I understand that people have issues with how movies and shows look. And I agree there are some systemic problems with modern aesthetics. But I feel like we have entered this hypernitpick realm where people are inventing problems that don't exist.
I guess people think this promo image looks bad.
I do agree his pose looks a little... pooping in the woods... but I think this is a solid image otherwise.
There may be some retouching work that smoothed it out and gave it a painterly look. Which is why it gives some AI vibes. They do the same thing with movie posters.
But I don't think this is indicative of the "Netflix lighting" critique people are asserting.
The artist in the video says the lighting is flat.
Flat lighting means the exposure is consistent across the subject. There is very little transition from light to dark and the shadows lack density.
Dimensional lighting has more dramatic falloff from highlights to shadows. For hard light, that falloff is very sharp. For soft light that falloff is a gradient.
Shadow density is what gives you a sense of contrast. Bright ambient light will cause low density shadows, dark ambient light will cause high density shadows.
Here is soft flat lighting with low density shadows compared to soft dimensional lighting with higher density shadows.
The GoW promo image is pretty dimensional considering the lighting environment.
There is a good gradient falloff from light to dark on their faces. And I would say the shadows have a medium to dark density. The darkest shadow area is about 8% brightness, which I feel is acceptable for the lighting environment.
It's clear they are going for a natural, motivated lighting style. You have to consider the light source and how it is interacting with the environment. It looks like an overcast, foggy morning. The sun is strongest to the right of frame. When sunlight goes through heavy clouds and then fog, it is going to create two effects.
First, the light is going to be very soft.
Second, there is going to be strong ambient light. When there is diffused ambient light like this, it lifts shadows and reduces contrast.
I follow Courtney Victoria, and she is a woodland photographer in the UK. Almost all of her videos are during an overcast day, and some of them are during heavy fog. This is what that looks like with no lighting tricks or color grading.
It's flat. It's low contrast. But it's also cool and spooky.
I actually think in God of War they added some negative fill to the characters to help boost the contrast on them and keep them looking more dimensional. They may have used a large black material just out of frame to block incoming ambient light from the left. Or they may have just done this with color grading.
When you look at people in overcast light, they lack dimension (no falloff into shadow) and there is low contrast (no shadow density) and the colors can desaturate. The strong ambient light is filling in every nook and cranny.
Negative fill is a technique where you block ambient light in one direction to increase contrast and shadow density.
Just imagine a big black poster board just out of frame.
And when you directly compare foggy forest scenes, you can see the difference with and without negative fill.
So I think considering the lighting environment they were working with, they used best practices to get soft, dimensional lighting. I do not think the image is flat in that context. I think if they pushed the lighting to be more dramatic, then it wouldn't look like a spooky, foggy forest anymore.
In fact, compared to this shot in the game, they have stronger contrast and shadow density in the promo image. His dark beard is very lifted here.
This is probably because the game has to let the light do what it is programmed to do. It is very foggy and overcast. There isn't really a way to add 360 degree negative fill, so they look low contrast and flat. But I think the dense fog elevates the aesthetic even if it creates a flatter light.
They went for a vibe rather than a hyper-stylized lighting effect.
The artist "fixed" the image.
And his edits look cool. But that isn't the light they had to work with.
In his first image, he completely dismisses the diffusing effects of the fog and overcast lighting. He emulated a hard, warm sunlight. But clouds create a cooler color temperature. And where is the edge light coming from? They are under a canopy. The only light behind him is the overcast sky. Edge light is created by a strong directional light source.
And in the second edit, he completely changed the location of the sun. So the edge light makes more sense now, but unless I missed something, filmmakers do not have control over the sun.
He is taking an illustration approach to a cinematography problem and they aren't always compatible. Can we at least manage expectations of visuals to not violate the laws of the cosmos?
Could they have lit this angle of the scene like these edits?
Maybe. With big artificial lights. Which they would have to power in the middle of a forest. But that creates a whole new set of problems.
You have to keep in mind they are in a real world environment and they are not creating a static image. They have to consider multiple angles. They have to consider lighting consistency over the entire scene. If they show an animal running away from another angle, how are they going to maintain this artificial lighting? What if they show another angle looking toward the sun but it's behind clouds and fog? Do they create a CG sun?
If the scene does not have lighting continuity, that is going to be very distracting. And if the lighting is not in the realm of reality, that will cause it to look more fake and uncanny. I'm not saying you can't cheat with lighting tricks. But the more you stray from reality, the more you challenge suspension of disbelief.
No Time to Die had a scene in the forest with overcast lighting and heavy fog.
If you look at static frames...
It's very flat. It's not visually exciting when you isolate the images like this.
But when you watch the entire scene, it is a really cool, spooky environment. It heightens the stakes. It serves the story and the action.
You always serve the story first, then you make it look as cool as you can.
If the vibe of the scene is a cold, foggy, overcast morning in the forest, then I think the image is composed well under those circumstances.
Again, not every frame of the movie has to look like an aesthetic masterpiece. You have to serve the story first. You have to keep things consistent so every angle looks the same. And you can't sacrifice the mood of a scene for some super rad lighting.
In the show, when things are in motion and you are getting a sense of the entire environment, I have a feeling this scene will look and feel right.
I get that people want things to look better. But a lot of the "fixes" feel like overcorrection. We have entered this nitpick phase were filmmakers are expected to have illustration quality lighting design despite the constraints of being in a forest with fog on a cloudy day.
Maybe the real critique here is they should have picked a more dynamic promo photo for the show.
kaledo-art
prguitarman
germansingergirl
discoholicmusic
titsay
stormborns
andulkaphoto
