FX3/FX30: FX3 - did it lose slog2 with firmware update?
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The one way I have never understood is exposing ETR for video, as your image is constantly changing. Okay on stills for sure but not video.
To me at least it sounds like your version of ETR and my version of ETR are different.
To me ETR is just making a 'thick negative' that will need an S down in post or a LUT with the same.
Only a fool (and doubtless there are many on YT) will actually wiggle thier exposure between (or even during!) every shot to keep the top of the WFM sitting on the 100 mark making a 'perfect ETTR'
To me at least it sounds like your version of ETR and my version of ETR are different.
To me ETR is just making a 'thick negative' that will need an S down in post or a LUT with the same.
Only a fool (and doubtless there are many on YT) will actually wiggle thier exposure between (or even during!) every shot to keep the top of the WFM sitting on the 100 mark making a 'perfect ETTR'
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Chris, I did find this passage from Sony's 2003 Camera Technology Basics book. It does mention Caucasian skin, so I will concede that point. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still racist and, more importantly, an inaccurate method of setting exposure on modern cameras. In fact, the whole section about zebras is really outdated and incomplete. Fortunately, zebras have evolved quite a bit over the last 20 years.
"The second type, 70-90 IRE zebra, displays a zebra pattern on highlights between 70-90 IRE, and disappears above the 90 IRE level. This is useful to determine the correct exposure for the subject's facial skin tones since properly exposed skin (in the case of Caucasian skin) highlights are likely to fall within the 80 IRE areas."
"The second type, 70-90 IRE zebra, displays a zebra pattern on highlights between 70-90 IRE, and disappears above the 90 IRE level. This is useful to determine the correct exposure for the subject's facial skin tones since properly exposed skin (in the case of Caucasian skin) highlights are likely to fall within the 80 IRE areas."
cyvideo
Veteran
No need to take my word for it, Doug. The ITU would be a creditable source for most people.
A bit of background, as I don't know if you were in the production business in 1975.
It all stems back to a fellow countryman of yours. An American dermatologist, Thomas B. Fitzpatrick, and the skin tone scale that he developed in 1975. This divided skin tones into 6 different tones. It became a US nationally and then an internationally recognised standard. The Type 2 skin tone patch being considered the average Caucasian skin tone.
Based of the Fitzpatrick scale came the development of the Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker. Introduced in a 1976 by McCamy, Marcus, and Davidson in the Journal of Applied Photographic Engineering. The chart’s color patches have spectral reflectances intended to mimic those of natural objects such as human skin, foliage, and flowers, to have consistent color appearance under a variety of lighting conditions. Top row, second in from the left on the Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker is the skin tone Type 2 patch. This patch is based off the Fitzpatrick skin tone Type 2. These days, a skin tone reflectance database from the US government National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is used in television engineering for reflectance values. Resolve's inbuilt color charts are based on the original (Legacy) Gretag and later versions of X-Rite's ColorChecker charts. Along with the much later DSC's One Shot chart.
Try this in Resolve, using the Qualifier. Select the skin tone patch Type 2 on either a Fitzpatrick chart or the skin tone patch on a Gretag Macbeth chart. Or even the tops kin tone patch on later DSC Labs One Shot Dailies Chart, you will find they will all sit in the range of about 68-72 IRE on the waveform monitor, which happens to be the Type 2 Caucasian skin tone level. You need to set your waveform display to the 0-100 IRE scale to see this accurately. Under the three dots icon, select Waveform Style Type then select Percentage. Also, just by selecting the skin tone Type 2 patch, you will see a hollow white dot sitting on your Curves-Custom line representing the luminance level of your picker selection. This will have a value sitting around that 70-75% level.
It is because of these developments that the ITU, The International Telecommunication Union, decided to set the Zebra levels of modern electronic cameras at a nominal 70 IRE based on the Type 2 Caucasian skin levels reflectance values of the above charts. As mentioned previously, That is why Resolve has these charts inbuilt, to help with correct exposure levels.
The current skin tone Zebra level of 70 % is still being used by the ITU with reference to skin tone and is outlined in their HLG and SDR white paper, Rep. ITU-RBT.2408-1 if you wish to deep dive.
https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BT.2408-1-2018-PDF-E.pdf
Quote:
"The facial skin tones of 11people (musicians and hosts) from 24 scenes in each of the HLG and SDR programmes were analysed. Figure A4.2 plots average levels of each face. The facial skin tones were found to be 45-56%HLG (50%HLG on average) and 41-71 cd/m2 on HLG displays with a peak luminance of 1000 cd/m2, and 61-82%SDR (70%SDR on average) and 32-63 cd/m2 on SDR displays. With a peak luminance of 100 cd/m2."
Summing up, that's the facts of the matter. That's why most cameras have their default Zebras at 70 IRE for Type 2 skin tones which are, whether you like it or not, Caucasian skin tones on the referred to standards of reflectance. Though initially, 70 IRE back in the day was considered the limit of exposure on a piece of white paper, as any exposure higher than that and the texture detail in the paper was lost. But that's all history now, as technology develops. Like the new HLG skin tone recommendations of 45-56%, (50%HLG on average) as opposed to the SDR levels of 61-82%, (70%SDR on average). If you wish to not accept these facts, then that's your prerogative, Doug.
Chris Young.
The DSC OneShot
A bit of background, as I don't know if you were in the production business in 1975.
It all stems back to a fellow countryman of yours. An American dermatologist, Thomas B. Fitzpatrick, and the skin tone scale that he developed in 1975. This divided skin tones into 6 different tones. It became a US nationally and then an internationally recognised standard. The Type 2 skin tone patch being considered the average Caucasian skin tone.
Based of the Fitzpatrick scale came the development of the Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker. Introduced in a 1976 by McCamy, Marcus, and Davidson in the Journal of Applied Photographic Engineering. The chart’s color patches have spectral reflectances intended to mimic those of natural objects such as human skin, foliage, and flowers, to have consistent color appearance under a variety of lighting conditions. Top row, second in from the left on the Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker is the skin tone Type 2 patch. This patch is based off the Fitzpatrick skin tone Type 2. These days, a skin tone reflectance database from the US government National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is used in television engineering for reflectance values. Resolve's inbuilt color charts are based on the original (Legacy) Gretag and later versions of X-Rite's ColorChecker charts. Along with the much later DSC's One Shot chart.
Try this in Resolve, using the Qualifier. Select the skin tone patch Type 2 on either a Fitzpatrick chart or the skin tone patch on a Gretag Macbeth chart. Or even the tops kin tone patch on later DSC Labs One Shot Dailies Chart, you will find they will all sit in the range of about 68-72 IRE on the waveform monitor, which happens to be the Type 2 Caucasian skin tone level. You need to set your waveform display to the 0-100 IRE scale to see this accurately. Under the three dots icon, select Waveform Style Type then select Percentage. Also, just by selecting the skin tone Type 2 patch, you will see a hollow white dot sitting on your Curves-Custom line representing the luminance level of your picker selection. This will have a value sitting around that 70-75% level.
It is because of these developments that the ITU, The International Telecommunication Union, decided to set the Zebra levels of modern electronic cameras at a nominal 70 IRE based on the Type 2 Caucasian skin levels reflectance values of the above charts. As mentioned previously, That is why Resolve has these charts inbuilt, to help with correct exposure levels.
The current skin tone Zebra level of 70 % is still being used by the ITU with reference to skin tone and is outlined in their HLG and SDR white paper, Rep. ITU-RBT.2408-1 if you wish to deep dive.
https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BT.2408-1-2018-PDF-E.pdf
Quote:
"The facial skin tones of 11people (musicians and hosts) from 24 scenes in each of the HLG and SDR programmes were analysed. Figure A4.2 plots average levels of each face. The facial skin tones were found to be 45-56%HLG (50%HLG on average) and 41-71 cd/m2 on HLG displays with a peak luminance of 1000 cd/m2, and 61-82%SDR (70%SDR on average) and 32-63 cd/m2 on SDR displays. With a peak luminance of 100 cd/m2."
Summing up, that's the facts of the matter. That's why most cameras have their default Zebras at 70 IRE for Type 2 skin tones which are, whether you like it or not, Caucasian skin tones on the referred to standards of reflectance. Though initially, 70 IRE back in the day was considered the limit of exposure on a piece of white paper, as any exposure higher than that and the texture detail in the paper was lost. But that's all history now, as technology develops. Like the new HLG skin tone recommendations of 45-56%, (50%HLG on average) as opposed to the SDR levels of 61-82%, (70%SDR on average). If you wish to not accept these facts, then that's your prerogative, Doug.
Chris Young.
The DSC OneShot
Attachments
cyvideo
Veteran
Abe, it mentions Caucasian skin tone for a good reason. The reason being 70 IRE is generally accepted to be the Fitzpatrick Type 2 Caucasian skin tone reference level. There is a history to the development of these levels. These levels are far from being outdated. These levels are referenced in the current ITU SDR and HLG levels white paper. Have a look at my reply to Doug for a link to it.
Like a statue in my home town in England. It's a statue to one of England's greatest slave traders. A very racist man going on the history of him. And I agree, he was a total racist. But throwing him in the harbour doesn't change history, whether that history was based in bigotry and racism on not. Sadly, the origins of the 70 IRE Zebra Caucasian skin tones development was based in a far less tolerant time when it came to societal standards. I know I lived through those times, and I worked in television in those times. Bussing, Kent State, King's march on Washington. Sad to say, there are many leftover legacies of those times. And some survive in our industry as well, to this day! As much as we may well like to airbrush out some of our past history, we may indeed remove some of it, but it happened. Wishful thinking doesn't change that.
Chris Young
Last edited:
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
This is exactly the problem I'm talking about. A range of 45-56% for different faces is more than a full stop. A range of 61-82% for different faces is more than two stops. So obviously the range of skintones in the world is too wide for one zebra number to fit everyone. So, for example, if you say ___% works for a very light-colored person, such as Jim Gaffigan, then that number cannot possibly work for a dark-colored person, such as Kevin Hart. Once you accept that fact, then an intellecually honest person would have to admit that they are just guessing at the exposure when they use zebras for non-whites.
And why use zebras at all if you're just going to make a guess anyway? Personally, I don't need any exposure tools at all if a 2-stop margin of error is considered acceptable. Fortunately, it is not acceptable. I prefer an exposure that is right on the money -- and zebras on a white card or other target does exactly that. Fast, accurate, and with zero guessing. And with no racial overtones.
I have taught dozens of interview lighting workshops around the world, and setting the correct exposure is always an important topic of the class. And there is no way I'm going to stand there in front of a class and teach multi-racial students to use Caucasian skin as their benchmark for correct exposure -- and just make a guess for everyone else. How ridiculous. That isn't going to fly (and shouldn't be acceptable to anyone) in 2024, regardless of what was previously considered okay.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Chris, you should stop and listen to yourself. Sounds like you are saying if exposing for Caucasian skin was considered okay in the past, then it's okay to continue doing it today. Well, I could list a hundred racial and sexual things that were acceptable in the past -- but not anymore. And nobody is saying we can ignore or rewrite the past. What is done is done. But each of us can absolutely decide right this minute not to perpetuate this outdated method of setting exposure. But you choose to embrace, defend, and recommend it. Even if you ignore the racial aspect of using Caucasian skin at your benchmark, it's still just a sloppy outdated way of working anyway.
You're right about one thing, though, wishful thinking wont change the past. But it might change the future. Unfortunately, there will always be a few dinosaurs who don't understand how some things in society need to change.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where exposure will not be judged by the tone of their skin but by the reflection of light on a white card.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.
Last edited:
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Why Do We Keep Using the Word “Caucasian”?
A history of Caucasian terminology: When a term signifies something that does not exist, we need to examine our use of it.
www.sapiens.org
Why Do We Keep Using the Word “Caucasian”?
When a term signifies something that does not exist, we need to examine our use of it.
The term “Caucasian” originated from a growing 18th-century European science of racial classification. German anatomist Johann Blumenbach visited the Caucasus Mountains, located between the Caspian and Black seas, and he must have been enchanted because he labeled the people there “Caucasians” and proposed that they were created in God’s image as an ideal form of humanity. And the label has stuck to this day. Blumenbach went on to name four other “races,” each considered “physically and morally ‘degenerate’ forms of ‘God’s original creation.’” He categorized Africans, excluding light-skinned North Africans, as “Ethiopians” or “black.” He divided non-Caucasian Asians into two separate races: the “Mongolian” or “yellow” race of Japan and China, and the “Malayan” or “brown” race, which included Aboriginal Australians and Pacific Islanders. And he called Native Americans the “red” race.
Blumenbach’s system of racial classification was adopted in the United States to justify racial discrimination—particularly slavery. Popular race science and evolutionary theories generally posited that there were separate races, that differences in behavior were tied to skin color, and that there were scientific ways to measure race. As you can imagine, this flawed application of the scientific method resulted in race scientists developing a flawed system of racial classification that ranked the five races from most primitive (black and brown races), to more advanced (the Asian races), to the most advanced (the white, or Caucasian, races).
The bottom line is that it is time for a modern—and accurate—terminology. The use of an outdated and disproven term that falsely purports to describe a separate race of people has no place in the U.S.
cyvideo
Veteran
You have obviously misread my statement. Like the new (HLG skin tone recommendations of 45-56%, (50%HLG on average) as opposed to the SDR levels of 61-82%, (70%SDR on average). Not 709 levels. SDR is still 61-82%, so no two stop error.
You may well have taught all over the world. I have taught TV engineers as a registered SMPTE engineering member. Also acted as a design and commissioning consultant on an Olympic broadcast installation. Means nothing in this discussion. Has no relevance. You have your way of determining exposure. Like I said to Abe. There is no "right or wrong way" as long as your way gets the results you require. You like your white piece of paper method where you state, I quote you:
"The answer is bright, reflected whites. Nothing else matters. Skintones vary too much from person to person, and race to race. 18% gray is too dark and never found naturally. But white is all around us on white cards, chip charts, paper, clothing, clouds, cars, etc. It is always easy to find a white target."
That works for you. But there are other well-informed equally well or better qualified pundits out there who have just as equally valid approaches to exposure who have pointed out definite drawbacks to your method. You disagree with them, your prerogative. Doesn't mean their or your method is right or wrong. It's just that you tend to disparage anyone else's method, as from your POV it's Doug's way or the highway. Whether you realise you come across like a soapbox pundit at times, I don't know. But making categorical statements like "Nothing else matters" is hardly the approach of an open-minded teacher. Case in point for another opinion on exposure, in reply to a response of yours last year. Equally valid and more accurate in my judgement. But that's just my opinion:
https://community.sonycine.com/forums/topic/86-what-are-your-zebras-measuring-in-cineei/
So on your reasoning, I guess the current crop of RED cameras would be classified as racist on their recommended exposure method and exposure tools. Stating the correct level for Caucasian skin tones should be the Pink bar. With no reference to any other skin tone. The 70 IRE Caucasian reference to skin tone levels is part of this industry's DNA. That is why, for years, Japanese camera manufacture's skin tone Zebra reference was set by default at 70 IRE. Good luck in changing it.
Chris Young
RED EXPOSURE ADVICE
Attachments
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Well Chris, I'm sure you are correct that I am a douche bag who doesn't know what he is talking about. Nice point! But at least I can say I am the right side of this argument -- even though you can trot out an endless number of comrades who share your values. Carry on.
-----------
"It is never too late to give up your prejudices." -- Henry David Thoreau
-----------
"It is never too late to give up your prejudices." -- Henry David Thoreau
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I'd just like to note that you addressed this response to me but quoted a post from Doug. So, to clarify, I think you were responding to something Doug wrote here. As far as I can tell, I'm in your camp and not Doug's.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
ahalpert
Major Contributor
By the way, back of the envelope guess -- how much do we think "white" objects vary in brightness? I would think that a cloud and a cream dress shirt would be at least a stop apart.
You can make an educated guess about the skin tone of a subject. I don't set them all at the same level.
And since the person is usually the subject of the shot, their placement in the exposure curve takes priority.
Like when I'm shooting a person and a brightly-lit painting at Christie's. The painting takes priority for the exposure and I try to compromise for the sake of the person if they're unlit. Then in the grade, the primary correction is applied with the painting in mind. And the person gets handled by a masked correction or a secondary.
One of the issues here is that the video medium has inferior contrast handling to the human eye. Whatever lands in the middle of the curve will have the richest tone and highest local contrast. It's not about trying to make the subject look white, which isn't the effect anyway. And I would do the same thing for a pale person in harsh lighting. I would protect their highlights at the expense of underexposing the rest of the scene (if, for example, they're in dappled sunlight and the background is shaded.)
At any rate, I doubt that many people of color care about exposure methodology, although they do care about how they're represented. But they probably care even more about actually getting on screen in the first place, which the new Hollywood quota system aims to do but you oppose.
You can make an educated guess about the skin tone of a subject. I don't set them all at the same level.
And since the person is usually the subject of the shot, their placement in the exposure curve takes priority.
Like when I'm shooting a person and a brightly-lit painting at Christie's. The painting takes priority for the exposure and I try to compromise for the sake of the person if they're unlit. Then in the grade, the primary correction is applied with the painting in mind. And the person gets handled by a masked correction or a secondary.
One of the issues here is that the video medium has inferior contrast handling to the human eye. Whatever lands in the middle of the curve will have the richest tone and highest local contrast. It's not about trying to make the subject look white, which isn't the effect anyway. And I would do the same thing for a pale person in harsh lighting. I would protect their highlights at the expense of underexposing the rest of the scene (if, for example, they're in dappled sunlight and the background is shaded.)
At any rate, I doubt that many people of color care about exposure methodology, although they do care about how they're represented. But they probably care even more about actually getting on screen in the first place, which the new Hollywood quota system aims to do but you oppose.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Here's a post by David Mullen on the subject a few years back. Discusses the concept of placing skin tones within an ideal range regardless of absolute value. No muss, no fuss, no accusations of racism.
Trigger warning for Doug
cinematography.com
Trigger warning for Doug
African American Skintones
I will be working on a shoot with an all African-American cast and I have a question. The traditional wisdom is to place caucasian highlights around 70% when using zebras in the viewfinder, but what about african american skin?
cinematography.com
cyvideo
Veteran
cyvideo
Veteran
Abe. I fully concur with David Mullens, on this topic. That is basically what I was suggesting in post #62 in this thread when I said "Obviously when filming darker skinned subjects you have to be more mindful of your highlights in the frame as you are opened up further than you would be for a fair skinned subject."Here's a post by David Mullen on the subject a few years back. Discusses the concept of placing skin tones within an ideal range regardless of absolute value. No muss, no fuss, no accusations of racism.
Trigger warning for Doug
African American Skintones
I will be working on a shoot with an all African-American cast and I have a question. The traditional wisdom is to place caucasian highlights around 70% when using zebras in the viewfinder, but what about african american skin?
Chris Young
cyvideo
Veteran
Re your first comment. You are spot on, Abe. I have in the past measured well over a stop. Just take an exposure meter to various white objects with different textures. As A. C. points out in his discussion with Doug, quote:
"And this can be a big issue when you have grabbed a piece of paper or fabric of unknown reflectivity that is most likely treated with brightners or a shiny car that may be anywhere from 90% to 98% reflectivity."
If you want a more technical overview, as all this is developing as we move more and more from the 709 world to the 2020 world. You would need to look at some of the current TV white papers that cover determining the reflectance of Lambertian, Specular, and Hybrid White Surfaces in television production. Another consideration is "What are you watching the final image on? An SDR or HDR screen?" Why is this important. Because, quote:
"Considering a nominal full scale signal (i.e. 100% signal level), and with the cameras set up as above, then the SDR camera can capture objects no brighter than 100% reflective (i.e. no highlights). The HLG camera increases the luminance that can be captured by a factor of 3. If the signal is allowed to excurse to the maximum 109% range (super-whites) then SDR can capture luminance equivalent to 120% reflectivity, whereas HLG can capture nearly a factor of 5 times more luminance than 100% reflectivity. It is the limitations in the ability of SDR displays to accurately render highlights that prompts the use of camera knees.
The hybrid log-gamma (HLG) HDR-TV signal parameters were designed from the outset to offer broadcasters and programme producers an evolutionary approach to HDR production and distribution. The signal characteristic is similar to that of a traditional standard dynamic range camera with a ‘knee’ and requires no poduction metadata. It is therefore compatible with conventional standard dynamic range production equipment, tools and infrastructure. Furthermore, the HLG HDR-TV signal parameters were designed to provide a significant degree of compatibility on Rep. ITU-R BT.2390-9 23 BT.2020 colour SDR displays (see § 6.4). Thus HDR monitors are only necessary in critical monitoring areas. The design of the HLG HDR signal parameters is intended to allow distribution networks to provide a single HEVC Main 10 bitstream that can target both SDR and HDR receivers, where those SDR receivers support the BT.2020 colour container (e.g. DVB and ARIB HEVC UHD receivers."
https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BT.2390-9-2021-PDF-E.pdf
This is why I am using my HLG3 / 709 color space PP for an out of camera WYSIWYG look that requires virtually nil grading and that can be used in a pure 709 viewing environment. This use of HLG3 in the 709 color space is giving me access to a far greater dynamic range that is now being massaged into the 709 world without having to resort to the now disappearing S-LOG2 or using S-LOG3 with its associated grading. If I don't need a WYSIWYG file I'll just use the HLG PP but just change the HLG mode to HLG3 and do a CST in Resolve to 709 which gives me a nice 709 image with a lot of dynamic range embedded into it. With maybe a bit of tweaking to my liking.
I think if you are grading your Christie's material and try the HLG3 approach in the 2020 color space on those shoots, you may be pleasantly surprised how you can retain a far greater range in your highlights... and whites... maybe not? If you do try it your exposure practice will change as it is a Hybrid Log Gamma which is a fair bit flatter than 709 but not as flat as S-LOG. Read the white paper re the recommended white points. Sorry if I get this following attribution wrong, but I think it might have been NorBro who said that when trying my settings that he liked the highlight handling and roll off yet at the same time keeping, I think he said "... a meaty midrange. And that it was way better than S-Cinetone... no comparison."
Chris Young
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Fascinating Chris, absolutely fascinating. Unfortunately, none of it has the slightest thing to do with setting exposure for different skintones.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Just because I'm in the minority here, doesn't mean I am wrong.
And not to take anything away from Mr. Mullen's excellent work on big-budget dramatic films and television shows with large crews and dedicated colorists in post, I'm quite certain I have shot far more interviews and head shots than he has. I also doubt he has conducted as many controlled head-to-head tests and demonstrations on this very topic as I have.
I stand by everything I've written on this thread and there is nothing else I can add that I haven't already said. I have lead you to water, if you choose not to drink, that is on you.
"The difference between microaggressions and overt discrimination or macroaggressions, is that people who commit microaggressions might not even be aware of them." -- Andrew Limbong
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I agree that referencing skintones while only referring to white skintones could be perceived as a microaggression. And possibly referring to caucasian skintones as an exposure guideline because it's a Eurocentric mindset. But I don't think it's crazy to look at things that way if you mostly shoot white people.
But the basic point is that you have a rough idea of where you want the skin tones to land on the curve regardless of the subject's complexion. Here are some shots of black people that were produced by black people:
Jay-Z's highlights - shadows are about 75 - 25.
This is from a video talking about how Annie Leibovitz does a bad job shooting black women:
Her highlights to shadows are about 70 - 30.
This is one of the shots she criticizes, Leibovitz's portrait of Justice Jackson:
Her highlights to shadows are about 64 - 11. The speaker complains that she's barely illuminated and doesn't stand out in the photo. She gives a quick edit idea of how she thinks she should look:
Highlights to shadows here are about 90 - 15.
I'm just saying, if whoever you're shooting (especially in a run and gun situation) is the most important element in the photo, you have a rough idea of where you want them to land on the curve, especially in an SDR output. No?
I don't think there's anything wrong with your exposure methodology and obviously you get great results. As far as removing the influence of bias and misconceptions from your decision-making, I think it makes sense. I just don't think this is that big of a deal or that people who expose this way are harming their subjects. Just the opposite.