Talk:Three-point lighting

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Stagecraft (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stagecraft, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.StagecraftWikipedia:WikiProject StagecraftTemplate:WikiProject StagecraftStagecraft articles

Merge 4-point lighting setup into this article

I'd suggest that Three-point lighting is a more commonly used term than 4-point lighting setup, and that 4-point lighting is a subset of it. Consequently, I recommend merging 4-point lighting setup into Three-point lighting. --Jeremy Butler 13:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Jeremy Butler. Oliver Bronson

Done. -- Beland 19:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not clear on the whole three-point and four point lighting concept, however i thought maybe a few pictures would benefit the article just to make it a little clearer, as well as providing an example. Natasha.x

Added Requested Images

I added some images showing how it works. Theonlysilentbob 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DearSilent bob; I thank you for the Diagram - but as I am a working photographer & video lighting director, may I correct a slight inaccuracy of the diagram & send it to you for your approval? Experience has shown that placing the "Back" or "Hair-light" across from the key, rather than on the same side as the key produces a more pleasing 3 dimensional effect to the lens. Also adding a symbol for the "Imaging" object, (i.e. film or electronic camera) will help orient the researcher as to where the POV of the plot is located. I can do this in Photoshop if you like, & send it as a png or Jpg. When lighting commercials with a field kit I invariably found that if my Key & Hair light were on the same side of the subject- they look like they were caught in an A-Bomb blast, where when the hair light was on the subdued "Fill light" shoulder, it would enhance the illusion of 3 dimensional modeling. Also I can upload a couple of my example shots showing the effect of different lighting settings. thanks. MBD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.6.81.62 (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reqphoto

I would like to see some example photos of what each camera provides. The book Light: Science and Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting provides great example pictures; we should have something similar here. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of focus?

I think this page should be renamed studio lighting (which now redirects to category:Photographic lighting). There could be a section for each named light and a discussion of overall approaches. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camera position?

The illustrations:

show everything except the camera itself! Where it is supposed to be? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience the camera is diametrically opposite the backlight with key and fill on either side of that line. Robjlocke (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4 point lighting

A query on 4 point lighting definition. 3 point lighting is key , back and fill, agreed. 4-point in my experience is 4 lamps at roughly 90 degrees to each other. This permits acceptible lighting on the subject at any angle in the horizontal plane. I come from a formal broadcast lighting background and realise that this may not correspond with stills techniques, however, as the "subject" is all-important whatever illuminates the set or background could be no lights or many lights bares no relation to the 2,3,or 4 point lighting of the subject. To refer to 4 point lighting as the article does is misleading. Robjlocke (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]