It’s nice to read something that gives you assurance on your beliefs, and when it comes to CG lighting… I couldn’t agree with this interview more…
I always try to stress this to people that I talk about this too and although it might seem obvious, people who are beginning to learn this art form aren’t fully aware of what they are really learning. It’s not about how this program works or what hacks I have to do to light an egg to match it to a live action one. It’s a lot more than that. And learning the tools that closely and more accurately mimic the behavior is a must, but in any case it is only the beginning….
Some quotes from the article that might make you interested in reading it:
[…] is there a difference between the way live-action DPs approach lighting and what we do in the computer?
(On the question: what do you look for in a lighter?)
For full CG, I’d look for good artistic sensibility along with the technical skills you look for in any lighter.
Pixar’s Jeremy Vickery told me that he’d like to get to the point where he could recruit people with a background in cinematography or illustration, not CG software.
I could not agree with this more:
Lighting workflow wants to mimic live-action cinematography more closely. Fewer CG cheats will be required, and you will want to constrain yourself to what’s possible on a real set. In other words, you won’t want to place your area light underneath the floor and turn shadows off: that sort of thing.
So it was refreshing to read this article and I hope you find it useful as well.