How a Lighting Plot Review Is Done, Step by Step

Starting with the plot and the camera list

Every review begins with two documents: the lighting plot and the list of cameras that will be shooting under it. A plot on its own tells us where fixtures hang and what they are meant to do, but it says nothing about how the cameras will read that light. So we ask for the camera models, the lens range and the exposure settings the operators normally use, along with a note of whether the set is mainly news, discussion or entertainment.

We read the plot before looking at anything else, fixture by fixture, and mark what each lamp appears to be doing: key, fill, back light, set wash or background accent. This first pass is quiet and slow. Most of the useful findings come from noticing where a role is missing or doubled, and that is easier to see on paper than in a busy studio.

• Lighting plot in PDF or drawing format
• Camera models and typical exposure settings
• Set photographs from the main camera positions
• A note on the programme format and crew size

Checking colour temperature across the rig

Colour temperature is the first technical check. We list every source on the plot with its stated colour temperature and note where tungsten, LED and any practical lamps are mixed. A rig that is nominally 3200K can drift once dimmed, and some LED fixtures shift their output at low levels. We flag any place where two sources of different temperature fall on the same face or the same part of the set.

Where a client sends footage or stills from the cameras, we compare skin tones and white surfaces between positions. Often the plot is sound and the problem is a single wash light left at the wrong setting. We write down what we can confirm from the documents and what would need a check on the floor, and we keep those two lists separate in the report.

Positioning, angles and shadow

Next comes positioning. Using the plot dimensions and the camera positions, we work out the angle each key light makes to the presenter and to the lens. A key placed too high produces dark eye sockets; one placed too far to the side leaves a hard shadow line across the face. We also look at how far talent is from the set walls, because short distances cause back light and set wash to spill onto each other.

Shadows from boom arms, monitors and other fixtures are often missed at the drawing stage. We trace likely shadow paths for the main shots and mark any that fall across a face or a desk. Where the set allows movement, we note how much the presenters can shift before the lighting stops working for them.

• Key light height and angle to each presenter
• Spill between back light and set wash
• Shadow paths from stands, booms and monitors

Camera-friendly levels and contrast

Levels are where the review meets the cameras. We compare the lighting level suggested by the plot with the exposure range the cameras were set up for, and we look at contrast between the brightest and darkest parts of a typical frame. Too much light is as common a fault as too little: it forces operators to close the iris, which shortens depth of field and flattens the picture.

We also think about the mix of shots. A wide shot of the whole set and a tight shot of a guest ask different things of the same lighting, so we check that moving between them does not push anyone out of range. The aim is a steady, even level that lets operators work with the lens they want, not one that makes them hunt for exposure.

Writing the notes and handing them over

The result is a written report, not a redraw of the plot. Each note names the fixture or area it refers to, says what we found, and suggests a change in plain terms: lower this lamp, swap that source, move the back light toward the camera side. We order the notes by how much difference they are likely to make, so a busy team can act on the first few and leave the rest for a later rig day.

Where something cannot be judged from documents alone, we say so and suggest a simple test to run in the studio, with the reading to look for. We then answer follow-up questions on the report by email, so your engineers can make the changes with confidence and ask about anything unclear.

• Notes ordered by likely effect on picture
• Suggested floor checks where documents fall short
• Follow-up questions answered by email

What we leave to the people on the floor

A review from documents has limits, and we try to be plain about them. We cannot see how a set reads in the actual room, how reflective the floor is, or how a particular presenter's skin responds to a given lamp. Those judgements belong to the lighting crew and the camera operators who work in the space every day.

What we can give them is a second reading, made calmly and away from the pressure of a rig day. Teams tell us the most useful part is often having someone question a decision made years ago and never revisited. We write the notes with that in mind: clear enough to discuss around a monitor, and specific enough to test.