s I talk with were supportive, but I got one response that puzzled me. It read: “Not a fan of all these "methods".. They're just a jumping off point since there's never ideal conditions and Theatre = Art.”
Now, call me crazy (“Crazy”), but while I understand that there are never ideal conditions – I would consider these methods more than just “jumping off” points. But, as I’ve intimate – I don’t know a whole ton about lighting.
So I’ll relate this to where I do have training – audio.
First off, audio. When placing speakers in a room, there are definitely things to take into account: reflections, timing, delays, reverb, standing waves – while there may not be a named “method” of placing speakers, taking these rules into account is more than just a “good idea.” True, for your art, you may want a healthy dose of reverb, or muddy sound – but chances are you want the entire audience, no matter where they are, to have the same experience. And in order to do that – well, you need to know how sound is going to behave in space. It’s not just a jumping off point, it’s the laws of physics. You will need to wrestle with the space, true, and no space is the same as another, but you still start with some basic techniques about how to get even coverage. And hiding behind “Art” is no excuse for one audience member who gets blasted by too-loud atmosphere, while someone else can’t hear anything.
Now, I would imagine it’s the same with lighting. No matter what effect you want to achieve, you want the entire audience to share in it. Which means there are certain things – like a minimum of illumination – that you need to achieve. And that’s what these systems give you – a way to ensure that happens. I won’t even go into the demands of video – which is a stricter mistress than the human eye.
So, that’s my take. At this stage in my relative lighting ignorance, I would place a little more emphasis on these systems than just relegating them to “jumping off” points. But as I’ve said – not a lighting guy. So, all my lighting peeps – what do you think? Are these methods merely jumping off points for you? How far do you adapt them for your gigs? And at what point in your adaptations do you no longer consider your design as actually using this method?
and p.s. -- feel free to correct me if I got any details about the methods wrong above...
To recap: The McCandless method is a way of lighting a theatrical show that presents a good, general wash over a performer and provides a little depth and shadow for the audience, so the performer doesn’t look “flat.” It uses two front lights (key and fill) placed at 45 degree angles from the performer. A backlight fills things out. The Jewel method uses only one front light, aimed directly at the performer, not offset 45 degrees. It places two side lights on either side of the performer, and a back light. This creates a much more even field of light, which is beneficial if you’re using video. It “flattens” the actors if you’re just looking at it via the naked eye, but on video the sidelight adds depth and shadow.
So -- all of this was great to learn, and I had a much better idea of lighting techniques, so I tweeted about it. Most of the LD’s I talk with were supportive, but I got one response that puzzled me. It read: “Not a fan of all these "methods".. They're just a jumping off point since there's never ideal conditions and Theatre = Art.”
Now, call me crazy (“Crazy”), but while I understand that there are never ideal conditions – I would consider these methods more than just “jumping off” points. But, as I’ve intimate – I don’t know a whole ton about lighting.
So I’ll relate this to where I do have training – audio.
First off, audio. When placing speakers in a room, there are definitely things to take into account: reflections, timing, delays, reverb, standing waves – while there may not be a named “method” of placing speakers, taking these rules into account is more than just a “good idea.” True, for your art, you may want a healthy dose of reverb, or muddy sound – but chances are you want the entire audience, no matter where they are, to have the same experience. And in order to do that – well, you need to know how sound is going to behave in space. It’s not just a jumping off point, it’s the laws of physics. You will need to wrestle with the space, true, and no space is the same as another, but you still start with some basic techniques about how to get even coverage. And hiding behind “Art” is no excuse for one audience member who gets blasted by too-loud atmosphere, while someone else can’t hear anything.
Now, I would imagine it’s the same with lighting. No matter what effect you want to achieve, you want the entire audience to share in it. Which means there are certain things – like a minimum of illumination – that you need to achieve. And that’s what these systems give you – a way to ensure that happens. I won’t even go into the demands of video – which is a stricter mistress than the human eye.
So, that’s my take. At this stage in my relative lighting ignorance, I would place a little more emphasis on these systems than just relegating them to “jumping off” points. But as I’ve said – not a lighting guy. So, all my lighting peeps – what do you think? Are these methods merely jumping off points for you? How far do you adapt them for your gigs? And at what point in your adaptations do you no longer consider your design as actually using this method?
and p.s. -- feel free to correct me if I got any details about the methods wrong above...
Views: 282
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rick Reid on -
Naturally the answer is a little more complex. You are both right!
One must walk before running (and other clichés.) In fact if you look in detail at the Jewel method you get McCandless for thrust/round stages. As with all methods there are standard variations and adaptations.
It's also useful to remember that ol' Stanley was looking for the most efficient way to light a stage. Efficient as is flat, boring and non-artistic. I've always said the art is where you diverge from the "Method."
-
Permalink Reply by Jacob Coakley on -
"I've always said the art is where you diverge from the "Method.""
That's a great quote. Thanks, Rick!
-
Permalink Reply by David McCall on -
It depends. I grew up with the McCandless "method" and I can well understand why some would consider it "jumping of point". McCandless teaches a method and the "why" of it. I always use variations of Stanley's "method" when I design "rep plots" for performing arts centers or in situations where there isn't time or budget to come up with a more customized plot. It gets the stage lit with decent modeling. I also like to add as much side-light as I can afford (as in the Jewel scheme) to improve modeling and to use as color washes.
For dance front-light isn't worth putting a lot of effort or budget into. The side lights do a much better job of bring out the dancers shape and form. I usually run the front-lights pretty low and concentrate on side and back lighting for dance. Bring the lights around to the side is extremely useful when working with scrims and projection because the bounce off of the stage goes into the wings, instead of your background. This allows you to color the cyc with much better saturation than you would get with a bunch of Stanley's front lighting bouncing off of the stage onto the cyc.
Both of these methods get the stage lit, but they tend to not be very dramatic or colorful. Once you understand the whys of these methods, you can move on to coming up with a plot for a specific show. If you have the luxury of starting with empty electrics and stripping it out after the show you can be much more creative. The best way to light a specific show is to design each scene with colors and lighting positions that specifically fit the needs of that individual scene. Once you have thought through the needs of each scene, you can go back and look for lights that are can do double duty in more than one scene to reduce the number of fixtures needed to fill out the plot.
It is a lot more fun to start from scratch and just use the "methods" as a jumping off point.
-
Permalink Reply by Rick Reid on
-
Care to elaborate instead of slamming everyone?
How do you view the dis/advantages of them?
-
Possibly hes trying to say that Lighting and Audio work in different ways? In lighting, there is no "minimum" of illumination thats actually set. The minimum is what you decide works for the show. Also, unlike in audio, there are not a ton of situations where having two lights intersect wrong will cancel out the sound, and make it so no one can hear anything. Also important to remember that Mccandless called his book outlining his method "A Method of Lighting The Stage", not The Method. Also, when it comes down to it, the facility is probably the biggest motivator as to how you go about doing basic frontlighting. If you have a single FoH pipe on the Balcony Rail, you need to come up with a different way to achieve your goals for the production, wheras having multiple Box Boom positions, 3 FoH catwalks with multiple rails, and all sorts of circuitry at each position, you have to figure out a different way to solve the same problems. In addition, who says you cant use both methods? It is really not very uncommon to see a McCandless plot using box boom positions, and then Jewel light positions on the Rail or a FoH beam, with back and side light up the rear over the stage. Generally, the "preferred" method of lighting the stage is whatever works for that production in that venue, not some crap you read in a book by a dead guy (not to disparage him).
As for how I use them in my gigs, I prefer the Jewel method. Its faster to hang, due to 1 light on the FoH pipe as opposed to 2, and in my opinion, it can produce much more dramatic looks. Keep in mind that I primarily work in a venue that has audience in the extreme sight-lines at a 90º angle to each other, so having a light dead on for everyone would be impossible. Then, I add in color washes from the FoH ladders or from some other FoH extreme side position (no box booms). Depending on the show, I might give each area multiple front lights, one warm, one N/C and one cool, usually using CTO and CTB filters. Then I go nutzoid on the top, back and sidelight. And then I move into a black box and the entire plan goes to hell (see
-
Permalink Reply by David McCall on
-
We do a lot of dance recitals so I would love to move from my variant on the Mccandless approach to something more like the Jewel approach, but I feel that my FOH position is too steep for that to work well as a general purpose rep-plot. For Dance and Musicals, I'm typically much happier with what comes out of side lighting than anything coming from the front. And I agree that a single front light per area is a lot easier to focus, and much easier to adapt from one show to the next. I wish we had the crew and time to custom light every show, but the schedule is too hectic for that to make sense. I have declared a hand full of lights as not being critical to the basic plot and try to use those to customize for a given show.
Theatreface is the networking site for professional, educational and community theatre brought to you by Stage Directions Magazine.
Groups
-
Gear Reviews
84 members
-
TheatreFace Chat Intervi…
64 members
-
Stage Management
357 members
SD News
Subscribe to Stage Directions
Start Your FREE Subscription to Stage Directions Today!
SD covers everything from backstage to box office--performance to production and is filled with practical tips and information you need to stay on top of theatre trends.Start getting your own copy today!
© 2016 Created by Stage Directions.
Powered by
