Best use of lighting

name kino's who had the best use of lighting (read: lighting, not fancy neon colors, just lighting)

Attached: 1529058424421.jpg (1440x1080, 102K)

Other urls found in this thread:

neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-famous-f0-7-lenses/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Mario Bava was the master of indoor lighting and use of color, a true perfectionist who made every frame a painting. His most beautiful film is probably Blood and Black Lace

Night of the Hunter

Attached: cFv7xCTn3pvVlLkiUGGjCc1g83XHFt_large.jpg (1600x903, 241K)

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

Attached: caligari11.jpg (1200x673, 234K)

Literally just watched this for the time last night. It's an amazing film. So many shots are like artwork. The framing in most of it is absurdly well done, and apparently this is the only film this guy ever made?

The Third Man
Odd Man Out
The Agony & The Ecstasy

Attached: image.jpg (810x456, 43K)

get this jewish non-euclidean garbage outta here

bro you don't even know what euclidean means.

Day of Wrath

Attached: vredens-dag-den1943-aka-day-of-wrath-DXJBET.jpg (1300x1048, 127K)

Blade Runner, the 1st one. Lighting is everything there.

OP said the focus should be great lighting instead of neon meme colors, he didn't say the movies had to be black and white!

Barry Lyndon

Attached: qjoJMAo.jpg (1920x1080, 147K)

Apocalypse Now had some great use of lighting. The river scenes look appropriately natural and sun-drenched. The night-time scenes have great use of shadows, often with piercing, eerie artificial light in the distance.

Get a load of this pleb

how the fuck do these have anything other than average tier lighting?

Exposed yourself as a pleb.

I'm actually asking. Barry lyndon for example uses a lot of natural light without anything special going on.

That's what's special about it. Natural lighting is kino. Kubrick even used candlelight for indoor scenes

>Natural lighting is kino
only when it is manipulated for specific things. when it's just there, there is nothing special about what the lighting artist did.

Kubrick had to push camera technology to a new level to get the shots he did. This guy goes into the technical details of it in ways I can't.

neiloseman.com/barry-lyndon-the-full-story-of-the-famous-f0-7-lenses/

that is just a technical achievement, and has nothing to do with creative use of lighting.

Plebs, plebs... all of you.

Attached: MV5BOTQ4Y2I5MzYtNDJkZS00YTFmLWJkODctMmU3YzQ3ZDhkMWE5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjc1NTYyMjg@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,66 (665x1000, 119K)

Attached: 6.png (1480x1080, 741K)

>unironically

Attached: 906f6df114aec7b7049128e81935ec3a.gif (505x376, 1.27M)

>have to literally create new things to work with the specific kinda lighting you want for your movie
>hurr durr not creative
spot the pleb

>want to use regular ass candles to put on table
>oh no shit technology doesn't let me use boring candles
>make new lens
>technical problem solved
the lighting is boring as hell

and what makes this good lighting?
>look ma! you can see the light come in
is that it?

bumpo

would like more examples of creative lighting