mcarless's blog

Link to Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_OUeqIeg4BHhixrQ2qRwl_VSC0BaSS1CKEMIHm03OHU/edit?usp=sharing

Looking through the feedback there was an overall positive response towards the workshop. Most students felt they had at least some improvement in their knowledge of how to approach lighting people (see student responses below). I managed to answer most students’ questions and created space for them to explore lighting a variety of different people with diverse skin tones. This aligns with inclusive learning principles, which emphasise the importance of creating learning environments that recognise and support learner diversity (Hockings, 2010).

Looking through the feedback from the students’ lighting tests, there was a trend in responses indicating that they generally thought their skin tone looked most accurate between 40–50% IRE. This contrasts with long-standing, historically white-centric guidance that suggests skin tones should aim to reach approximately 70% on the IRE scale. Through this particular test in the workshop, the students were able to explore how different exposures affected their skin. Some comments from the students focused on how darker exposures “gave them more depth,” while brighter exposures were described as “very pale” or washed out.

Through this workshop, I now have access to a much more diverse set of lighting test images across a more diverse range of people. Thinking back to my initial objectives set at the start of my APR project, I feel I have achieved most of my key aims. Upon reflection, however, there are some improvements to the workshop design and implementation that I will bring forward in the future. These include enhanced feedback and data collection methods, a more interactive and reflective round-up session, clearer learning outcomes and technical language, and further adjustment of exercises in response to student feedback and engagement on the day.

Improvements to feedback forms and questionnaires / data collection

Although I gained some useful feedback from the questionnaires, on reflection I feel that I could have gained deeper insight if I had adjusted the tone and specificity of some of the questions. For example, asking students what they had learned was too broad, particularly given the full-day structure and range of activities. In future, I would break this down more clearly identifying the learning objectives for the session and ask more targeted questions aligned directly to each objective. This reflects the principle of constructive alignment, which emphasises coherence between learning objectives, teaching activities, and assessment or feedback mechanisms (Biggs & Tang, 2011).

This approach would encourage students to engage in more focused reflection and support formative assessment by prompting them to reflect on learning processes rather than simply reporting outcomes (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). It would also provide more meaningful data that could be mapped directly against intended learning outcomes, allowing me to refine the workshop design more effectively.

Incorporating a more interactive round-up session

At the end of the workshop I held a short round-up session, this was primarily a summary of the day and an opportunity to ensure students would complete the feedback forms. In future, I would intentionally create more space for active enquiry, discussion and shared reflection. I feel like inciting a dialogue between the whole class so they can all reflect on the skills gained and share this with each other, would help solidify their learning. This would help emphasise their gained knowledge as co-constructed through discussion rather than transmitted solely by the teacher (Freire, 1970).

Throughout the day, informal discussion occurred between students about lighting choices and their effects. By drawing these discussions together in a structured closing activity, I could highlight key observations from each group and share these with the wider cohort. This collective reflection supports deeper learning by encouraging students to articulate and test their understanding in relation to others’ experiences (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006).

Adjusting exercises in response to student feedback

As discussed previously, I pivoted from my initial plan and focused instead on students recreating existing reference images. In future, I will introduce this as a structured challenge from the outset. This adjustment would maintain the exploratory nature of the workshop while significantly increasing engagement, as evidenced both by student feedback and observed behaviour during the session. This aligns with experiential learning theory, where understanding is developed through active experimentation and concrete experience (Kolb, 1984).

This approach also created opportunities to revisit earlier lighting concepts in applied contexts, supporting learning transfer and consolidation (Kolb, 1984). I found this phase of the session particularly effective, as it encouraged natural dialogue, problem-solving, and student-led enquiry. This shift away from slide-led delivery towards participatory exploration reflects inclusive and student-centred teaching practices (Hockings, 2010; Freire, 1970).

REFs

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for quality learning at university. 4th edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Hockings, C. (2010) ‘Inclusive learning and teaching in higher education: a synthesis of research’, EvidenceNet, York: Higher Education Academy. Available at: https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/inclusive-learning-and-teaching-higher-education-synthesis-research 

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nicol, D.J. and Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice’, Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp. 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090

Thoughts on student engagement/IRE exposure task

Overall student engagement in the IRE exposure task was positive, although it took several attempts at the exercise before students began to talk critically about the task. On reflection, this reinforces how perceptual learning in technical workshops often requires repetition before students can meaningfully articulate differences, aligning with experiential learning models (Kolb, 1984). I positioned the IRE lighting test at the beginning of the day, as it is arguably the most tedious from a student’s perspective. As it is repetitive, less exploratory, and the least stylised exercise. This decision was intentional as I felt students would be more receptive to this task earlier in the day, before cognitive fatigue set in. Engagement was generally good, however I observed moments where focus drifted. This highlights that it is sometimes necessary to repeat technical instruction to sustain student engagement, a challenge widely discussed in engagement literature (Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004). As with the proof-of-concept test day, once students viewed themselves at multiple exposure points, they were better able to identify where they felt most naturally represented. This reinforces the value of comparison and reflection in developing evaluative confidence, echoing Schön’s (1983) concept of reflection-on-action.

Example of student exposure test and Monk Scale

Reflections on tone and instructional clarity

During the presentation I provided visual examples from my proof of concept and test findings. (Link to workshop slides). In these the grey card was hard-mounted in the shot to ensure consistency and enable accurate post-production comparison. Although I mentioned this verbally, I did not insist on it as a requirement. This led to students holding grey cards by hand, repositioning them between shots and placing them inconsistently.

Example shots from proof of concept test shoot

Examples of student lighting test set ups

In hindsight, this suggests the task may have required clearer modelling and more explicit instruction. Research on instructional design highlights that students benefit from explicit modelling of both process and purpose, particularly in technical and practice-based contexts (Kirschner, Sweller & Clark, 2006). I often aim to maintain a relaxed atmosphere and a flat structure, favouring a collaborative, co-teaching style. However, this pedagogical choice resulted in some outputs being difficult to compare, due to inconsistent grey card placement. As Biggs and Tang (2011) note, effective learning depends on alignment between teaching intentions, instruction, and outcomes.

In some examples (see above) students handholding grey cards shaded students’ faces, unintentionally altering their exposure. Additionally some students shot very short clips which limited the amount of usable footage I could compare. These inconsistencies slightly hindered the post production process and could have easily been avoided. In future workshops I will retain my relaxed teaching style while introducing clearer non-negotiable technical requirements, ensuring students understand both the “how” and the “why” behind these constraints.

Pivoting in response to student behaviour

During the second half of the workshop when setting out these tasks, I thought it would be useful for students to have visual references to indicate what they were being asked to aim for and explore (Link to slides). In this task, however, they began to try and recreate some of the references instead of just using them as inspiration. While watching this I chose to pivot the rest of the session toward recreation while keeping the key parameters the same. I chose this approach as I felt that within the class, they could still explore the concept I was trying to communicate, but recreating scenes from references allowed the students to be more actively engaged. This adaptive response reflects a more student-centred and responsive pedagogical approach, prioritising meaningful engagement over strict adherence to the original task design (Biggs and Tang, 2011). By reframing the exercise, students remained focused while still working within the same exposure and colour constraints; as a result, the learning outcomes were still met through this different approach.

I found this exercise particularly enjoyable to teach, I could help guide students naturally towards finding solutions to their problems in real time. Throughout the day, I spent a lot of time helping to iron out any questions or problems that the students faced in each setup. Looking at the feedback forms, this was also what the students most enjoyed and found the most rewarding aspect of the day. It allowed me to cement concepts from previous workshops which they brought into the conversation. I think that by attaching the task to something they found inspiring and breaking this recreation into manageable steps, they could more clearly see how they might apply this process in the field when shooting their films. 

Overall, this experience has highlighted the importance of flexibility in practice-based teaching for me. While technical accuracy remains essential, responding to student behaviour and motivation in real time can support deeper engagement and more effective learning, particularly in workshop-based environments.

REF’s

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 4th edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C. and Paris, A.H. (2004) ‘School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence’, Review of Educational Research, 74(1), pp. 59–109.

Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

For this project, I’m collecting data in a few different ways, rather than relying on just one method. My aim here is to use a triangulation approach, where different methods are used to cross-check findings and strengthen their validity (Creswell, 2014).  Mixed or multi-method approaches like this give both breadth and depth of information, which is especially useful when research aims to both teach and generate practical guidance. 

Student Feedback forms 

One of my main tools will be student feedback forms completed after the workshop. (Link to example form) These will focus on what students feel they learned, what surprised them, and how useful they found the workshop overall. I’ll also be asking for feedback on my approach as a facilitator, so I can reflect critically on how the session was delivered. Student feedback is widely used in education research as a way of understanding learning experiences directly from the learner’s perspective (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). It allows students to reflect on their own learning, while also helping me to identify what worked well and what could be improved. In the context of this project, their feedback will be crucial in understanding whether the workshop actually increased awareness around nuances in lighting different skin tones.

Written Reflections on the Skin Tone Tests

Alongside the general feedback forms, students will also be asked to write short reflections specifically during the IRE (exposure) lighting tests (Link to example form). This will include their impressions of how lighting affected different skin tones, as well as where they perceive their own skin tone to sit on the Monk Skin Tone Scale. Written reflection is commonly used in qualitative research because it allows participants to describe their experiences in their own words, rather than being limited to fixed survey answers (Braun and Clarke, 2006). These reflections should give me more detailed insight into how students interpret what they’re seeing on camera, and how their understanding evolves throughout the testing process.

Footage from the Lighting Tests

Another key data source will be the actual footage produced during the lighting tests. This visual material is essential because my project is fundamentally about how skin tones respond to light on camera. Practice-based research often relies on creative outputs as data in their own right, not just as final outcomes (Smith and Dean, 2009). By analysing this footage later, I’ll be able to compare how different lighting approaches, filters and exposure levels visually affect different skin tones. This also allows students’ practical experimentation to directly feed back into the teaching resources I’m building.

My Own Observations and Documentation

Finally, I’ll be collecting observations from the workshop itself, along with photographs of students working. This includes noting how students interact with the equipment, how confident they seem when adjusting lighting and where they appear uncertain or curious. Reflective observation is a common feature of practitioner research, especially in education and creative disciplines, because it allows the researcher to critically evaluate their own teaching practice in real time (Dancis, Coleman & Ellison, 2023).

These observations will help contextualise the student feedback and the footage — for example, if students struggled with a particular test setup, I may see that reflected both in their written responses and in the images they produce. Using all of these methods together helps build a more complete picture of what the workshop achieves. Feedback forms capture students’ voices, written reflections capture personal interpretation, footage shows visual outcomes, and my own observations provide a teaching-focused perspective. Combining qualitative and visual data is especially valuable in creative education, where learning is not always easily measured through numbers alone (Gray and Malins, 2004). Together, these data sources will help me evaluate not only whether the workshop works, but how and why it works and how it might be improved in future iterations.

References

Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp.77–101.

Creswell, J.W., 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th ed. London: SAGE.

Gray, C. and Malins, J., 2004. Visualizing Research: A Guide to the Research Process in Art and Design. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Nicol, D. and Macfarlane-Dick, D., 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), pp.199–218.

Dancis, J.S., Coleman, B.R. & Ellison, E.R., 2023. Participatory Action Research as Pedagogy: Stay Messy. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.75174

Smith, H. and Dean, R.T., 2009. Practice-led Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative Arts. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Link to my ethical action

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xoty0IwW4KB0QDGn56k7dCHpXEEwU8uw/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=110209103505110704763&rtpof=true&sd=true

Link to the slides for workshop

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/125u8qbY03M10-MVFmDUcATyPqbWNwfXP2TXB6Po2Ed0/edit?usp=sharing

The Setup

There will be two different lighting environments available for students to conduct their tests:

• Controlled blackout space: A near-blackout room where students work only with artificial, controlled light sources. This will allow for precise testing of exposure, contrast, and reflectance without interference from ambient light.
  
• Ambient/daylight space: A room with a base level of natural or soft ambient light. This will give the students the option to use natural light as a source if they choose it.

This dual setup allows students to compare how skin tones behave in both controlled studio conditions and more natural lighting environments.

Test 1 – IRE Values – Testing skin tones brighter or darker

Students will test the reaction and reflectance of their contributor’s skin tone across a range of exposures. They will test between roughly 1 stop below middle grey, at middle grey and +1 stop above middle grey.

• Students will light their subject and adjust the key light to expose the skin at different IRE levels.
  
• At each exposure level, students will record short test shots.
  
• Contributors will be asked to reflect on how their skin appears at each level (e.g., washed out, natural, too dark, too shiny). And note this down on their feedback forms as well as where they feel they look the most natural. 

Purpose:
To challenge assumptions around “correct” skin exposure and explore how different skin tones register on camera at varying brightness levels.

Test 2 – Filters – Testing how polarising and softening filters affect skin reflectivity

Students will shoot a series of plates using a controlled lighting setup while introducing different filters:

• Polarising filters: Used to reduce or control specular highlights and reflections on skin.
  
• Softening filters (e.g. diffusion): Used to alter texture, glow, and perceived softness of skin.
  

• They will compare how highlights, texture, contrast, and glow differ across skin tones.
  
• Contributors will be asked how they feel about their appearance under each filter condition.

Purpose:
To explore how technical tools commonly used in cinematography affect different skin tones differently, particularly in relation to shine, texture, and perceived softness.

Test 3 – Lighting Quality, Distance and Texture

Students will test differences between:

• Hard and soft light sources/Changes in light distance from the subject
  
• Try out different lighting styles based on different types of lighting modification (Gold/silver/ reflectors, bounced book light, hard direct lighting)
  
• Test how light reacts at different positions and with different levels of Key/Fill light (different contrast ratios) 

Students will:

• Light their contributor using at least two contrasting approaches (e.g. hard side-light vs soft frontal light).
  
• Observe how contrast, shadow detail, highlight roll-off, and colour saturation differ across skin tones.

Purpose:
To investigate how lighting quality and directionality shape the perception of different skin tones, and to move beyond default lighting setups.

Test 4 – Bold Colour / Coloured lighting and high-saturation environments

For the final test, students will light their subject using bold saturated colours and look at the effects it has on their subject.

• Students must test at least one/two strong colour sources on/near their contributor.
  
• They will observe:
  
  • How colour interacts with different skin tones
    
  • Whether certain colours dominate, flatten, or distort skin appearance
    
  • How contrast and separation from the background changes and how mixing white light (same as camera CCT Temp) with bold colour affects their subject

Purpose:
To explore how stylised, high-impact lighting treatments affect different skin tones and to develop awareness of potential risks and creative opportunities when working with bold colour.

This week I set out to test my skin tone lighting set up to trial if this was going to work out as I had hoped. Some photos of the set up are below:

This test shoot was focused around one aspect: exposure on skin. Using myself and a colleague, I tested different exposure levels and asked subjects to respond to what they observed. I was able to gauge initial reactions and found that participants were receptive to the concept. Notably, more detailed feedback emerged only after subjects saw substantial changes in their appearance; before that point, there was little commentary on how they perceived shifts in their skin tone. This is something I will bring forward in the student workshop, using larger incremental changes in exposure, so there is a more dramatic shift between tests. 

The lighting setup functioned effectively; however, it became clear that it was difficult for participants to accurately perceive their skin tone in a darkened room with only minimal artificial light and no natural daylight. Looking forward I think adding in some element of natural ambient light would allow subjects to see themselves in a more ‘natural’ state. 

For this session I used a digital version of the Monk scale for myself and my colleague to compare our skin tone too. I used a mirror in this test so it felt easier to see ourselves, it also allowed us to see how the camera’s image compared to the mirror image. The use of a mirror proved to be a successful tool, as subjects engaged with it and it provided a useful visual reference when in the chair. 

Outcomes of proof of concept shoot

• Create physical feedback forms for students to write their findings during the exposure test 
• Split the test set up into multiple options, one using some baseline natural light and one which is completely controlled
• Ensure ample time for pre-light and set up of workshop to ensure engagement in the process isn’t lost on the day 
• Find a space which can accommodate enough students and have space for two test set ups 
• Create physical copies of the Monk scale for students to test their skin tone against not just digital 
• Decide on the data collection plan, how I will get student to write their feedback etc

For this project I needed to look into some kind of basis to map different shades of skin. I feel this is a necessary step when working with my contributors in the workshop. At the moment this will be the first step in the process: each contributor will look at the scale and state where they perceive their skin tone to align. I think it’s important to have a reference point to return to after collecting data from my contributors. This will make my findings more accessible to students when they later view the compiled resources.

The most widely used classification is the Fitzpatrick Skin Type scale (FST). Originally developed in 1975 to classify skin reactivity to ultraviolet A phototherapy (mainly in lighter skin) and only later expanded to include more skin types. The scale was never designed to serve as a truly comprehensive visual reference for global skin-tone diversity. Although this is still widely used, it disproportionately focuses on white skin tones, and is inconsistently used which in turn perpetuates skin colour bias (Tian, 2024).

Because of these limitations, I believe the Monk Skin Tone Scale (MST) offers a better alternative for my purposes. The MST uses a 10-tone system, giving a broader gradient of skin tones; light, medium, and darker than the six-part FST (Monk, E., Buolamwini, J. & Gebru, T. (2023). Using MST as a starting point for each contributor to self-assess their skin tone will allow me to organise and collate responses more effectively. This self-categorisation will inform how I group data in my findings. Having a broader and more inclusive skin-tone reference will likely be more representative of the diversity among contributors and useful when discussing how lighting interacts with different skin tones in later workshops.

References

Monk, E., Buolamwini, J. & Gebru, T. (2023) ‘The Monk Skin Tone Scale: A More Inclusive Measure for Evaluating Algorithmic Bias’, Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, 22(8), pp. 861–864.
(General MST dermatology reference: https://jddonline.com/articles/dermatology/S1545961625P8618X)\

Tian, S., 2024. Shades of Skin: Limitations of the Fitzpatrick Scale with CIELAB. NHSJS Reports. Available at: https://nhsjs.com/2024/shades-of-skin-limitations-of-the-fitzpatrick-scale-with-cielab/ [Accessed 23 January 2026].

Fitzpatrick Scale Photo – Serena T., Johnson J., Andersen C. A., et al. “Skin Pigmentation Impacts the Clinical Diagnosis of Wound Infection …” Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities (2023): figure showing “Fitzpatrick Skin Phototype Classification”. 

Monk Scale Photo – Mehta, H. & Sarkar, R., 2025. The Monk skin tone scale: A tool dermatology should not overlook. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 93(4), pp.e139–e141. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2025.05.1437

How do different skin tones respond to varied lighting conditions on digital cinema cameras, and how can this understanding be translated into more inclusive and effective cinematography teaching?

At UAL, my role involves teaching camera and lighting across five Film and Television courses at the LCC campus. This project is motivated both by my teaching experience and my ongoing freelance practice as a DOP and camera operator. I am frequently asked by students what the “correct” way to light skin tone is, or “how bright a person should be on camera”. These questions were also present during my own time as a student, where I received little to no direct guidance on how to approach lighting diverse skin tones in a meaningful or informed way. Research into cinematography pedagogy has shown that teaching camera exposure has historically taken Caucasian skin as the default reference point, shaping technical norms within film education (Sung, 2020).

I undertook this project after becoming increasingly aware that some of the explanations I was giving to students about lighting skin tones were not always fully inclusive. As a white working-class man from the centre of England, I must acknowledge and critically reflect on my own positionality and potential biases within my teaching practice. When I studied film production and lighting ten years ago, there was a general assumption about how people should be lit; specifically, camera zebra scales were almost always set to 70%. Throughout my professional career, this has remained the default setting on most digital cameras. This reflects a long-standing rule of thumb that white skin should be exposed at approximately 70%. This convention aligns with exposure practices developed using lighter skin tones as calibration references, a limitation imaging researchers now identify as problematic when applied to the diversity of human skin (Borek, 2025).

While this assumption has been partially revised—and manufacturers now often provide more diverse examples in their technical literature—I find that the idea that “people should be at 70%” continues to persist in practice. In my experience both within UAL and in professional contexts beyond the university, this remains a commonly held assumption. Despite growing academic recognition that traditional exposure standards were not designed to account for diverse skin tones (Borek, 2025).

Through this action research project, I aim to develop more useful and inclusive resources to better support students in navigating these questions. While I am not a person of colour, I approach this work with a strong sense of accountability and responsibility. I see this project as an opportunity to critically reflect on my teaching practice and redesign workshops in ways that are more considered, accurate, and socially responsible. This approach aligns with inclusive and decolonising curriculum frameworks, which seek to challenge historically dominant norms, diversify technical reference points, and ensure that teaching practices reflect the full range of student identities. As argued by Cathy Greenhalgh, cinematography education must ask “who is learning, who is teaching, and what examples and canons are most relevant,” calling for practices that actively foreground skin-tone diversity rather than treating it as an exception (Greenhalgh, 2020).

Goals / Outputs of the Project

• To expand the visual resource bank for teaching lighting people at UAL, reflecting the diversity of the student body.
  
• To improve students’ and my own understanding of how different skin tones react in a variety of lighting conditions.
  
• To create teaching resources documenting varied lighting effects on diverse skin tones, supporting BA and MA cinematography courses technical delivery.
  
• To deliver a workshop where students test lighting techniques on diverse skin tones, building practical understanding without prescribing “correct” outcomes.
  
• To approach the project reflexively and ethically, acknowledging my positionality and the limits of my perspective while avoiding prescriptive judgments.

Refs

Borek, M. (2025) ‘Improving image equity: representing diverse skin tones in photographic test charts for digital camera characterisation’, Electronic Imaging, 37(9), pp. 255-1–255-7. https://doi.org/10.2352/EI.2025.37.9.IQSP-255 

Greenhalgh, C. (2020) ‘Skin tone and faces: cinematography pedagogy which foregrounds inclusivity and diversity in teaching lighting’, Cinematography in Progress, 5(1). Available at: https://www.cinematographyinprogress.com/index.php/cito/article/view/45 

Sung, Y.-L. (2020) ‘Reading the light right: the exposure of Asian skin tones in cinematography’, Frames Cinema Journal, 17. Available at: https://framescinemajournal.com/article/reading-the-light-right-the-exposure-of-asian-skin-tones-in-cinematography/