Exposing For Highlights / Lighting "Up"

KyleProhaska

KyleProhaska

Veteran
I own the AF100 and like a lot of new cameras find it to be extremely sensitive, almost too much. It's great for a lot of things, but takes some getting used to when lighting. I'm finding that keeping highlights under control is tough compared to my old 35mm Adapter setup because between the camera and adapter and the light it needed, it started off at a good exposure midpoint for me to accent with lights (if mixing natural light). The AF100 forces me to find ways to take my starting point down so I can light "up" or bring up the light manually after the fact.

What do you think is the best way to try and do this? I feel like changing my F stop is a quick/dirty way to do it, but I would like some DOF consistency in my projects. ND2 is the best answer I have because that will cut down the light significantly, but is that the best way?

Just looking for some opinions here. My old setup needed more light and felt more like film when lighting it since it actually needed a lot more and natural light exposed pretty well. I'm finding myself spending more time just fighting the sensitivity of the chip to find a starting point.

Anybody else relate?
 
I've shot with the HVX200 with the Letus Extreme and Nikon primes, the 7D and the 5D, the EX-1, and S16mm film. The light I needed for the HVX200 exposure was almost as much as that for S16mm, whereas I could get by with practicals and a tweenie on some shots with the DSLR's/EX-1.

I've found, though, that I always start with too much light and have to bring it down no matter what camera setup I'm using - except for a couple projects where I intentionally lit with a high contrast, letting faces fall into shadow, because I preferred getting that specific look in-camera. I've also found I get a lot better at gauging exactly how much light I'll need when I'm familiar with the camera - 7D and EX-1. I've only shot a couple projects with the HVX200/35mm or S16 film, and the first couple setups took me a while to get proper exposure, where, by that time, I'd be adding accent lights and colors and working with the art director more closely if I were shooting on the 7D.

Although I don't own the AF100, I can kind of see the position you're in. There's no problem using the ND filters that come with the camera because they are built-in and slide in behind the lens, which is arguably the best method. However, I've never had a problem with too much light or overbearing artificial highlights. It could just be a factor of the size of the lights you're used to using with light hogs like 35mm adapter setups.
 
Well I'm speaking more to mixing natural light in my setups as well. Moving quickly on set is essential and I've never had so much light to control/limit before. It's been a lot tougher to just pick up and shoot, even with the lighter setup than before. It's likely I'll end up using ND2 or something like I said, or I've thought about buying Chocolate ND rolls and covering the windows in locations I'm shooting in to try and cut down the light the sun is blasting in. I don't have the lighting power to make my own sun, so I need to be working more with what God is giving me. The ND rolls would also correct the light to tungsten which could make things much easier, we'll see I guess.

Thanks for the comments.
 
I would say that's exactly why the AF100 has built-in ND filters. Between the gain settings and the NDs, you can set the effective sensitivity all the way from ISO 3 (ISO 200 + ND position 4) to 3200 (no ND). That's a 1000:1 range, and gives you tremendous versatility. Somewhere in there is a setting that will match the sensitivity of your previous setup, I'm sure.

I'm wondering if what you're seeing isn't so much due to sensitivity per se as to the difference in tonal rendition between the two cameras. My experience with Panasonic's (and other's) CMOS sensors is that they really accentuate the lower midtones and give you detail in the darker areas of the picture that you never knew existed before. Using the B.Press gamma setting and perhaps lowering the master pedestal a click or two may help make it look a little more like a CCD camera. And of course, you can always adjust curves in post. I have had a lot of training and experience in a traditional TV studio/broadcast environment and used to like to use "limbo" lighting (letting the background go completely black) for interview subjects much of the time. I almost can't do it now because the two new cameras I have (Panasonic HMC80 and AF100) suck so much detail up out of the shadows that I can't hide stuff out of the reach of the lights anymore!

I also find myself lighting with more contrast for this latest generation of cameras. I use much less fill light than before, or in some cases, none at all. It is a different aesthetic look that both takes advantage of, and shows off, the greater dynamic range of these newer sensors. Of course, you need to watch for noise and banding, because there ain't no free lunch. And it's not exactly the same result as what I would have gotten from cameras of the previous generation -- you do need to adjust your expectations somewhat to the capabilities of the new equipment (not intended as a critical statement at all!). Trying to exactly duplicate what you saw before may not be the best way to approach learning a new advance in technology -- as I have to tell myself all the time.

- Greg
 
well i mean, use the 1/8th ND built in. just leave it on. IT will make your AF100 around a ISO 100 @ 0dB.
 
Hmm, maybe I didn't even need to post the thread, lol? I'll just go with what I said in the original post that's been confirmed here and likely put the ND2 on most of the time...
 
Yea fightng ambient fill light is a pain with these nightvision cameras we have nowadays.
 
Absolutely. Hey, I somehow forgot that normal CTO or CTB gels by default cut a certain amount of light so perhaps the CTO/ND combo is unnecessary? I'm learning how to read in my head how many stops I need to cut here/there when lighting and how moving this or that or changing X or Y will effect it. No surprise the guys that do this for a lifetime are the best :P
 
Being a dp means being a mathemetician.

I use log mathematics, calculus, and algebra constantly.
 
KyleProhaska said:
Absolutely. Hey, I somehow forgot that normal CTO or CTB gels by default cut a certain amount of light so perhaps the CTO/ND combo is unnecessary? I'm learning how to read in my head how many stops I need to cut here/there when lighting and how moving this or that or changing X or Y will effect it. No surprise the guys that do this for a lifetime are the best :P
Click to expand...

Full CTO absorbs about 2/3 of a stop. If you're putting it on 5600°K lights to fix color balance, you usually want to lose the least amount of light possible, so that is the right stuff to use. But on windows, you'll probably barely notice that amount of difference in exposure. Although it might vary a little with the season and the quality of outdoor light, I usually start with a 2-stop ND plus CTO for gelling windows. Even then they'll still look bright compared to the rest of the scene, but if you're lucky, not completely blown out.

- Greg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top