Answers.Body: <p>The lights are positioned to make the single shots look good.  If you point a load of lights at a camera, the image will look overexposed.</p>
  <p>Both these shots are, more or less exposed to make the presenters look correct. But lights visible in a camera shot are much brighter than human faces.</p>
  <p>It's a compromise in a small room between which shots are the most important (the close-ups) and the wide is a nice to have.  The alternatives would be bigger softer lights, or indirect lighting, but again with limited space (and budget???) options are limited.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-14T21:14:14.550Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-14T21:14:14.550Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: tomh
Answers.Body: <p>Yes changing the lighting is probably the best solution but if that's not possible for them they had other options to make it look better.</p>
  <p>The reason it looks bad is also due to how the video is processed and choice of camera and the settings used by the camera.</p>
  <p>First of all it you can tell that the video has been digitally darkened because the highlights are grey instead of white. Undoing this makes things look a little better. I think the footage could have been graded better.
  <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/GsX4e.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/GsX4e.jpg" alt="Now highlights are white instead of grey" /></a></p>
  <p>Second of all the image is overexposed, whoever did this should have reduced the exposure and then maybe brightened the shadows while editing the footage. Another option is to use a camera with wider dynamic range.</p>
  <p>Also on another note I think the wide angle shot looks soft. Looking closer I think the issue was noise reduction or maybe it was because of how much YouTube compresses the videos. If it was a result of noise reduction whoever did this if possible should have opened up the aperture of the lens if possible or brought in more lights or if the light brightness is adjustable increase the light brightness.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-09-15T03:07:09.180Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-09-15T03:07:09.180Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: The Movie Man
Body: <p>In the video from the Joe Rogan Experience #1533, the close up shots of the guests look well lit and perfectly exposed. But the wide shot taken early in the interview around 6:48 looks terrible - the lights are far too bright and the whole shot looks overexposed. What would cause there to be so much difference in the lighting consistency between these two angles?
  <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/0IJYQ.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/0IJYQ.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  
Tags: <lighting>
Title: Why is there so little lighting continuity (consistency) from the close up shot to the wide shot?
UserDisplayName: brettv
ThreadText: # Why is there so little lighting continuity (consistency) from the close up shot to the wide shot?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-09-14)
  
  In the video from the Joe Rogan Experience #1533, the close up shots of the guests look well lit and perfectly exposed. But the wide shot taken early in the interview around 6:48 looks terrible - the lights are far too bright and the whole shot looks overexposed. What would cause there to be so much difference in the lighting consistency between these two angles?
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/0IJYQ.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/0IJYQ.jpg)
  
  **Tags:** lighting
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2020-09-14. Score: 1 | Accepted answer
  
  The lights are positioned to make the single shots look good. If you point a load of lights at a camera, the image will look overexposed.
  
  Both these shots are, more or less exposed to make the presenters look correct. But lights visible in a camera shot are much brighter than human faces.
  
  It's a compromise in a small room between which shots are the most important (the close-ups) and the wide is a nice to have. The alternatives would be bigger softer lights, or indirect lighting, but again with limited space (and budget???) options are limited.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2020-09-15. Score: 0
  
  Yes changing the lighting is probably the best solution but if that's not possible for them they had other options to make it look better.
  
  The reason it looks bad is also due to how the video is processed and choice of camera and the settings used by the camera.
  
  First of all it you can tell that the video has been digitally darkened because the highlights are grey instead of white. Undoing this makes things look a little better. I think the footage could have been graded better.
  [![Now highlights are white instead of grey](https://i.sstatic.net/GsX4e.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/GsX4e.jpg)
  
  Second of all the image is overexposed, whoever did this should have reduced the exposure and then maybe brightened the shadows while editing the footage. Another option is to use a camera with wider dynamic range.
  
  Also on another note I think the wide angle shot looks soft. Looking closer I think the issue was noise reduction or maybe it was because of how much YouTube compresses the videos. If it was a result of noise reduction whoever did this if possible should have opened up the aperture of the lens if possible or brought in more lights or if the light brightness is adjustable increase the light brightness.
  
  
  ---
  
  