5 ms·
The before and after on the lighting is so drastic.
by ghostbrainalpha 5y ago
The before and after on the lighting is so drastic.
- charcircuit 5y agoI thought they were backwards at first since in the after he's not even fully lit up.
- bhauer 5y agoAgreed. Am I crazy that the "before" looks better and more natural to me? The "after" looks like he is illuminated from the side only in a dungeon.
- wsinks 5y agoYou're not crazy, but my guess is that the author has chosen the after to more closely mimic the stage for a performance, which they were missing once everyone went home.
- throaway46546 5y agoSame the second one just looks dark.
- gruez 5y agoSeems like 80% of the difference is from doing the white balance correctly.
- erosenbe0 5y agoHere is a tip for white balance. Where possible: try not to sit too close to a large screen or at least maintain a static distance not moving your head much relative to screen. The dynamic changes in blue-ish screen lighting wreak havoc on some skin tones. One minute I'm Casper and the next I looked like I bathed in Mountain Dew!
- keyle 5y ago45 degree light, warm, key light at the back, cooler or natural white. It makes a gigantic difference yes, but it may not be always the right choice if you want to look "more approachable" for example.
- ghostbrainalpha 5y agoDoes this mean people don't want to talk to someone under dramatic lighting? So you should go less professional to be more like your audience?
- vmception 5y agoLighting > Lens > Camera > Medium > Resolution In that order, especially when looking at where to compromise