After three decades working in film and television, I’ve come to believe that the most valuable lessons on set aren’t about gear, gadgets, or even technique. They’re about mindset, intention and collaboration.

My career hasn’t been defined by blockbuster credits or awards, but by steady, practical experience: the kind that comes from lighting thousands of scenes under budget, under time and under pressure – while still striving for beauty. The advice I offer here comes not from acclaim, but from experience – the kind that only comes from doing the work, day in and day out.

What follows are some thoughts I’ve collected across years of trial, error, observation, and, ultimately, clarity. This isn’t about flashy tricks, it’s about core visual language of storytelling – especially through the lighting of the face, and why where you place your key light matters more than you think.

The Face Is the Frame

There’s a truth I didn’t fully understand for years – one that finally clicked after watching, rewatching, and deeply studying the films that first made me fall in love with this craft.

It’s this: cinematography starts with the face.

The human face is the emotional engine of most cinematic storytelling. It’s where the performance lives. That’s where the audience look. That’s where they feel. That’s where the story lives – in the eyes, the subtle curl of a lip, the hint of fear or uncertainty dancing across a cheekbone. And the way we light that face defines how the audience connects with the character. Flat, front-lit faces? They can make even the best performance feel emotionally distant. But shape the face with contrast – sculpt it with light and shadow – and suddenly the character comes alive.

That said, let’s not turn preference into dogma.

Front light has its place. It can be powerful, vulnerable, and emotionally revealing – when used with intent. I’ve seen front-lighting used with incredible effectiveness, both in my own work and in the work of cinematographers I deeply respect. It’s a creative choice, not a rule to be broken.

Still one of the consistently powerful techniques to achieve this is far-side lighting – illuminating the face from the side opposite the camera. Sometimes called Rembrandt lighting or chiaroscuro, this approach creates a triangle of light on the cheek beneath the eye on the camera side, allowing contrast to define bone structure while subtly pulling the viewer’s attention toward the actor’s expression. The closer the light source to the edge of frame, the more sculpted and intimate the result.

This technique is neither new nor trendy. It’s foundational. You’ll see it – or variations of it – in the works of Greg Toland, Freddie Young, Gordon Willis, Roger Deakins, Emmanuel Lubezki, Greig Fraser, to mention a few. The reason is simple: it works.

It brings intimacy. It builds mystery. It invites the audience in.

“When you light from the near side, you expose the face. When you light from the far side, you reveal the character.”

Blocking Is Lighting

Every Camera Placement Is a Lighting Decision

If there’s one message I like to put on every production office wall, it’s this:

FIX IT IN PREP

One of the most frequent issues I’ve encountered as a gaffer is the habit of staging and blocking a scene strictly for the camera, with lighting treated as an afterthought. I understand the impulse — the urge to chase a dynamic frame, to let the actors play freely — but this kind of siloed thinking often results in uninspired imagery.

What many don’t realize is that every camera placement is also a lighting decision. The moment you choose where to put the lens, you’ve also chosen where the light can (and cannot) come from. The moment you stage a character’s turn or movement, you’ve also impacted how shadows will fall, how light can wrap, how eyes will read.

We have to think of lighting and blocking as a single conversation — not two separate tasks. When we approach them together, we gain options. We gain elegance. We create visuals that support, not fight, the narrative.

If you want to light from the far side — and I believe you should, more often than not — then staging has to respect that. If your actor is facing camera left, don’t box yourself into lighting them from that same side unless you’re deliberately going for a flat look. Think in terms of angles, not just placements. Think of where the camera will see the character best, and where the light will feel most.

But more than just planning – what we really need to do is reverse engineer the visual outcome.

Too often, sets are designed and locations locked without fully considering how the lighting will be executed. The result? Beautifully built spaces where there’s nowhere to put a light – or worse – where the only available light placement fights the blocking or flattens the image.

The most cinematic visuals begin long before the call sheet. They’re born in prep, through collaborative discussions that reverse engineer the environment to serve the camera and lighting goals.

• Want a painterly far-side key? Then we need space off-camera to stage it.

• Want daylight interiors that feel real and expressive? Let’s orient the windows for proper sun direction and choose drapery materials that give us control and mood.

• Need to motivate your light sources naturally? Let’s design practicals into the architecture of the set, not add them at the last minute.

• Want visual flexibility? Avoid boxing the lighting team into corners?

Set walls that wild. Ceilings with rigging points. Pre-cut cabling paths. Even room for flags. All of these decisions affect whether a scene can be beautifully and efficiently lit – or whether we’re hacking it together on the day.

Cinematography is engineering just as much as it is art. And the best images are designed backwards – from lens to light, not the other way around.

Reverse engineering isn’t restrictive. It’s freeing. It allows you to anticipate limitations and remove them before they ever appear on set.

Depth Over Brightness

Why Contrast Matters More Than Exposure

Flat lighting is fast. But it rarely feels cinematic.

We live in an era of extremes – with some content overly bright and clean, others dim and moody. But regardless of trends, cinema thrives in contrast. In shadow. In shape.

Lighting from the near side tends to flatten features. It removes the visual cues that make a face feel sculpted and expressive. But a key from the far side? It defines the jaw, highlights the cheekbone, casts meaningful shadows beneath the brow. It makes the face feel real, present, lived in.

Don’t be afraid of shadows. Don’t be afraid of letting a side fall away. The audience does not need to see everything – they need to feel it.

Two Cameras? Think Twice

Double Coverage, Half the Quality

Running two cameras simultaneously is often pitched as a time-saving measure. An in some cases, it absolutely can be. But too often, the result is this:

• One camera gets the good angle.

• The other gets the compromise.

• And the lighting splits the difference – and please neither.

If you’re using two cameras on coverage-heavy drama but sacrificing the emotional power of your lighting to do it, you haven’t saved time – you’ve lost quality.

I’m not against B-cameras. I’m against using them without a plan.

Shoot A-cam like it’s the only camera. Then shoot B-cam like it matters just as much. Both deserve their own lighting. Their own creative attention.

I’ve been fortunate to work with directors and DPs who think about this early – and I’ve seen firsthand how it elevates not just the efficiency, but the emotional power of the scene. (This topic deserves its own article. Too much to cover here.)

Leave Room for the Work

Lighting Takes Physical Space

So many lighting challenges don’t come down to artistry – they come down to logistics. You simply can’t light well when there’s nowhere to place a key, no place for a bounce, no rigging plan for overheads.

Want to light from the far side? You need physical space to do it. That means set designs that allow for off-camera room. That means communicating with the art department about rigging points and floor space. That means locations with practical workflow, not just aesthetic appeal.

Great lighting needs room to breathe. Give your lighting and grip departments the room to create – and you’ll see it on screen.

Collaboration Over Control

Egos Don’t Light Beautifully – Teams Do

Film is collaborative by nature. But it only works when the collaboration is real – not hierarchical, not territorial, no based on “my way or the highway” thinking.

The best sets I’ve worked on are the ones where the DP and I engage in honest, iterative discussions. Where the production designer involves me in the layout discussions. Where the director and camera operators understand how blocking affects lighting. Where the crew respect flows in all directions.

My job as a gaffer isn’t to impose a look. It’s to help realize it, enhance it, and problem-solve it. And the best DPs I know return the respect by bringing lighting into the story from day one.

Final Thought: Light to Make Us Feel

This isn’t an article about trends. It’s not about what gear to buy, or what LUT to use. This is about approach. Discipline. Vision. Collaboration. Intention.

The most cinematic images I’ve ever helped create were not the most expensive or technically complex – they were the ones where every decision served the story. Where the camera and the light worked together. Where the actor’s face was lit not just seen, but to be felt.

So prep well. Communicate early. Reverse engineer the set to support your light. Light from the far side when you want depth and intimacy. An above all:

Don’t just light the set. Light the story.

About the author:

Terry Banting is a veteran Toronto-based gaffer with over 30 years of experience in film and television. Having worked across everything from indie features to prestigious episodics, he specializes in creative collaboration, emotional lighting and maximizing the art of storytelling – one face at a time.