FS7: How should you expose this?

[Erik Stenbakken]

Getting exposure where I like it on the FS7 is one of my ongoing learning curves. You'd think it's easy since it's "simple" exposure. But then you add in Slog (2 or 3) and option for HG settings in Custom mode, and EACH of them both handles exposure differently AND grades differently. With all that, it went from "that's THE exposure" to myriad ways to slice it. With tools such as curves and a great 10 bit image you CAN pull a lot out of the shadows and midtones that on an 8bit image… well, you can't. Now with Lumetri controls, you can get a ton of detail back in from the highlights (as long as they're not blown).

You CAN go out of bounds: blowing out highlights until there is no data, or crushing the blacks so much there is no detail. If you do that, yeah, your files are compromised. There is a line you can cross where it's beyond "fix it in post." But with 14 stops of range… it's fair to assume that your workflow in post (not "repairing" in post!) is a legitimate part of the process, and one that has to be figured in. Personally, I like to expose a bit brighter than factory recommended settings. But that's because of how I like to work the image in post. For you? You call it. Make sure you're not just exposing for the math. Expose so you LIKE it when done in post. Don't settle for just dropping on someone else's LUT. Play with it a bit.

As to recommendations for ND filters and polarizers… get them. They're not that expensive. A properly exposed image with the help of an inexpensive (cheap) Cokin P filter set is better than a blown-out "pristine" image with no filters. They're cheap. REALLY cheap. But if you do a lot of this, buy a set and consider it simply test material. Then once you see what they can do… move on to the real stuff if you like it.

Like your cheese, the more you handle the camera and files, the more familiar you'll get and the better your results.

 

[Ben Scott]

Yup this type of scenario is pretty much the absolute basics of what we do. And it's become so much easier with the advent of digital.

Expose until it is clipping. Pull it back a bit until it is not clipping. If you have foreground subjects that stop you using a grad then get the exposure on the sky using the iris and regular ND and use bounce or fill lights to expose the foreground subjects properly.

I'd just add you're better off buying a single 3-stop or 5-stop (depending on where in the world you are and how bright it is) screw in Firecrest ND to test the waters than a soft cheapo Cokin set that give you a colour cast and don't match from strength to strength.

 

[morgan_moore]

Some thoughts..

-You cannot beat learning your own camera.. go out and do bracket tests.. shoot a scene different exposures and then play with them all in post.

-Clipping is the 'science bit' if it is clipped it is clipped. Learn to see it on your exposure tools, with a decent WFM like my smallHD it is easy, with the onboard you can still see it if you know what you are looking for.

clipping.. https://twitter.com/sammorganmoore/status/705772450949242880

-ND grads.. I think of them as a bit 1985.. with a deep DR like SLog you can usually get a better result by 'burning' the sky in post.

Again test this yourself.. some scenes would need ND grad, esp if you are using a baked codec.

 

[Ben Scott]

Sorry Sam but completely disagree.

ND Grads are as indispensable today as they were 30 years ago.

Using this quick test clip of mine of the FS7 as an example, there's no way I would have been able to expose this properly using post techniques only.

password: lambo

 

[morgan_moore]

Nah. That is a low DR scene.. you could have got that look with a secondary in post no problems.

Also I did say "some scenes would need ND grad, esp if you are using a baked codec."

Which should have possibly said..

"some scenes would need ND grad, esp if you are using a baked codec, an exceptionally high DR scene, or handing off to a completely useless post team"

S

 

[Ben Scott]

It was absolutely not a low DR scene to capture. Just graded that way. Although I was the post team as well, so you might have a point

Ditto this one was ridiculous. Shot on a Dogshidt Optics Flare Factory which is super low con... Without a grad it would have been impossible.

XCAR BMW 507 Solo GVs by Ben Scott, on Flickr

I never ever leave the house to shoot outside without having some grads with me.

 

[Geebri]

For whatever it's worth, I've been taught that green grass is very similar to a grey card (in terms of establishing exposure).

For years as a stills tog shooting for weekly and monthly fishing publications this is exactly what I and a couple of the other regular guys did, shot on manual but metered off the grass then reframed and shot. With a Nikon F5 stills body it worked well for stills and was a great way to grab a reading in fast moving situations, so don't see why it won't do for motion capture.

 

[morgan_moore]

It was absolutely not a low DR scene to capture.

I think your results are pretty.

Clearly I was not there and have not seen with without examples.. I said some scenes are enhanced by ND grad maybe this was one of them.

(although the sign poking into the dark shows why a post effect can work better as you can draw your digital ND with great precision)

My point about handing off is rather different as on occasion I will shoot a shot that I know needs specific approach in post.

OK. My point to the OP . experiment with sky burns and draw your own conclusion as to the need for grad ND. Personally Ive not used once since about 1998 - but then I am a sloppy shooter and post fixer!

You can clearly see a sky burn in the two up interview wide in this video at 59s

S

 

[Geebri]

The comments from Erik and sam pertaining to knowing your camera are so important I feel. I've never been totally comfortable with the notion of frequently switching between cameras the phrase jack of all trades master of none springs to mind certainly as far as I am concerned. I think especially for the one man band / single shooter it is better to learn a camera inside out strive to become the master of it and know what it can and can't do for you and how it will behave in any given situation. Personally this approach makes me more efficient and effective than if I was hiring the latest camera and winging it. There's a certain comfort that comes from familiarity but of course don't let familiarity breed contempt!

 

[Ben Scott]

I just think they are a lifesaver in so many environments. Great to turn upside down on snow as well

 

[Ben Scott]

The comments from Erik and sam pertaining to knowing your camera are so important I feel. I've never been totally comfortable with the notion of frequently switching between cameras the phrase jack of all trades master of none springs to mind certainly as far as I am concerned. I think especially for the one man band / single shooter it is better to learn a camera inside out strive to become the master of it and know what it can and can't do for you and how it will behave in any given situation. Personally this approach makes me more efficient and effective than if I was hiring the latest camera and winging it. There's a certain comfort that comes from familiarity but of course don't let familiarity breed contempt!

This is absolutely true. But if you learn how to control exposure agnostic of any particular camera, it is a hell of a lot quicker to switch between systems.

And learning the 'how' of correct exposure is a pretty universal concept. Now if with experience you can learn to protect the final 2 stops on a 5D, or final stop on an FS7 compared to what you might do on an Alexa then that's a lot easier to get to grips with once you have the basics down.

 

[morgan_moore]

I just think they are a lifesaver in so many environments. Great to turn upside down on snow as well

You know your kit and your shoot style. Im not going to argue with your choice which clearly has merit. Personally I tend to minimise my kit where possible. Shooting a feature? Id have a full set. Maybe Ill pick a cheap one up.

 

[morgan_moore]

This is absolutely true. But if you learn how to control exposure agnostic of any particular camera, it is a hell of a lot quicker to switch between systems.

And learning the 'how' of correct exposure is a pretty universal concept. Now if with experience you can learn to protect the final 2 stops on a 5D, or final stop on an FS7 compared to what you might do on an Alexa then that's a lot easier to get to grips with once you have the basics down.

To me there are two exposure methodologies to learn.. cameras/setups that have 'knee' and compress the highlights, and for example skin in the knee is truely horrid. With cameras that dont have 'knee' one can really IMO just choose your clip point.

S

 

[Ben Scott]

You know your kit and your shoot style. Im not going to argue with your choice which clearly has merit. Personally I tend to minimise my kit where possible. Shooting a feature? Id have a full set. Maybe Ill pick a cheap one up.

Definitely worth having a play.

I have 3 main setups depending on how light I need to go.

1) Main setup - Mattebox and 4x4" filters - 1x2-stop Hard edge, 1x3-stop hard edge, 1x3-stop soft edge.
2) Light setup - Lee 100mm stills filter holder with spacers for 4mm filters - 1x3-stop hard edge,
2) Superlight setup - Regular Lee 100mm filter holder - Lee stills grads. 0.6HE, 0.9HE, 0.9SE

 

[Tass]

Actually I had to shoot pretty much under the same scenario as the one explained in this thread. I simply used the built in WFM while monitoring the Slog3 image without a LUT. I placed the majority of the image in the middle of the WFM. The sky shows then up as a line at the top, and from there I could decide if I wanted to preserve detail in the landscape or stop down to preserve the sky and bring back the landscape in post by a spot exposure in magic bullet. I decided to lower the exposure just a bit in order to get more of the sky in the middle of the WFM (as much as possible, you can't have it all).

 

[Donny 123]

Surely the big difference is whether your shooting Slog or Custom/burning in a LUT over Slog.. one you have to save the highlights at all costs like it used to be.. grads pretty much the easiest way to do it.. .. the other you dont.. 6 stops over.. thats going to handle most skies.. its not "saving it" in post if your shooting log in the first place.. its part of the process.. not a dirty word ..

 

[Ben Scott]

Not really. I shoot exclusively in Cine-EI/SLog3/SGamut3.cine.

You still to know how to expose properly. You can only play with in post with information you captured on-shoot.

Log isn't just a safety net to allow you to be sloppy about how you do your job.

 

[Donny 123]

Not really. I shoot exclusively in Cine-EI/SLog3/SGamut3.cine.

You still to know how to expose properly. You can only play with in post with information you captured on-shoot.

Log isn't just a safety net to allow you to be sloppy about how you do your job.

Thanks for the career guidance.. will bare it in mind but there is a some difference in exposing for log and say HG4.. or standard rec 709..with those examples fro the OP..

 

[Doug Jensen]

The only variable is the target level of the zebra setting. Everything else about setting exposure applies equally to S-LOG, RAW, HG, STD, REC709, with a LUT or without a LUT, etc. In other words, it doesn't matter what mode you are shooting in, what matters is if you have hit the proper exposure for that mode. So 61% might be right for one mode, and 90% for another, but that's the only variable that changes if you want to keep things consistent, very easy, fast, and reliable. This is not rocket science.

 

[Ben Scott]

Thanks for the career guidance.. will bare it in mind but there is a some difference in exposing for log and say HG4.. or standard rec 709..with those examples fro the OP..

Not in terms of knowing how to control the light hitting the sensor. Doug nailed it above to be honest so I won't repeat what he said. Know how to expose properly and you'll know how to expose everything in any mode/situation. The rest is just numbers.