I agree. I am just operating a camera using my professional toolset and learned skills.
FX3/FX30: FX3 - did it lose slog2 with firmware update?
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
I agree. I am just operating a camera using my professional toolset and learned skills.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Abe, I didn't intend to post on this thread again, but I think your post deserves a reply.
There are really two parts to the debate on this thread:
First, there's the social aspects of using the outdated and racist term "Caucasian" -- and also basing one's ideal exposure target level only for white folks (70%). For all the other people in the world that we shoot, who are not northern European whites, well, it seems making an educated guess is good enough for some people. I disagree with that approach and find it mildly racist, whether the people who subscribe to that method want to admit it or not. The world is full of people who don't think their actions or thoughts are racist, especially when they can say "that's how it's always been done". Bullshit. I believe that everyone deserves to be exposed accurately regardless of their skin color and that white skin should never be regarded as the standard from which everyone else in the world is just a deviation from.
However, if you don't mind, let's just agree to disagree on that point, and focus on the second part of my argument, which is my contention that whites and non-whites all deserve the exact same level of exposure regardless of skin color. In other words, if the exposure for person A is correct, then the same exposure is also correct for person B, regardless of their skin color, race, creed, religion, political party, IQ, or anything else some people think makes a difference to exposure levels.
Let's say that we setup a beautiful interview shot with Joe Biden. We both agree that it looks great and the exposure is spot on. Now Biden gets up and leaves the room, and Barack Obama sits down in the same chair. In the real world we'd probably want to make some adjustments to the shape of the lighting to account for differences in height, posture, etc. between the two men. But should we change the overall exposure? Absolutely not. If Biden was correctly exposed then Obama also has to be correctly exposed. Does Obama look darker on screen? Yes, because he is darker in real life. There is no reason to add exposure compensation to account for the difference in skin tone. Both men are different shades in real life and there is no need to make either one look a little darker or lighter just because we think it might look better.
Here's another example. Let's say with have a nice two-shot of Biden and Obama sitting shoulder to shoulder being lit with the same lights. We both agree that it looks great and the exposure is spot on. Now Biden gets up and leaves the room and we tighten up for a single on Obama. Do we change the exposure now because the white guy is gone? Absolutely not. If the two-shot was correctly exposed for both men then the single shot of Obama has to also be correctly exposed.
This isn't just theory. I have demonstrated this fact numerous times in workshops when I've had students of different races and skin tones to use as models. We setup and light one person; agree it looks great; swap out for another person of different color; and then judge the exposure. Like I said, some adjustments of the shape of the lighting or composition might need adjustment, but the exposure for one is always perfect for the other.
Here's another example. Let's say you have a shot of ten billiard balls on a pool table. We light it up all nice and pretty and we both agree the exposure is spot on. Now we take away all the balls except for the white cue ball. Should we change the exposure? Or what if we take away all the balls except for the black 8-ball, do we change the exposure? In both cases the answer is no. If the shot was correctly exposed for all the balls then it is correctly exposed for any single ball remaining on the table.
So, that brings up the question on HOW to judge the correct exposure if we aren't going to base it on Caucasian faces? The answer is a white card or some other acceptable bright white reflected target.
In the case of Biden, I would have someone hold a white card in front of his face and I would adjust the exposure until I see just a hint of Zebra2 on the card (not Zebra1). That will be the perfect exposure -- assuming the correct level for Zebra2 has been programmed into the camera's menus. Now, obviously, the correct menu setting for Zebra level depends on whether the camera is set to shoot RAW, LOG, S-Cinetone, or a REC709 scene file. They are all require different levels of exposure. The operator must also know whether they are monitoring with a LUT, and if so, how that LUT may affect the Zebras they see in the viewfinder or monitor.
So, when Biden gets up and leaves, and Obama takes his place, the white card would read exactly the same level. The card doesn't care who is sitting behind it. And neither should we.
We also don't have to agree on what the Zebra level target should be. There is plenty of room for creative differences. I might be shooting for broadcast TV where whites need to be higher than you might want for the feature film you are shooting. That is fine. But we can both use Zebra2 + White Card to land exactly at the level of exposure that we want -- with accuracy and speed. No basing the exposure on faces of unknown reflectance. And no guessing for non-whites. I'm like a pilot who who trusts his instruments rather than flying by gut feeling.
Also, if someone basis their whole exposure methodology on skin tone, and therefore has zebras set for 70%, how does that help with setting exposure for other shots where there are no people in the shot: b-roll, nature, wildlife, etc.? At 70%, Zebras are going to be cluttering up everything in the viewfinder. But with my method, I barely see more than a hint of Zebra in my viewfinder. It is like the red zone on a VU meter. I want to just barely tap cross that line.
If someone gets in the habit (and sets up their camera accordingly) for basing their exposure on bright reflected whites, then they are all set for all but the most unusual shooting situations. Sometimes a white card might have to be pulled out, but that is rare. Most of the time I can find something bright white in the frame to base my exposure on: shirt collar, hat, helmet, logo on shirt, bird feathers, clouds, automobile paint, text on a sign, paper on a desk, etc. White is all around us. And as long as I see just a hint of Zebra2 in the bright whites of the part of the scene that matters, I'm going to hit the correct exposure within a fraction of a f-stop almost everytime. And yes, I'll concede there are some variations in the brightness of different whites, but not as much as you think. And far less variation than we see in human faces.
In the case of Leibovitz's portrait of Justice Jackson, I agree 100% that it is underexposed. But it would still be underexposed if Justice Barrett (white) was standing in the same position. The proper exposure for the scene has nothing to do with who is in the frame. Leibovitz blew it. And it sounds like she has a nasty of habit of getting the exposure wrong for blacks. Maybe she doesn't understand how to use the incident mode of her light meter. Maybe I should teach her to expose for a white card instead so she doesn't even need a meter. Anyone have her number?
There are really two parts to the debate on this thread:
First, there's the social aspects of using the outdated and racist term "Caucasian" -- and also basing one's ideal exposure target level only for white folks (70%). For all the other people in the world that we shoot, who are not northern European whites, well, it seems making an educated guess is good enough for some people. I disagree with that approach and find it mildly racist, whether the people who subscribe to that method want to admit it or not. The world is full of people who don't think their actions or thoughts are racist, especially when they can say "that's how it's always been done". Bullshit. I believe that everyone deserves to be exposed accurately regardless of their skin color and that white skin should never be regarded as the standard from which everyone else in the world is just a deviation from.
However, if you don't mind, let's just agree to disagree on that point, and focus on the second part of my argument, which is my contention that whites and non-whites all deserve the exact same level of exposure regardless of skin color. In other words, if the exposure for person A is correct, then the same exposure is also correct for person B, regardless of their skin color, race, creed, religion, political party, IQ, or anything else some people think makes a difference to exposure levels.
Let's say that we setup a beautiful interview shot with Joe Biden. We both agree that it looks great and the exposure is spot on. Now Biden gets up and leaves the room, and Barack Obama sits down in the same chair. In the real world we'd probably want to make some adjustments to the shape of the lighting to account for differences in height, posture, etc. between the two men. But should we change the overall exposure? Absolutely not. If Biden was correctly exposed then Obama also has to be correctly exposed. Does Obama look darker on screen? Yes, because he is darker in real life. There is no reason to add exposure compensation to account for the difference in skin tone. Both men are different shades in real life and there is no need to make either one look a little darker or lighter just because we think it might look better.
Here's another example. Let's say with have a nice two-shot of Biden and Obama sitting shoulder to shoulder being lit with the same lights. We both agree that it looks great and the exposure is spot on. Now Biden gets up and leaves the room and we tighten up for a single on Obama. Do we change the exposure now because the white guy is gone? Absolutely not. If the two-shot was correctly exposed for both men then the single shot of Obama has to also be correctly exposed.
This isn't just theory. I have demonstrated this fact numerous times in workshops when I've had students of different races and skin tones to use as models. We setup and light one person; agree it looks great; swap out for another person of different color; and then judge the exposure. Like I said, some adjustments of the shape of the lighting or composition might need adjustment, but the exposure for one is always perfect for the other.
Here's another example. Let's say you have a shot of ten billiard balls on a pool table. We light it up all nice and pretty and we both agree the exposure is spot on. Now we take away all the balls except for the white cue ball. Should we change the exposure? Or what if we take away all the balls except for the black 8-ball, do we change the exposure? In both cases the answer is no. If the shot was correctly exposed for all the balls then it is correctly exposed for any single ball remaining on the table.
So, that brings up the question on HOW to judge the correct exposure if we aren't going to base it on Caucasian faces? The answer is a white card or some other acceptable bright white reflected target.
In the case of Biden, I would have someone hold a white card in front of his face and I would adjust the exposure until I see just a hint of Zebra2 on the card (not Zebra1). That will be the perfect exposure -- assuming the correct level for Zebra2 has been programmed into the camera's menus. Now, obviously, the correct menu setting for Zebra level depends on whether the camera is set to shoot RAW, LOG, S-Cinetone, or a REC709 scene file. They are all require different levels of exposure. The operator must also know whether they are monitoring with a LUT, and if so, how that LUT may affect the Zebras they see in the viewfinder or monitor.
So, when Biden gets up and leaves, and Obama takes his place, the white card would read exactly the same level. The card doesn't care who is sitting behind it. And neither should we.
We also don't have to agree on what the Zebra level target should be. There is plenty of room for creative differences. I might be shooting for broadcast TV where whites need to be higher than you might want for the feature film you are shooting. That is fine. But we can both use Zebra2 + White Card to land exactly at the level of exposure that we want -- with accuracy and speed. No basing the exposure on faces of unknown reflectance. And no guessing for non-whites. I'm like a pilot who who trusts his instruments rather than flying by gut feeling.
Also, if someone basis their whole exposure methodology on skin tone, and therefore has zebras set for 70%, how does that help with setting exposure for other shots where there are no people in the shot: b-roll, nature, wildlife, etc.? At 70%, Zebras are going to be cluttering up everything in the viewfinder. But with my method, I barely see more than a hint of Zebra in my viewfinder. It is like the red zone on a VU meter. I want to just barely tap cross that line.
If someone gets in the habit (and sets up their camera accordingly) for basing their exposure on bright reflected whites, then they are all set for all but the most unusual shooting situations. Sometimes a white card might have to be pulled out, but that is rare. Most of the time I can find something bright white in the frame to base my exposure on: shirt collar, hat, helmet, logo on shirt, bird feathers, clouds, automobile paint, text on a sign, paper on a desk, etc. White is all around us. And as long as I see just a hint of Zebra2 in the bright whites of the part of the scene that matters, I'm going to hit the correct exposure within a fraction of a f-stop almost everytime. And yes, I'll concede there are some variations in the brightness of different whites, but not as much as you think. And far less variation than we see in human faces.
In the case of Leibovitz's portrait of Justice Jackson, I agree 100% that it is underexposed. But it would still be underexposed if Justice Barrett (white) was standing in the same position. The proper exposure for the scene has nothing to do with who is in the frame. Leibovitz blew it. And it sounds like she has a nasty of habit of getting the exposure wrong for blacks. Maybe she doesn't understand how to use the incident mode of her light meter. Maybe I should teach her to expose for a white card instead so she doesn't even need a meter. Anyone have her number?
Last edited:
Alvise Tedesco
Well-known member
Super nice. I'll copy the idea! You were walking with a gimbal and took advantage of the great Sony AF, right?
I would expose them the same, but ask you to stop the racist-baiting. Deplatforming the usage of 'Caucasian'; is not the only irrelevant term, its meaning no less obsolete than the 7 races because biologically, there is only one, the human race.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Tom, I'd be happy never to mention that topic ever again, and I'm sorry I had to speak up at all. Frankly, I'm surprised that in 2024 people are still promoting such a outdated, sloppy, and offensive shooting technique. I'll never mention it again as long as nobody else does. But if they do, I'll be there to call it out for what it is. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you.
cyvideo
Veteran
It wasn't meant to, Doug. It was in reference to Abe's comments on the difference in reflectance on different white materials. And how that white point is different on different gamma curves.
Chris Young
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Here's the first shot I found from NYT of Biden and Obama standing in the same lighting. My feeling is that Obama looks good and Biden looks a little hot. Maybe that's just how Biden looks but I feel like most people don't necessarily want to look as white as a sheet
I personally don't use zebras. I use false color. And I have something like a muscle memory of how things will come out that occupy different colors on the spectrum. And from the experience of evaluating footage after a shoot to see how the exposures came out, I have a good idea of where I'd like to place people.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
yes, Sony AF
what I like about this color approach is that the hues and saturation are pretty much all set and all you have to do is adjust contrast. normally, a large contrast increase is required. but the profile is flat enough to handle some high dynamic-range scenes which won't need as much of a contrast boost, such as these ungraded shots from last weekend:
although I think her highlights are starting to flatten out in the 2nd shot. but maybe a little more so after I uploaded it than it looks in FCPX...
I'm considering switching to an HLG3-based profile so I can upgrade to the latest firmware. but I like the slog2 profile so much that maybe I'll wait until the next A7S is released to see if it gets slog2. if it doesn't have slog2, then I'll switch for sure. maybe I'll test some HLG3 on tomorrow's wedding.
cyvideo
Veteran
Looks good! Your highlights are full of detail, and they roll off nicely, holding nicely muted and controlled color all the way. What's not to like?
Chris Young
On my calibrated monitor, this looks like perfect exposure to me. Shadow detail, Biden does not look like a white sheet, or even a little bit hot, Obama too.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
It looks good enough, but I think it is a little overexposed. Almost no detail in their white shirts.
The wedding shots look very nice too, but I'd probably want to drop the blacks just a little bit to get more contrast, and also increase the saturation a bit. But that is a judgement call. Nothing wrong with the way they are.