Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
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.
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.
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.
