- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
-
Topic
-
Hi everyone!
I’ve been wrapping my head around how dynamic range works in actuality, and after performing many tests, this prompted a question:
Should ‘correct’ exposure be more influenced by the desired mood, as informed by the director’s vision for their story, rather than specific technical parameters?
A lot of talk on this topic online seems to revolve around ‘exposing to the right,’ maximising information capture for post, how to expose ‘correctly,’ and other such technical things.
I would ask, does it even matter?
If I light a dark scene towards the lower end of the IRE spectrum, within my camera’s dynamic range, and it gives us the look we want, who cares about shifting it around in post then?
Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated.
Regards,
Carl
-
Replies
-
If you pick the “correct” exposure for the mood you want, then in theory you wouldn’t be pushing it around in post. That’s the issue, do you want to expose for the look you want… or do you want maximum flexibility to push it around in post, i.e. change your mind?
It’s possible to split the difference, i.e. play it safer by working at a base ISO with fairly minimal noise so you have some room to adjust without noise becoming too problematic even while exposing for the look you want.
Yes, I think you’ve touched on the key issue here David, i.e. changing one’s mind.
I would prefer to light and expose for the desired look on set. It’s a way of working that just makes sense to me. I generally stick to the native ISO, where the camera performs it’s best, and only shift the dynamic range in favour of either end if necessary.
I’m early in my career (only one film shot) but have noticed that people my age very much like to tinker in post.
I’m wary about my work being judged as not up to snuff if that room for tinkering isn’t there. Perhaps this is a consequence of the level I’m working at currently, and it’s something one has to learn to navigate with collaborators.
When shooting raw I like to lower ISO just a tad bit to get a “thicker” negative, especially in low light scenes, but am generally an advocate of getting it as close as possible to the final look in camera. For example I like Alexa’s noise and night exteriors shot at ISO 1600.
“I’m wary about my work being judged as not up to snuff if that room for tinkering isn’t there. Perhaps this is a consequence of the level I’m working at currently, and it’s something one has to learn to navigate with collaborators.”
I know what you mean. I often didn’t have a say in post and it happened a lot that the colorists changed exposure – and thus mood – distinctly. I think it definitely depends on the scale of the production – the smaller, the more tinkering in post in my experience.
Hi everyone! I’ve been wrapping my head around how dynamic range works in actuality, and after performing many tests, this prompted a question: Should ‘correct’ exposure be more influenced by the desired mood, as informed by the director’s vision for their story, rather than specific technical parameters? A lot of talk on this topic online seems to revolve around ‘exposing to the right,’ maximising information capture for post, how to expose ‘correctly,’ and other such technical things. I would ask, does it even matter? If I light a dark scene towards the lower end of the IRE spectrum, within my camera’s dynamic range, and it gives us the look we want, who cares about shifting it around in post then? Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Regards, Carl
Maybe it’s me but I feel you disregard the technical knowledge as only useful to typical exposure values.
Implying there is no need of technical knowledge to shoot something moodier.
Those rules of setting skin at XX IRE value for a perfect exposure are just rules to help people nailing exposures that work in many scenarios but the key is to know how to nail exposure on any scenario.
Our work as DPs on a set is to have the technical knowledge of where to put skin tone for a desirable effect every single time.
If the director wants a certain mood, feeling or atmosphere our job is to know how to expose and light for that. And maybe nowadays you can look a monitor and rack iris up&down until you get there. But in the long run is worth it to know exactly what you are doing because you want and need consistency.
If you study films and certain DPs you will start to see patterns on how they expose. They are super consistent and there is nothing as no technical approach to their work.
What David is saying about not perfecting the exact exposure we want on camera also apply when we are working at the extremes of the exposure scale. If you choose to expose a scene really dark and you know you will be in big part playing down there on the scale it’s better to finish the look in post than do everything on camera as the final result will be cleaner, and because it’s a extreme exposure directors and producers maybe think it’s too dark, because, I don’t know why but they always think it’s too dark! So you split the difference and play safe. That will bring its own problems as, it has been said, on low budgets the DP work on the grading stage it’s usually none. So if you have left some final tweaks for the grading good luck if they follow your advice when you are not sitting with them.
It’s really hard to give any advice on this because each team and each production is completely different each other. So you have to start playing by ear and manage this as best as you can. But usually during meetings you can feel how much involvement you will be allowed and how much your voice will be listen.
At the end of the day it’s a team game so compromises will be made. You have to just live with it.
When shooting raw I like to lower ISO just a tad bit to get a “thicker” negative, especially in low light scenes, but am generally an advocate of getting it as close as possible to the final look in camera. For example I like Alexa’s noise and night exteriors shot at ISO 1600.
Interesting! Part of my learning on dynamic range has been what you mention: lowering the ISO in darker scenes for cleaner shadows, and compensating by adding light (aperture, turning up fixtures). It’s not how one is commonly taught to think about ISO, but makes sense in practice.
I’ll be testing an Alexa soon, and have heard of DPs rating the ISO higher for the texture, so it’ll be interesting to see for myself.
I know what you mean. I often didn’t have a say in post and it happened a lot that the colorists changed exposure – and thus mood – distinctly. I think it definitely depends on the scale of the production – the smaller, the more tinkering in post in my experience.
I see! Thanks for your thoughts. Seems like a common experience in our line of work. I wonder if it was the same during the film days; perhaps the DP had more input because of the nature of the capture medium. Though I suppose this is just something you learn to live with.
Maybe it’s me but I feel you disregard the technical knowledge as only useful to typical exposure values. Implying there is no need of technical knowledge to shoot something moodier.
Certainly not my intention, apologies if I came across as such. Of course all the tools and techniques we use apply regardless of what the final image is meant to be. And I apply them myself (false colour etc).
But in the long run is worth it to know exactly what you are doing…
Sure! And that’s where my question ultimately stems from: how much can I get away with, how far can I push it creatively. Understanding the technical side only helps with that, and finding where the line is.
I suppose asking this question is a result of expanding my technical knowledge, and questioning what can be done with what I’ve learnt.
I think Gordon Willis (or maybe it was Conrad Hall) once said that there was nothing wrong about working on the edge… as long as you are consistent enough to not fall over that edge. For example, maybe in your testing, you find that you can underexpose everything by 3-stops for a look and technically you are fine with the quality… but if you go a 1/2-stop too far, you fall off the cliff so to speak. So when working at the more extreme ISO settings, you have to understand your reduced ability for correcting errors.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.