Liam Hall
Veteran
Full ND.
Full ND.
Cary Knoop
Veteran
That's not the same as making an underexposed shot, low contrast and squashing the highlights is something one could do in post during grading.
HDR allows the shadows to be darker and the highlights lighter.
G
Guest
Guest
I see the screen as a mood light. Dark and light variation can have a significant emotional impact on people. Lighting in theater and concerts utilize these huge lighting shifts and go from dark to light to excite the audience. In cinema, these shifts are not generally as dramatic. I think with brighter TV screens and higher quality media, we can manipulate these brightness shifts more than ever before in narrative.
In the opening of "Solo" 2018, the first location is extremely dark. I think it is great, it has huge potential to set the viewers expectation and perception at a dim level, and brighter scenes can feel more dynamic when they are eventually introduced. However, "Solo" never really does get bright, and the whole film feels a bit dreamy and sleepy. The EXIT signs in the theater seemed so bright. IT is the first movie that was dark enough, that my eyes could actually fully adjust to the theater room levels and I could see the whole sitting room very clearly. While I don't really begrudge the film makers their choices, it did display a certain unleashed potential in cinema that is underutilized, and that is light to dark dynamics for emotional responses.
"Under exposure" if we can call it that, has long been an integral part of a professionals tool set. For a little while, ETTR was a bit of a buzz word, as people strived for healthy and clean exposures, but ETTL has always been a way to get a more serious quality tone and look with rich shadows and soft roll off highlights. But what we have going on in these films and shows I have pointed out is something built on that, but then taken a little further into stylistic choice.
While saying darkness is the new bokeh may sound a little derogatory, and I totally intended that, but bokeh is still lovely, and so are dark images. So, despite phrasing, it doesn't mean that darkness is not still an important part of film making.
On a psychological level, watching these films late at night, the darker look can help the mind drift into a dream like state more readily than if there was full use of brightness all the time. But not sure if that is the reasoning behind any of these film makers aesthetic choices.
What are your observations of the look and what do you get from it. It has been a part of the cinematic language for a very long time, and only perhaps recently due to the consistency in reproducing content have cinematographers been able to take bigger stylistic choices. And perhaps decades of shooting "safe" for the mass audience is no longer necessary. That is kind of liberating.
Idk, just have been noticing it growing and more and more DP's and colorists opting for the "look", and wanting to hear other people's observations.
Ok, that's good. I need to steal that.
G
Guest
Guest
People say my images are greatly improved when I shoot LCO.
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
Thanks for your generosity in your elaboration. Interesting.
I'm not sure exactly how to address the trendiness of it, but I do think that certain DPs and shows have shown executives and creative directors that audiences will except and enjoy darkness. Bradford Young amongst others. As such, people are being allowed and even requested to go moody or dark. Now, the effectiveness to how it's used is open to argument.
I did not share your feeling about Solo, but I did find certain parts in the beginning of Arrival to be darker than what I would have done. It pulled me out of the story a bit.
Combine that with the ability to light more naturally due to new technology and the embrace of a type of naturalism that also may also add to this trend by allowing dark spaces to remain dark. Day interiors in spaces with small windows are often pretty dark in real life. Of course, this is only a generalization.
As someone who enjoys dark images and shadows, I love shooting at night and I love negative fill and silhouettes. As such, I'm probably less bothered by it than most.
There are two things I wonder, though. One, is if DPs moving away from light meters and maybe not lighting in terms of stops, but only by WFM or false color, is leading to less standardized lighting...as in fill two stops under key, with background one stop below fill, with practicals or highlights two stops above key...with shadows/blacks two stops below fill. This would be 8 stops of DR, which fills out a negative more than a more monitor-based exposure process where one may not be thinking about creating a thick negative, ecessarily. Secondly, I've been starting to lower my highlights in post a bit because I've noticed that what displays correctly on a computer will clip on a mobile phone. I wonder if more people are doing this. Although I'm not sure most people would notice, perhaps more astute folks such as yourself might be picking up on this?
Anyways, I don't think darkness is being misused anymore than anything else. But I could be wrong since I haven't really gathered the data to speak on it. Interesting, though.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
LCO, ha, ha!
I shot a dance film quite a few years ago with a very non-technical director. It was a passion project and the dancer we had secured to dance lead in the film was a world class artist from Spain, which is why I signed onto the project. The shoot went on over a period of a few months, I shot it with a camera that was not a good low light camera anyway, the original HVX-200, which I generally rated as a native ISO 320 camera. No matter what I did or how I tried to show and explain, this director wanted me to use less and less light so the images would look "moody and mysterious". The director practically pushed me to the point where I wanted to "Alan Smithee" my association with the film as he wanted the images turned into noisy mud. I couldn't show him or convince him that darkness starts with some light in the image and that it is easy to take a correctly exposed image and make it dark while still keeping exposure, contrast ratio and noise down to reasonable levels. I worked with him and his colorist and editor to make the images look decent. In the end, it turned out to be a noisy, muddy mess because the camera we used was the exact type of camera that needed light to look decent and he could have easily taken the look down to what he thought he wanted from a contrasty Chiaroscuro look that looked interesting and beautiful. He wanted a look. I told him and showed him how to get the look he wanted while retaining a watchable, correctly exposed image. He promptly ignored my suggestions and even in the color grading bay with a $20,000.00 monitor, the images looked terrible, which was a shame because the production values, costumes, sets and the performance were beautiful, you just couldn't tell from the horribly unexposed images we shot.
To me, deliberately underexposing a negative, digital or film, is often the choice of an amateur with little to no understanding of how exposure, contrast ratio and noise actually work in image making. Very rarely does the director or DP want an extremely low contrast, muddy, noisy image, they want an image that "looks dark" and possibly is somewhat stylistically low contrast. But those projects where that look is the right look are rare and are usually better accomplished with a higher end camera that won't add a ton of noise and the noise that it does add is going to be pleasant like the C300 MKII/C200 or Arri cameras. I've shot with the RED Dragon sensor and it looks REALLY bad underexposed. So does the BMD imager in the Ursa Mini Pro. So it's matter of choosing the right tool and doing most of it in post IMHO. This whole "underexposed look" to me, generally reeks of incompetence in most cases. It can be done well but few people outside of world class cinematographers usually get to do it right and few directors seem to know when and how to do it.
It seems that many filmmaking tools like camera movement, coverage, exposure and shooting anamorphic are being utilized by filmmakers who aren't "redefining cinema", they simply don't know what they are doing. These are tools in cinema that when used tastefully, are powerful and moving but often the way they are implemented today is half-assed. Cinema is a language and it's fine to break the rules but it generally is better when you know and understand the rules, then break them, not break them through incompetence. Harumph. And get off of my lawn!
I shot a dance film quite a few years ago with a very non-technical director. It was a passion project and the dancer we had secured to dance lead in the film was a world class artist from Spain, which is why I signed onto the project. The shoot went on over a period of a few months, I shot it with a camera that was not a good low light camera anyway, the original HVX-200, which I generally rated as a native ISO 320 camera. No matter what I did or how I tried to show and explain, this director wanted me to use less and less light so the images would look "moody and mysterious". The director practically pushed me to the point where I wanted to "Alan Smithee" my association with the film as he wanted the images turned into noisy mud. I couldn't show him or convince him that darkness starts with some light in the image and that it is easy to take a correctly exposed image and make it dark while still keeping exposure, contrast ratio and noise down to reasonable levels. I worked with him and his colorist and editor to make the images look decent. In the end, it turned out to be a noisy, muddy mess because the camera we used was the exact type of camera that needed light to look decent and he could have easily taken the look down to what he thought he wanted from a contrasty Chiaroscuro look that looked interesting and beautiful. He wanted a look. I told him and showed him how to get the look he wanted while retaining a watchable, correctly exposed image. He promptly ignored my suggestions and even in the color grading bay with a $20,000.00 monitor, the images looked terrible, which was a shame because the production values, costumes, sets and the performance were beautiful, you just couldn't tell from the horribly unexposed images we shot.
To me, deliberately underexposing a negative, digital or film, is often the choice of an amateur with little to no understanding of how exposure, contrast ratio and noise actually work in image making. Very rarely does the director or DP want an extremely low contrast, muddy, noisy image, they want an image that "looks dark" and possibly is somewhat stylistically low contrast. But those projects where that look is the right look are rare and are usually better accomplished with a higher end camera that won't add a ton of noise and the noise that it does add is going to be pleasant like the C300 MKII/C200 or Arri cameras. I've shot with the RED Dragon sensor and it looks REALLY bad underexposed. So does the BMD imager in the Ursa Mini Pro. So it's matter of choosing the right tool and doing most of it in post IMHO. This whole "underexposed look" to me, generally reeks of incompetence in most cases. It can be done well but few people outside of world class cinematographers usually get to do it right and few directors seem to know when and how to do it.
It seems that many filmmaking tools like camera movement, coverage, exposure and shooting anamorphic are being utilized by filmmakers who aren't "redefining cinema", they simply don't know what they are doing. These are tools in cinema that when used tastefully, are powerful and moving but often the way they are implemented today is half-assed. Cinema is a language and it's fine to break the rules but it generally is better when you know and understand the rules, then break them, not break them through incompetence. Harumph. And get off of my lawn!
cpreston
Veteran
My take, although I have only worked in digital.
I think that some "DP's" working in digital are trying to create the low key lighting they remember from the movies they loved. They primarily remember how they loved how certain parts of the images were caught up in the blacks. Faces were backlit and almost entirely in the shadows. So their solution was to underexpose because they didn't realize that the needed something bright in the frame to balance the image. And with the advent of shooting log which generally looks underexposed until it is corrected, they got even more into underexposing. Unless there is an obvious artistic purpose or a bunch of high contrast, clipped light bulbs in the frame, the general audience is going to feel that there is something wrong with the video being presented. The audience is expecting to see an image in which their eye is not constantly fighting to let more light in because amount of light coming from the screen isn't balanced.
BTW, I saw a Solo in a bad theater and couldn't actually see who was who in the first scene. I figured the DP was trying to present a light starved space, but the rest of the movie wasn't much better and my eyes were always telling me something was wrong with the screen. There were a couple of articles discussing this complaint, so I wasn't the only one. I think relying on underexposure is risky even when you have somebody who should know what they are doing.
I think that some "DP's" working in digital are trying to create the low key lighting they remember from the movies they loved. They primarily remember how they loved how certain parts of the images were caught up in the blacks. Faces were backlit and almost entirely in the shadows. So their solution was to underexpose because they didn't realize that the needed something bright in the frame to balance the image. And with the advent of shooting log which generally looks underexposed until it is corrected, they got even more into underexposing. Unless there is an obvious artistic purpose or a bunch of high contrast, clipped light bulbs in the frame, the general audience is going to feel that there is something wrong with the video being presented. The audience is expecting to see an image in which their eye is not constantly fighting to let more light in because amount of light coming from the screen isn't balanced.
BTW, I saw a Solo in a bad theater and couldn't actually see who was who in the first scene. I figured the DP was trying to present a light starved space, but the rest of the movie wasn't much better and my eyes were always telling me something was wrong with the screen. There were a couple of articles discussing this complaint, so I wasn't the only one. I think relying on underexposure is risky even when you have somebody who should know what they are doing.
we’re all gonna feel horrible about our ages if Eric doesnt know who that is.
Anyway Im not sure I buy digital DPs not knowing about highlights in frame for balance...unless we’re talking super low budget projects only, it seems it would be impossibe to get to that professional tier (shooting wide release feature films or narrative tv) without knowing that stuff. I’m voting (poor) artistic choice.
Anyway Im not sure I buy digital DPs not knowing about highlights in frame for balance...unless we’re talking super low budget projects only, it seems it would be impossibe to get to that professional tier (shooting wide release feature films or narrative tv) without knowing that stuff. I’m voting (poor) artistic choice.
It's that guy from Magnum PI, right?
cpreston
Veteran
Actually, my frame of reference is low budget projects where the DP mistakes underexposed for "filmic". But the largest budget movie I saw that left me wondering what was going on was Bradford Young's "Solo". The explanation I heard was that he just really loves shadows and the excuse for a poor filmgoing experience was that the projector wasn't calibrated correctly. I don't get it. Maybe part of my problem is that I don't have particularly great vision and can't see very well in low light due to one eye being overly farsighted. Of course, much of an audience doesn't have great vision so I think it might be unwise to rely on the ability of the audience to be able to focus on what is happening in low light projections.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
All one has to do is study film noir to understand how it works. I directed a short documentary on film noir for a DVD Box set for Warner Bros a bunch of years back. It's all just about contrast ratios, not underexposure. But that's film noir, not what I think some of these modern filmmakers are trying to accomplish. I can go for poor artistic choice too, just like choosing to shoot a low budget comedy in anamorphic. It's almost as if many of today's filmmakers don't understand what these styles and techniques mean, it's like they view the language of cinema as a grab bag, they're blindfolded and just randomly reach in and pull techniques out at random. Probably the more common offender is camera movement, my gosh, the constantly roaming camera makes things unwatchable. How about a grossly underexposed, muddy looking mumblecore indie feature, shot with a constantly moving anamorphic camera with 2" of DOF in orange and teal grade? It probably exists is the sad part.
The same criticism was levelled against Gavin Finney for his outstanding work on Wolf Hall for the BBC. Personally, I thought the cinematography was a tour de force on both the technical and artistic levels. Visually, it was sumptuous while being utterly faithful to the story and the characters. His focus puller deserved a medal for getting everything spot on while shooting handheld with so few footcandles. And yet the show received widespread criticism for being “too dark”. It’s an interesting philosophical question; if the role of the cinematographer is to serve the story and if he or she does that in a faithful, artistic way but the result alienates the average viewer and takes them out of the story, is that a success or a failure? I pose that as a genuine question as I don’t pretend to have the answer. For whom do we make our films? And in this age of content being consumed in wildly different environments on very different devices, does it make a difference?
As to the original question in your opening post, artistic trends are usually driven by several different factors. An obvious one is just a simple reaction against the prevailing orthodoxy. Artists react against established ways of doing things because they want to try something different, to see the world differently and often new technology can be the catalyst. Whether it was the lightweight easels that suddenly allowed the Impressionist painters to get out of the studio or changes in form factor of heavy, bulky 35mm film cameras, new tools can precipitate new ways of doing things.
Personally, I think the higher ISO of modern sensor design has contributed to the shift. In the old days of film it was much harder to judge contrast ratios by eye at lower speeds and higher light levels. A lot of squinting and peering through pan glasses was involved. Even pushing Double-X by one stop to 400 ASA made a difference to how easily you could judge the shadows, contrast and exactly what would be visible. Hence, most cinematographers tended to play safer with fill light ratios than we do now with higher ISO sensors and reliable, calibrated monitors on set. Perhaps the question we should be asking is why has it taken so long since the changeover from film to digital over a decade ago for this shift to become apparent?
Run&Gun
Veteran
I think some of the problem today is the "there are no rules" philosophy that so many have. And that's just a cover for most for "we don't know or understand 'the rules' ".
Run&Gun
Veteran
If the audience is fighting and struggling the whole time to just see(and thus miserable), then it's a fail, regardless of intent. A handful of scenes to convey something is acceptable, but an entire movie or show that is a miserable experience to watch is just a miserable experience. It's why I do not watch 3D movies in conventional theaters. The overall image is too dark(even with "bright" subject matter).
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
Every generation, people have said the same thing. The problem nowadays, and longing for a romanticized past. I don't think this is new.
You learn from the part of the story you focus on. There is always the bad with the good. So much great work being done today, and this trend and everything that has been mentioned as bad also has tons of examples of it being done well. If you focus mostly on the worst examples than you are likely to have the impression that this is a problem. But there are so many DP's, Colorists and Directors using these techniques to create work that is genuine and touches audiences and pushes the medium forward. Even freeing themselves from rules to also achieve something powerful.
I'd suggest take the good with the bad. For every example you don't like, keep in mind there is also an example that you probably would like. And if you just don't like a specific vocabulary or set of vocabularies in the language of filmmaking no matter what, than that's fine too. But know that that's your issue, not an issue with the vocabulary itself. I don't like the word behooved, but that's my issue...haha!
You learn from the part of the story you focus on. There is always the bad with the good. So much great work being done today, and this trend and everything that has been mentioned as bad also has tons of examples of it being done well. If you focus mostly on the worst examples than you are likely to have the impression that this is a problem. But there are so many DP's, Colorists and Directors using these techniques to create work that is genuine and touches audiences and pushes the medium forward. Even freeing themselves from rules to also achieve something powerful.
I'd suggest take the good with the bad. For every example you don't like, keep in mind there is also an example that you probably would like. And if you just don't like a specific vocabulary or set of vocabularies in the language of filmmaking no matter what, than that's fine too. But know that that's your issue, not an issue with the vocabulary itself. I don't like the word behooved, but that's my issue...haha!
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
This topic reminds me of the feature film I shot, directed, wrote, and edited a couple years ago called "Unavailable Light." It takes the art of under-exposure to the extreme, an experimental film to see what a movie would be like without light. It's available for free viewing on YouTube.