Designing with Darkness

Tungsten Studio | Architectural Lighting Design

Beyond the Illuminated Image

An architectural photograph can capture the atmosphere of a beautifully illuminated room, the dramatic relief of a façade or the quiet contrast between a pool of light and its surroundings. What it rarely reveals is the process behind that image. The lighting may have been reconsidered because an architectural detail changed, a material behaved differently from what was anticipated, or the installed equipment failed to produce the expected result. Even when the completed space appears effortless, achieving that effect can involve considerable technical judgement and coordination.

For Sai Tallapragada of Tungsten Studio, architectural lighting begins with a distinction that is easily overlooked: designing light is not the same as selecting light fixtures. The starting point is the architecture, the intention behind it and the people who will experience it. Luminaires enter the conversation later, as instruments through which that intention can be realised.

Trained as an architect, Tallapragada approaches lighting as an extension of architectural design rather than an independent decorative exercise. His experience across residential, hospitality, commercial and other building environments has also made him attentive to the distance between a carefully developed concept and the realities of construction, installation, maintenance and occupation.

In this conversation with StudioMatrx, he discusses the deliberate use of darkness, the limitations of simulation, the consequences of late design coordination, and the practical lessons that have changed the way Tungsten Studio works. Running through these discussions is a recurring idea: the success of architectural lighting depends not simply on what is illuminated, but on how carefully the intended experience is understood, constructed and sustained.

PART 01 — READING ARCHITECTURE BEFORE LIGHTING IT

01. Lighting Before the Luminaire

StudioMatrx:When you receive an architectural project, how do you begin understanding its lighting requirements before selecting a single luminaire?

Sai Tallapragada:One misconception I have encountered over the years is that hiring a lighting designer is primarily about selecting fixtures. That is not how we approach a project at Tungsten Studio. For us, the lighting design begins much earlier, with understanding the architecture and what the space is intended to achieve.

We first study the project ourselves. We look at the spatial arrangement, the architecture, the interior design and the different ways the building might be occupied. In a residence, the intended use of a room may be relatively straightforward to understand through conversations with the client and architect. In a hotel or another public environment, there are multiple types of users, and you cannot necessarily develop the entire lighting approach from one person’s expectations. You have to imagine how different people will enter, move through and experience the space.

After our initial understanding, we discuss the project with the architect or interior designer. That conversation is important because the architect has already developed a vision for the building. As lighting designers, we are not necessarily introducing an entirely new design direction. We are trying to enhance what has already been conceived and help achieve the intended experience.

We communicate our initial lighting ideas through sketches, mood references, renderings or different visual scenarios. These allow us to discuss the effects we want to create before deciding which particular products will be used. We develop the lighting intent, discuss it with the design team and refine the approach through that exchange.

The actual fixture selection comes much later in our process, often closer to procurement, once the required effects and their technical implications have been established. There is a fundamental difference between identifying a fixture you like and trying to find an application for it, and understanding the desired lighting effect first and then choosing the appropriate equipment.

I also believe that budget should not automatically determine whether a particular lighting idea can be explored. There may be different ways of achieving a similar effect at different costs. The number of fixtures, their performance and the level of refinement may vary, but the starting point should remain the design intention.

Ultimately, whether we are working on a residence, hotel or another architectural environment, we try to imagine ourselves in the user’s position. We ask how the space will be experienced, rather than beginning with a catalogue of products.

02. Balancing Function and Atmosphere

StudioMatrx:Architectural lighting must support both visual performance and spatial experience. How do you establish the relationship between the two?

Sai Tallapragada:I don’t think the technical and experiential aspects of lighting can be separated. One cannot really exist without the other in a successful architectural lighting design. You are always trying to create an experience, but that experience must also work technically.

Take a lounge, for example. You may want the space to feel comfortable and atmospheric, with different moods depending on the time of day or how people are using it. You might highlight a piece of artwork, give emphasis to the centre table or illuminate particular architectural elements. These decisions establish a visual hierarchy. Instead of everything receiving equal attention, certain parts of the space become the focus.

That contributes to the atmosphere, but the technical considerations are equally important. The fixtures must be positioned correctly, glare must be controlled, and the lighting needs to be coordinated with the other building services. You cannot simply place luminaires wherever they produce an attractive effect without considering what else is happening within the ceiling or the space.

For me, the balance comes from developing the visual experience and the technical solution together. The intention may be to create a calm, intimate environment, but the way the light is delivered must be appropriate to the architecture and comfortable for the people occupying it.

03. The Architectural Role of Darkness

StudioMatrx:How do you decide which architectural elements deserve visual emphasis and which should remain comparatively subdued?

Sai Tallapragada:It depends entirely on the space. I don’t believe there can be a general rule that a certain proportion of a room should remain dark or that every building should use the same relationship between brightness and darkness.

Darkness becomes useful when it establishes contrast and gives importance to something else.

Consider a fine-dining restaurant. You might want the dining tables to feel intimate and inviting. If the tables are carefully illuminated, the surrounding areas can remain relatively subdued. The tables become the points of attention, while the darker areas between them contribute to the atmosphere.

A museum presents another situation. You may want the visitor’s attention directed towards a particular artwork. In that case, the surrounding space can be treated more quietly so that the artwork becomes the visual focus.

The same principle can influence movement. Imagine a corridor with distinct pools of light and darker intervals between them. Those illuminated areas can create a sense of direction, encouraging someone to move towards the next point. Light and darkness are working together to shape how the space is experienced.

Of course, this is different in an office or another environment where more consistent illumination is needed for visual tasks. The important thing is to understand what the particular space requires.

I would say that darkness is not simply an absence of lighting. It can be a deliberate part of the way the architecture is revealed, depending on the experience you are trying to create.

PART 02 — WHEN ARCHITECTURE CHANGES, LIGHT MUST RESPOND

04. What Remains of the Original Concept?

StudioMatrx:How does a lighting concept evolve between its initial development and the completed installation? What usually causes significant changes?

Sai Tallapragada:One thing I have noticed through experience is that the lighting intent does not usually change independently. More often, the changes are connected to something that has happened within the architecture or interior design.

For example, we might develop a particular way of illuminating a façade because of an architectural element. Later, the design of that element changes. The original lighting arrangement may no longer be possible, so we have to reconsider how the effect can be achieved.

This happens frequently during projects. Walls move, architectural details change, finishes are reconsidered, and artwork may be altered in size or position. Sometimes a lighting concept developed for a relatively small artwork becomes unsuitable when the final artwork occupies an entire wall.

The scale and nature of the project also influence how much changes during development. In hospitality projects, there can be many stakeholders and decisions being made throughout the process. It is relatively rare for the completed installation to correspond exactly with the initial rendering.

However, I think it is important to distinguish between changing the lighting intention and changing the method used to achieve it. Often, the objective remains the same, but the architectural circumstances require us to find another way of producing the intended experience.

05. When a Silhouette Becomes a Shadow

StudioMatrx:Could you describe an instance where a change in architectural detailing led to a different lighting solution?

Sai Tallapragada:We were working on a project that involved open screens positioned in front of a wall. The original idea was to illuminate the screens from behind, producing a silhouette effect.

During the course of the project, the architectural and ceiling details changed. Because of those changes, it was no longer possible to position the lighting behind the screens in the way we had originally intended.

We therefore reconsidered the approach and began illuminating the screens from the front.

That created a different relationship between the screen, the light and the wall. Instead of seeing the screen as a backlit silhouette, the lighting produced patterns of light and shadow on the surface behind it.

The architectural element remained central to the design, but the visual effect changed because the available lighting position had changed.

A similar situation occurred in a hotel drop-off area. The initial proposal involved grazing a textured wall to reveal its surface characteristics. During development, the landscape design changed, and the wall was treated with a different arrangement of sectional tiles or blocks. The original grazing approach was no longer appropriate.

We worked with the revised design, introducing openings and jali elements with lighting behind them, so that the wall could become a feature in a different way.

These experiences illustrate why lighting cannot be developed in isolation. The effect depends on the geometry, material and construction of the architectural element receiving or interacting with the light.

06. The Surprises That Drawings Cannot Predict

StudioMatrx:What kinds of construction conditions or unexpected site circumstances have challenged your original lighting approach?

Sai Tallapragada:Construction quality is one of the major factors. Over the years, we have become particularly careful about illuminating plastered surfaces, especially when the intention is to graze the wall.

When light is positioned close to a surface, it can reveal variations that might not be very noticeable under other lighting conditions. If the workmanship is uneven, the grazing light can emphasise every undulation.

We have experienced this with plastered walls and even with stone surfaces where the installation was not sufficiently even. Something that appears suitable for illumination during design can look very different once it has been constructed.

In one hotel project, the lighting revealed irregularities in the façade surface. Instead of continuing to emphasise those imperfections, we introduced a screen above the uplights that generated patterns on the wall. The visual emphasis shifted towards the light-and-shadow pattern rather than the uneven surface.

It was a response to a condition we encountered on site, and experiences like that influence the way we approach similar surfaces today.

Another example involved a hotel near an airport. The surrounding environment had much more ambient light than we had anticipated during the initial studies. Large floodlights associated with nearby parking areas were illuminating the building itself.

As a result, the façade lighting we had planned was competing with a much brighter surrounding environment. Effects that might have been visible in a darker setting were difficult to distinguish.

In such a situation, you have to reassess what is possible. You may need to reconsider intensity, reduce the number of elements receiving emphasis, or develop a more selective approach.

Every project has its own surprises. There is no universal solution that you can apply whenever something changes. You have to understand the particular condition and respond to it.

07. Preserving the Experience, Changing the Method

StudioMatrx:When practical constraints force a change in the lighting arrangement, how do you decide whether the original spatial experience can still be achieved?

Sai Tallapragada:In many projects, the experience we are trying to create remains the objective even when the method changes.

Suppose the intention is to produce a comfortable, cosy atmosphere. We might initially imagine achieving that through one kind of lighting arrangement. Later, architectural or practical conditions could require a different type of fixture or another positioning strategy.

The important question is whether the revised approach can still produce the intended atmosphere.

There will occasionally be situations where compromises are unavoidable. Façade lighting, for example, can be significantly affected by surrounding illumination, and you may not be able to control those external conditions.

But in many interior projects, the challenge is to find another way of achieving the same experiential intention.

I see these changes as part of the process of taking a lighting design from concept to execution. The specific means may evolve, but we continue working towards the experience established in the original brief.

PART 03 — BETWEEN CALCULATION AND EXPERIENCE

08. What Can Software Tell Us?

StudioMatrx:Lighting calculations and simulation software help predict performance, but they cannot represent every condition of an occupied building. How do you decide when these tools are necessary?

Sai Tallapragada:Lighting calculation software is useful, particularly for education and for projects where specific performance requirements must be demonstrated. However, we do not use it for every space we design.

At Tungsten Studio, I would estimate that calculation software is used on a relatively small proportion of our overall projects, perhaps around ten per cent. The primary applications are situations where formal documentation is required, such as projects pursuing LEED or WELL certification, and spaces where particular illuminance levels need to be achieved.

For instance, in a hotel guestroom, our approach is generally to develop the lighting atmosphere. We consider the entrance, the bed, the study table and the other areas where illumination is needed. Rather than making the room uniformly bright, we create different pockets of light that together support the intended experience.

The combined lighting can also satisfy the overall illuminance requirement established by the hotel brand. The point is that we do not necessarily begin by calculating every part of the room to create the atmosphere. We begin by understanding how the space should feel and function.

A banquet hall is different. It may need to support dining, photography, videography and a variety of other activities. There may also be decorative chandeliers or sculptural elements that complicate the arrangement of functional lighting.

In that situation, we use calculations to evaluate whether the proposed system can deliver the necessary illumination. Depending on the project brief, we may be checking targets in the region of 450 to 500 lux. Offices are another example where calculations can be important because consistent lighting levels are needed across work areas.

But the calculated result and the site result are not always identical. In our experience, installed illuminance can sometimes be lower than the software prediction, so we account for that possibility.

For me, calculations are an important tool where they are required, but they do not replace the judgement involved in creating a spatial experience.

09. Knowing What to Test

StudioMatrx:What is the role of physical mock-ups and on-site observation when developing a lighting solution?

Sai Tallapragada:Mock-ups are useful when we need to understand a specific lighting effect or verify the performance of a fixture in a particular condition.

For example, when lighting artwork, we may ask a manufacturer or supplier to provide two or three fixtures so we can compare how they illuminate the surface. This helps us evaluate the beam distribution, the spread of light and the effect on the artwork.

Mock-ups are also useful in spaces with very high ceilings or architectural elements that might obstruct the light. Sometimes you need to test whether the light is actually reaching the intended surface or whether a beam is interfering with the distribution.

But there are limits to what you can physically mock up. You cannot always construct an entire room, install all the lighting and reproduce the complete atmosphere simply to test the design.

At some point, the designer has to draw upon experience and spatial understanding. You have to imagine yourself occupying the space and consider how much light is needed, where it should be located and how the different illuminated elements will contribute to the overall environment.

So I see mock-ups as a way of checking particular decisions. They support the design process, but they cannot replace the broader judgement needed to develop the atmosphere of a complete architectural space.

10. Visual Comfort Begins with the Architecture

StudioMatrx:How do material finishes, architectural geometry and viewing positions influence your approach to glare and visual comfort?

Sai Tallapragada:Visual comfort has to be considered from the beginning. It cannot be something you address only after selecting the lighting equipment.

When we take a brief, we ask questions about the materials and finishes. Are they matte or reflective? What kind of surface is being illuminated? Can we see the actual material palette? These considerations directly influence the way we approach the lighting.

You might initially imagine lighting a surface in a certain way, but if the finish is highly reflective, that approach may no longer be appropriate.

Low ceilings can create another challenge. A lighting source that might be comfortable in a taller space could become directly visible within a person’s normal line of sight. In those situations, we may need to consider indirect lighting or a concealed source instead.

We also think about the positions from which people will experience the architecture. Someone entering a room, someone sitting down and someone moving through a corridor may see the same lighting detail from very different angles.

Even with lighting integrated into a wall or architectural recess, we consider whether the source itself will become visible from a particular position.

For us, glare control is not just an additional product feature. It is part of the initial lighting intention, influenced by the architecture, the materials and the way people occupy the space.

11. Choosing the Right Fixture — and Maintaining It

StudioMatrx:Beyond colour temperature, beam characteristics and output, what do you consider most important when evaluating lighting equipment?

Sai Tallapragada:Once we have developed the lighting intention, we need to identify equipment that can achieve it reliably. Our evaluation process looks at the technical characteristics, but we also place a great deal of importance on maintenance.

For example, with recessed down-lights, we frequently prefer two-part arrangements where a housing remains fixed within the ceiling while the luminaire component can be removed or replaced. This allows maintenance to take place without repeatedly damaging the surrounding ceiling.

We then examine the technical documentation. We look at the optics, specifications and available performance characteristics before requesting samples for evaluation.

We also use instruments such as spectrometers to check characteristics of the actual light source, including colour temperature. There can be differences between what someone believes a fixture is producing and what the measurement indicates, so testing helps us make a more informed decision.

Beam distribution is another important consideration. Sometimes we want a very controlled beam with minimal spill. In other applications, a softer distribution or some spill light contributes positively to the effect. A beam that is technically well defined is not necessarily appropriate for every architectural situation.

We also evaluate glare in the intended installation position. If a glare-control accessory is added, it can reduce the available light output. That may require us to reconsider the fixture’s output or other aspects of the arrangement.

Maintenance remains a priority throughout this process. I do not want a client to face problems a few years after completion because a fixture cannot be replaced or serviced.

We therefore try to consider the availability of products, suppliers and maintenance support in the location where the project is being built. This is particularly important outside the major metropolitan markets.

We have worked on projects in places such as Puri, where we tried to ensure that the majority of the specified lighting products would be available locally.

A fixture may meet the immediate technical requirement, but if the building owner cannot maintain it effectively, that becomes a problem for the completed project.

PART 04 — COLLABORATION AND THE LIMITS OF LATE DECISIONS

12. When Should the Lighting Designer Enter?

StudioMatrx:At what stage should lighting designers ideally become involved in architectural and interior projects, and what becomes difficult when they are introduced too late?

Sai Tallapragada:The ideal stage depends on the kind of lighting being developed.

For architectural façade lighting, I would prefer to become involved once the architect has developed the basic building scheme. The overall design direction needs to be clear enough for us to understand what the building is intended to become, but there should still be sufficient flexibility to integrate the lighting properly.

For interiors, I think an appropriate time is after the interior designer has established the initial concept and the client has approved the intended mood or direction.

At that stage, the interior designer understands what kind of experience the project is trying to create. We can then discuss how lighting can support that intention and develop the details together.

If we become involved after the entire interior design has already been presented and major decisions have been finalised, the process becomes more complicated.

We may suggest a different lighting approach, and the interior designer may agree that it would be better. But implementing it could mean revising work that has already been completed. In some projects, the electrical points have already been installed on site, which makes changes even more difficult.

We have experienced this directly. In one project, we were brought in at a very late stage, after the lighting points had already been established. There was only so much we could do to improve the arrangement within those limitations.

The same client later involved us much earlier in another project, and the difference in the design process was significant. Instead of trying to make the best of decisions that had already been fixed, we could work with the design team to achieve the intended result from the beginning.

Our collaboration usually involves discussing the brief, developing sketches and exploring lighting ideas with the architect or interior designer before taking them forward as a complete concept.

That early exchange is important because lighting often needs to be integrated into the architectural and interior details rather than added after everything else is resolved.

13. Lighting Cannot Correct Every Architectural Problem

StudioMatrx:What happens when a client expects lighting to transform a building, but the architectural conditions limit what can realistically be achieved?

Sai Tallapragada:I am also an architect by qualification, so I understand that architects already have knowledge of lighting as part of their training and design process.

The difference is that an architect is usually concentrating on many aspects of a building at once — structure, materials, glass, elevations, interior details and numerous other requirements. Lighting is one part of that much larger responsibility.

A specialist lighting designer is able to focus specifically on how the architecture should be illuminated and how that intention can be developed into a detailed solution.

However, there are situations where clients involve us very late and expect lighting to transform the appearance of a building completely. That is not always possible.

I often explain that lighting can enhance the architecture that already exists. It cannot necessarily compensate for fundamental problems within the building or for decisions that can no longer be changed.

There was a project enquiry involving a building where the electrical points had been established years earlier. The project had subsequently been delayed, and by the time work resumed, parts of the architecture had changed. Some areas that were originally solid walls had become glazed, while other areas had changed in the opposite direction.

The original lighting points no longer corresponded to the architectural conditions. But because the building was already at an advanced stage, there was very little flexibility to reposition them.

In such situations, we have to explain the limitations clearly. We may be able to improve certain aspects through a selective approach or by choosing more appropriate fixtures, but it would be misleading to promise a completely different architectural experience.

Sometimes we decide that taking on the project as a full lighting design commission would not be meaningful because the opportunities to influence the result are too limited.

14. What Can Be Compromised — and What Cannot?

StudioMatrx:When budget or availability requires a change in the specified luminaires, how do you decide whether an alternative is acceptable?

Sai Tallapragada:For me, the important thing is to understand what the lighting is supposed to achieve.

Suppose I am illuminating individual dining tables and the intention is to keep the light within the table area, without significant spill into the surroundings. In that situation, the beam distribution becomes particularly important. A replacement fixture must be able to produce that controlled effect.

In another situation, perhaps where we are illuminating artwork or providing more general lighting, a small variation in beam angle may not make a significant difference.

For example, if we originally specify a beam angle of 36 degrees and an alternative provides 40 degrees, that difference may be acceptable in an application where the additional spread does not affect the intended result.

But if the visual effect depends on a very precisely controlled beam, the same substitution may not be acceptable.

We take a similar approach to light output. There may be an acceptable range within which a fixture can vary without affecting the design intent. Rather than insisting on an exact value for every characteristic, we can establish tolerances appropriate to the application.

Samples and mock-ups help us evaluate whether those variations are acceptable.

The objective is not necessarily to retain one exact product regardless of cost. It is to identify the characteristics that are essential to the design and determine whether another product can satisfy them.

Some aspects are flexible; others are not. That distinction has to come from the intended lighting effect rather than from the product specification alone.

PART 05 — WHEN THE BUILDING BECOMES REAL

15. When the Calculated Light Is Not Enough

StudioMatrx:Have you experienced a situation where the installed lighting performed differently from what the drawings, calculations or preliminary testing suggested?

Sai Tallapragada:Yes. We had a project involving a multipurpose hall that also accommodated a badminton court.

We had carried out the calculations and evaluated the proposed lighting arrangement. Individual fixture testing and the preliminary checks appeared satisfactory. The positions and other basic requirements had been considered.

However, once the entire lighting installation was completed, the actual illumination was lower than anticipated.

There could have been several contributing factors, including differences between the actual fixture performance and the data used for the digital calculations. The important point was that the installed space was under-lit, despite the earlier studies indicating that the arrangement should work.

We eventually had to introduce additional fixtures, which meant additional cost.

That experience reinforced the importance of not relying entirely on digital information. Calculations are valuable, but they are still predictions based on particular inputs and assumptions.

The completed installation has to be assessed in its actual conditions. Sometimes the differences are relatively minor, but when a space has specific functional requirements, even a discrepancy that appears manageable during design can become significant after installation.

16. What Happens After Handover?

StudioMatrx:How do you evaluate the success of a lighting installation once people begin using the building?

Sai Tallapragada:In projects with lighting automation, we generally try to understand how people use the space before setting up the controls.

We discuss the activities, establish the initial settings and then allow the occupants to use the system in their normal routine.

After roughly a month, we prefer to return and understand how the lighting is working for them. There may be situations where a particular scene feels too dark, or where the occupants find that a setting does not support an activity as well as expected.

We can then make adjustments based on their experience.

That feedback is useful because it allows us to understand whether the installed lighting is fulfilling the original intention and whether anything needs to be refined.

Landscape lighting presents another challenge. You may carefully position fixtures to illuminate planting or particular features, but after handover, the maintenance team may move or adjust them while working on the landscape.

If those changes alter the aiming or positioning, the original lighting effect can be lost.

We have learned from such experiences and now try to detail landscape lighting in ways that reduce the likelihood of unintended changes to the fixture positions.

For me, the success of a lighting installation is not simply about how it looks on the day it is commissioned. It also depends on how well the lighting continues to function and retain its intended effect during everyday operation and maintenance.

17. Designing for Different People, Not Just Different Scenes

StudioMatrx:In buildings where activities change throughout the day or evening, how do you decide which lighting settings should be predetermined and how much control should remain with the occupants?

Sai Tallapragada:I don’t think the designer should determine those settings independently of the people using the space. The settings should come from understanding the occupants and their activities.

In a residence, for example, we would speak to the client about how different rooms are used throughout the day and evening.

Someone might want a very subdued environment while reading in the evening, but the same person might occasionally host guests and prefer the room to be more brightly illuminated.

We can develop different lighting scenes that support those activities and allow the occupant to select between them. Although the scenes are designed and programmed in advance, they are based on the user’s requirements rather than simply on our personal preferences.

Larger shared environments are more complicated.

We worked on a large office project where the lighting system was designed to change colour temperature throughout the day, moving between cooler and warmer white-light conditions.

The intention was to provide a changing lighting environment through a tunable-white system.

However, once the installation was operating, we encountered a challenge. With approximately 300 people occupying a floor, there were very different preferences regarding the colour of light.

Some occupants were comfortable with warmer light, while others preferred cooler or more neutral conditions. There were also complaints of discomfort associated with different settings.

It became difficult to identify a single transition that would satisfy everyone.

Eventually, we adjusted the programmed settings so that the lighting remained within a more neutral range rather than moving towards the warmer conditions originally planned.

It was an important experience because, when designing for a large organisation, the initial brief usually comes from the owners or senior management. It is not practical to obtain an individual preference from every occupant.

Once the building is in use, you encounter those differences in a more direct way.

The lesson is that the lighting strategy and control settings need to respond to the actual people using the space. What works as a design idea may need refinement when it is experienced by a large and diverse group of occupants.

PART 06 — WHAT PRACTICE TEACHES

18. Small Details, Lasting Lessons

StudioMatrx:Looking back at your experience, which projects or technical decisions have most significantly changed the way you approach lighting design today?

Sai Tallapragada:I would not say that one particular project completely changed my approach. It has been an accumulation of experiences across different projects.

The issue of illuminating uneven plastered surfaces is one example. Earlier in our practice, we might have approached a façade expecting the finished surface to be sufficiently even for grazing light. Over time, we encountered situations where that assumption did not hold.

Now, when we know a building will have a plastered façade, we are much more cautious about using lighting arrangements that will emphasise surface irregularities.

Another experience involved a lighting system where the fixtures, drivers and other technical components had been evaluated for compatibility with the automation system.

A supplier subsequently changed one component. Because the exact make and details of that component had not been sufficiently specified, the substitution created compatibility problems with the lighting controls.

It became a significant issue to resolve, particularly because it was not a small project.

After that experience, we introduced more explicit requirements for the driver make and details within our technical specifications.

It may seem like a small documentation change, but it came from a practical problem that demonstrated how important component compatibility is to the performance of the complete system.

Cove lighting is another area where experience has influenced our detailing.

We encountered situations where the construction of the ceiling recess was uneven. When an LED strip and aluminium channel were installed within that recess, irregularities in the alignment became visible in the light distribution.

Instead of producing a smooth, continuous wash, the lighting revealed an uneven pattern on the ceiling.

Through those experiences, we developed a different approach to positioning the light source within the cove, avoiding certain channel arrangements and directing the light towards the rear of the ceiling detail to achieve a more even indirect effect.

These are lessons that become part of the way we work. They may not be major changes in design philosophy, but they influence the details we develop and the decisions we make on subsequent projects.

Every project teaches you something. Sometimes it is about material behaviour, sometimes equipment compatibility, and sometimes the construction of a very ordinary architectural detail.

19. Learning to Observe Light

StudioMatrx:What should young architects and emerging designers learn to question when they evaluate lighting through drawings, simulations or finished project photographs?

Sai Tallapragada:I think the most important thing is observation.

For young architects and lighting designers, exposure to different spaces is extremely valuable. During architectural education, students are required to undertake case studies, but I believe observing buildings should become a regular habit rather than something done only for an academic assignment.

Wherever you go, pay attention to the lighting.

If you enter a restaurant and the atmosphere feels comfortable, try to understand why. Look at what has been illuminated, where the fixtures are positioned, how the light falls on surfaces and what has been left relatively dark.

If a space feels uncomfortable, question that too. Is there glare? Is the lighting too harsh? Is the room too dim for the activities taking place? Is the light distributed in a way that does not support the space?

These observations gradually develop your understanding.

I have noticed that when I visit buildings with friends who are practising architects, they may be looking at the architectural details, joinery or construction. Because I work in lighting, my attention often goes towards the light itself.

But I think young architects should develop the habit of looking at both.

Even if they do not intend to become lighting specialists, understanding how light interacts with architecture will help them develop better design intentions for their own projects.

Software and technical knowledge can be learned. But developing the ability to recognise why a space feels successful or unsuccessful requires exposure and observation.

The more consciously you observe lighting in everyday environments, the more you begin to understand the decisions that create those experiences.

That would be my advice: observe more, question what you see, and make that curiosity part of your design practice.

EDITORIAL CLOSING

Across Tallapragada’s observations, darkness emerges not as an isolated aesthetic preference, but as one of several decisions that determine how architecture is experienced. A dining table can become a point of intimacy because the surrounding room is subdued. A corridor can establish direction through intervals of light and shadow. A textured wall can be revealed by grazing light, while a poorly finished surface may demand a different strategy altogether.

Equally significant is his insistence that lighting design cannot be judged only by the image it produces or the specification of the fixture that delivers it. The work extends into the architect’s early concept, the construction of ceiling details, the testing of products, the maintenance of equipment and the changing preferences of building occupants.

The discussion also reveals a useful distinction between preserving a design intention and preserving a particular technical solution. A lighting arrangement may need to change because the architecture changes. A carefully calculated installation may require adjustment after construction. A programmed lighting scene may need to respond to the people using it. In each situation, the completed experience becomes the measure against which the decision is reconsidered.

For the emerging architect, perhaps the most transferable lesson is also the simplest. Architectural lighting is not learned only through drawings, calculations or photographs. It is understood through looking carefully at built spaces, recognising the relationship between illumination and what remains in shadow, and questioning why one environment feels appropriate while another does not.

In an issue devoted to Light & Celebration, this conversation offers a grounded perspective on the making of atmosphere. Light can give emphasis to an architectural element, support changing activities or transform the way a surface is perceived. But those effects depend on decisions that are often concealed within the construction, coordination and operation of the building.

The finished photograph may record the visible result. The practice of lighting design lies in everything required to make that result possible.

CREDITS

Sai Tallapragada

Designation: Partner & Managing Director, Tungsten Studio

Qualification: Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch.), Andhra University College of Engineering; Master’s in Lighting Design, University of Technology Sydney, Australia.

Specialisation: Architectural Lighting Design

Website: https://www.tungstensld.com/

Professional Profile: https://www.tungstensld.com/saitallapragada

Professional Bio:

Sai Tallapragada is an architectural lighting designer and the Partner & Managing Director of Tungsten Studio. With an academic background in architecture and specialised training in lighting design, he works across hospitality, residential, commercial and heritage projects. His approach explores the relationship between light, shadow, architecture and human experience.