Lighting for video and performance is rare just because it is so time consuming. Video, if it is shot well can be edited, color corrected and enhanced in post production with the same effect using Final Cut Pro or similar software. It is a good idea for the videographer to know the dance before shooting it and to talk with the director/choreographer about the style of video they want.

adjusting the lights will often prove cheaper than colour correcting in post. correction needed on the day are often just general intensity. lighting designers for dance, as mentioned in the piece, are often concerned with under lighting everything, even for the human eye.

When working on designing lights for a concert I design lights for the concert, not for the videographer. If the choreographer wants to shoot a video that is more than a record of the performance they should schedule a separate video shoot because, as it is alluded to above, lighting design for performance is very different than lighting design for video. Many times I have been asked by a videographer to bump up the lights for a tech rehearsal or dress rehearsal and I always refuse the request because it prevents me from seeing the lighting as it will be in performance and hampers my ability to make necessary changes. I'm also curious what "under lighting" actually means - too dark? I guess it all matters what one wants the audience to see. I have actually seen many dance concerts (300+) and I usually think there is too much light...

well, i've filmed about 1,500 hours of dance and seen over a thousand shows (if we're banding numbers about). As a lighting designer your job is to fit the lights to the purpose and if the dance maker requests altered lighting for the video then that is what you should do.

Under lighting is simple, it's too dark, even for the human eye. Muddy is not a byword for moody or atmospheric and dance lighting often misses that mark by a very long way.