Question about Contrast

[aravance]

Is it good to capture footage with a high contrast ratio as opposed to not having much in way of highlights?

I've been scared in the past to capture footage without any highlights, and I'm just wondering if that is a healthy fear or an irrational one.

For example, we were using the m2 for an interior scene and didnt have enough light. it appeared in the waveform monitor as mostly in the blacks and lower midtones. So I opted to not use the m2 for contrast sake.

But could I have still shot with the m2 and then improve the contrast in post? (bring up the highlights, crush the blacks, etc.)

Thoughts?

 

[walken0709]

I've always been taught (regardless of format) that it's better to shoot with a lower contrast ratio, and then push the highlights and crunch the blacks in post. Why?

When you shoot with a lower contrast ratio, you're preserving more detail that you wouldn't have had otherwise. It gives you a much cleaner original picture to work from. It's easy to add contrast, but you certainly can't get rid of it. If you try and flatten out a contrasty image, you'll find that there isn't any detail in the mids and it'll look like crap.

From what you outlined with your m2 scenario, I'd have just shot with the adapter and fixed it in post. I certainly understand the concern trying to preserve the contrasty look in-camera, but when compared to the difference in look / feel because you removed the m2 for that one shot... I dunno. The contrast you can add. The m2 DOF and moving grain cannot be added.

It's mostly just weighing your options, I suppose.