Doug Jensen
Veteran
Exactly. But I think the problem is most prevalent in episodic dramas on Netflix, HBO, Apple, and other streaming services rather than feature films.
Other: XAVC-I vs. ProResHQ
- Thread starter Doug Jensen
- Start date
Exactly. But I think the problem is most prevalent in episodic dramas on Netflix, HBO, Apple, and other streaming services rather than feature films.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
I couldn't quite follow this theory, but for me, I don't take a different approach to shooting theatrically vs for television, I generally expose my darker scenes with 1/2 to a full stop of headroom so that details can be dug out if needed, then we just push it down in the grade. There's nothing to be achieved by underexposing other than forcing the hand so others can't decide to make it brighter, which is by the way their prerogative as the people paying the bills. I
Doug Jensen
Veteran
Brace yourself, I'm about to say something very controversial. The Godfather is NOT underexposed. Even if you find a quote from Gordon Wills himself that says he under-exposed it, I'm telling you it is not under-exposed. Look at the faces -- they are absolutely perfect in nearly every scene. Are the blacks crushed? Yes. Are the backgrounds and other unimportant set pieces dark and shadowy? Yes. Would the exposure work for a sitcom or a talk show? No. Is top-lighting used to create shadowy eyes? Yes. But look at the faces of the actors -- the exposure is are spot on -- and that is all that matters.
So, yes, the Godfather has a very contrasty, almost sepia look with deep blacks and dark shadows, but it is NOT under-exposed.
If you want to see what underexposed looks like, watch a few episodes of Ozark or Game of Thrones where the actors faces are just lost in the murk.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
I would agree with all of that from your perspective, but I think it's open to debate.
Because, as you pointed out, if Gordon said he underexposed it a bit and you don't think he did, well, that's the debate.
To me, it's underexposure. If I personally really loved the film(s), my brain would likely not accept that notion and the bias would strongly lean towards me saying it's very contrasty [exactly how it should be] and not underexposed - but I think it's all too dark, in general.
Doug Jensen
Veteran
Just make sure you are judging from a pristine and restored print. It looks fantastic.
Speaking of nice prints, take a look at a Bu-ray of JAWS. Wow, the images are incredible.
Speaking of nice prints, take a look at a Bu-ray of JAWS. Wow, the images are incredible.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Not really accurate to use the term "print" any more in terms of modern restored films, is it? I'd say scan. If it was a theatrical screening projected on film, then of course it would be a print struck off the restored scan.
Doug Jensen
Veteran
Th Godfather I and II are the best film of all time (I lump them together as one movie) but I am always impressed by the cinematography in Jaws, which is nearly a perfect movie. And I'm not just taliking about out on the water where filming conditions must have been very difficult, there are some really great shots on the island. It was a travestly that Bill Butler wasn't even nominated for an Oscar, let alone win. What did win that year? Towering Inferno. How pathetic is that? Even Chinatown didn't win against that turd.
Doug Jensen
Veteran
You got me on that one! But if you want to talk about outdated terms in this business, that's just the tip of the iceberg. How many people still say "filming"?
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
It seems like we are conflating "underexposed" with "dark". Underexposure is a literal term, dark is a subjective one. Underexposure is often used to imply that something isn't properly exposed. Willis was meticulous with his exposures and contrast values, so everything was a choice. He did have a methodology for under-rating the filmstock that he used on the Godfather, setting his meter 1 1/3 stops above the box then pushing a stop, which gave him very rich blacks. This was possible with a Technicolor process that was later retired, so in the decades that followed he reversed course and over-rated his stocks so he could print them down.
I had a brief and hilarious encounter with Willis in the early 90's when the film "Malice" shot in the small city I was living in at the time. He was standing in an intersection by himself, checking his meter. I approached him, introduced myself and tried to make small talk. He was pretty curt in his responses. (not known for being the warmest fella in general). I finally asked him how the film was going. He squinted up at the sky and growled "I'm just a ****ing meter monkey on this one". I took that as my cue to slink away. In retrospect, most of the work they did on the location shoots was day exterior, so he was probably coming off multiple days of having comparatively little control over the look and was bored.
The sequence I watched being filmed: https://youtu.be/AWS8oEsMkAM
NorBro
Major Contributor
I don't think we're conflating...I think underexposure and darkness can both be subjective.
There are many matters in medicine, technology, etc. in which set standards, measurements, evaluations, are disagreed upon amongst experts.
In this case, sure, if there was a small window that could be hit for this film/picture to not be considered technically underexposed by these experts (although close to it) then so be it...but the brain doesn't really care about that.
All that matters is the final result and it was dark and darkness is a characteristic of underexposure for the brain, so one could argue it's visually underexposed.
[Even from a quite literal layman's sense you can say detail in certain areas has no exposure, it's not there.]
cyvideo
Veteran
Another take on it. "Dark" in not being bright images in movies are all the rage for some weird reason. Many places around the web have covered this trend, including Variety:
Ce la vie... I think sadly.
Chris Young
https://variety.com/2022/film/news/why-movies-so-dark-hard-to-see-batman-1235195535/
Ce la vie... I think sadly.
Chris Young
https://variety.com/2022/film/news/why-movies-so-dark-hard-to-see-batman-1235195535/
Doug Jensen
Veteran
To paraphrase one of the slides in my interview lighting workshop . . . "What is the correct exposure? Whatever the DP says it is."
In other words, we don't have to agree on what is the right exposure, but with that said, I think it is absolutely critical for a DP to know what target he/she is aiming for and to have a method that helps them hit that target consistently and with precision.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Iv not followed the whole thread.
Correct Exposure.
Well image making should have a start point of trying to make images with fidelity. Or its not really image making.
To gather the maximum data from a scene.
So the correct exposure is one with (amongst other things) little clipping, little image in dark areas of poor s/n ratio, accurate colour rendition.. (or in the case of log a known route to accurate colour rendition)
So there is a 'correct exposure'. The exposure that gathers most appropriate data ready for application to a known post pipeline.
A dp skill will be dancing as what the most appropriate data is. For example allowance of the clipping of some halogen spots may pay dividends in s/n ratio in dark areas.
Of course in the pesuance of 'art' one may choose to deviate from 'correct' as much as one desires.
Doug Jensen
Veteran
Uh, that was the point of my slide.
As someone who primarily works in the world of broadcast TV I typically want my whites to hit around 90%. That is what I and my clients would say is the "correct" level, and I must be able to hit it quickly and with consistency. But very few people in Hollywood would say that is their "correct" exposure. Neither of us is right or wrong. That is the point of the slide.
If my target is 90% and I only hit 80%, then my exposure is incorrect for me. But 80% might be the intended target for someone shooting a drama, so 80% for them would be correct and 90% would be incorrect.
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Indeed but..
if they 'think it is good like that'.. then they are often an idiot
if 'I under expose a little because it makes for a mild dirty file that I enjoy and fits the mood of the project' then they know the score
Many DPs do not have a good concept of 'shooting for post' and what options post can offer them.
Often those that learned on film are overreliant on looking at the monitor un lutted (or a lack of understanding of this lut) to pass direction to a/c and lighting departments.
S
if they 'think it is good like that'.. then they are often an idiot
if 'I under expose a little because it makes for a mild dirty file that I enjoy and fits the mood of the project' then they know the score
Many DPs do not have a good concept of 'shooting for post' and what options post can offer them.
Often those that learned on film are overreliant on looking at the monitor un lutted (or a lack of understanding of this lut) to pass direction to a/c and lighting departments.
S
NorBro
Major Contributor
No one would work like that anymore, and any hypothetical crews that do are antiquated and/or inexperienced.
You could get a very good idea of what a final product could look like with proper monitoring. And even if you're off a tad, you have so much room with today's flexible formats.
You could get a very good idea of what a final product could look like with proper monitoring. And even if you're off a tad, you have so much room with today's flexible formats.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
When I'm shooting in variable lighting conditions, and especially outside, the apparent exposure on my monitor can change radically from moment to moment with changes in sun/clouds or if I adjust the brightness of my monitor. Having objective, quantitative exposure tools is the only thing that keeps me on track. One of my clients has doggedly tried to figure out what picture profiles I use so they can share them with their other shooters. But I think that in reality, part of the reason they don't have to work as much on color correcting my footage is because I use false color and the other guys don't.
Doug Jensen
Veteran
Yes. Having an exposure method that provides precision, accuracy, and consistency from shot to shot is so critical to one's success. It doesn't matter if someone prefers using false color, waveform, zebra, a light meter, etc. Choose one of those methods and run with it. As long as YOU know how to use it to get the results you want quickly and without any second-guessing that is what matters. Only a fool shoots run & gun while judging exposure just by how the picture looks in the viewfinder or flip-out monitor. That is the difference between you and the other guys.
Using some feature films as examples, I like Roger Deakins' Sky Fall, 1917, and Blade Runner 2049, and also film-based Shawshank Redemption, and A Beautiful Mind. I think Roger Deakins uses lighting as his major modulator. Seems to me that he typically does not use heavy post grading. Blade Runner 2049 may be the heaviest grading feature he made. All of his features look natural to my eyes, although, the lighting and the colors are very interesting, do not suffer the desaturation and underexpose problems.
There was a scene in the Sky Fall, Bond was fighting a sniper on the top floor of a skyscraper. The whole scene was dark, but I don't feel the darkness, because the artificial lighting pattern movements are so interesting, that I don't pay much attention to the deep black areas. I think Roger Deakins nailed his viewers' eyes sweet spot.
On the other hand, John Wick 4, although I like the stylish grading very much, and Keanu Reeves acted well, I feel many scenes are too dark to my eyes, and the grading although is stylish, feels unnatural to my eyes.
All of these (except Roger Deakins' film-based ones) were shot on Alexa cameras, DPs' shooting styles make a huge difference.
There was a scene in the Sky Fall, Bond was fighting a sniper on the top floor of a skyscraper. The whole scene was dark, but I don't feel the darkness, because the artificial lighting pattern movements are so interesting, that I don't pay much attention to the deep black areas. I think Roger Deakins nailed his viewers' eyes sweet spot.
On the other hand, John Wick 4, although I like the stylish grading very much, and Keanu Reeves acted well, I feel many scenes are too dark to my eyes, and the grading although is stylish, feels unnatural to my eyes.
All of these (except Roger Deakins' film-based ones) were shot on Alexa cameras, DPs' shooting styles make a huge difference.
Last edited: