He told me the best thing to do is too always overexpose when you shoot, and then bring it down in post. That way the picture looks more clear with the least amount of noise. But that would be a lot of post work, having to correct all that. Would it pay off?
cinematography Is this photographers opinion on shooting correct?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
I used to do a lot of photography.
It's usually better to overexpose (just a little) because it's easy to bring it back down, but looks horrible if you try to bring up an underexposed image.
It is only a lot of work if you are color correcting a ton of images. I rarely ever used more than 1 or 2 photos from each location / model outfit. Just pick the best one and edit that.
Also, if you can, shoot in RAW format That way you can expose in post with incredible dynamic range.
It's usually better to overexpose (just a little) because it's easy to bring it back down, but looks horrible if you try to bring up an underexposed image.
It is only a lot of work if you are color correcting a ton of images. I rarely ever used more than 1 or 2 photos from each location / model outfit. Just pick the best one and edit that.
Also, if you can, shoot in RAW format That way you can expose in post with incredible dynamic range.
Perfect is still best, but over is better than under (unless a highlight clips).
Harmonica, are you asking from a "Stills" perspective, or from a "Video" perspective. I only ask because I've seen a lot of your question on other "Video" subjects. I'm not a "Stills" guy (but learning that also). And from a stills stand point, I would assume your photographer friend knows what he's talking about. But if your asking from a "Video" standpoint, I've always heard to expose a tad under, and bring it back up in post. Please someone correct me if I'm incorrect. As was mentioned above, if you over expose, you lose information that can't be brought back. But if under exposed, that information can be retained.
Jeff
He could have meant for video. As for not being able to get it back, that's only if you overexpose more. I don't think he meant to do it that much.
If you're shooting video, I prefer to under-expose digital (opposite to how you often over-expose film neg).
For stills, especially shooting raw, over-exposing a little is fine and I've brought the exposure of a blown out jpg down and had great results, where in digital video, there's no way I could've recovered that information.
It also depends on what you're shooting on. Shooting on DSLR, H.264, or any compressed tape medium (eg HDV), get it as close to perfect as you can because there's very little wiggle room in post. If you're shooting on an F3 or Alexa in Log-C then you can afford to over or under-expose a little. Shooting in Raw, you can also afford to do that.
I'm not really sure why you would in the world of digital though, over exposing in film was generally done to get a finer grain detail - in the digital world of no grain, I don't see why you'd need/want to overexpose simply for the sake of overexposing.
For stills, especially shooting raw, over-exposing a little is fine and I've brought the exposure of a blown out jpg down and had great results, where in digital video, there's no way I could've recovered that information.
It also depends on what you're shooting on. Shooting on DSLR, H.264, or any compressed tape medium (eg HDV), get it as close to perfect as you can because there's very little wiggle room in post. If you're shooting on an F3 or Alexa in Log-C then you can afford to over or under-expose a little. Shooting in Raw, you can also afford to do that.
I'm not really sure why you would in the world of digital though, over exposing in film was generally done to get a finer grain detail - in the digital world of no grain, I don't see why you'd need/want to overexpose simply for the sake of overexposing.
The photographer is referring to 'expose to the right'.
This means you expose as bright as possible without overexposing / clipping highlights.
(Note: in some cases one can choose to overexpose certain things, like bright skies or reflections or even a white background that one wants to be pure white.)
This is called 'expose to the right', because this method puts as much as data as possible on the right half of the histogram. (On the left corner: black and on the right corner: white.)
I've been told it his has something to do with the logaritmic properties of storing light as data. (Techno-blabla-stuff
)
Anyway, this is done because brightening the image (or parts of it) introduces grain or noise to the image, while darkening does not.
I like to shoot pictures as bright as possible as well. Not just for technical reasons, I like the look as well
However: for a photographer it's much easier to 'expose to the right'. When shooting RAW-pictures some highlight overexposure can even be saved in the raw-editor. Video isn't as forgiving when you shoot a MPEG, MJPG or H.264 codec.
When shooting video I like to expose as bright as possible, but I also try to keep skintones around 70%. This is where zebras are a great tool (that many DSLRs seem to lack).
Under-exposing is something I like to avoid: it only introduce extra noise when correcting it in post.
However: when shooting video with a DSLR you can meter the light.
You know you shuttertime and ISO, so measuring properly will tell you what diafragma (stop) you need for correct exposure. (But is something not a lot of people do for video.)
This means you expose as bright as possible without overexposing / clipping highlights.
(Note: in some cases one can choose to overexpose certain things, like bright skies or reflections or even a white background that one wants to be pure white.)
This is called 'expose to the right', because this method puts as much as data as possible on the right half of the histogram. (On the left corner: black and on the right corner: white.)
I've been told it his has something to do with the logaritmic properties of storing light as data. (Techno-blabla-stuff
)Anyway, this is done because brightening the image (or parts of it) introduces grain or noise to the image, while darkening does not.
I like to shoot pictures as bright as possible as well. Not just for technical reasons, I like the look as well
However: for a photographer it's much easier to 'expose to the right'. When shooting RAW-pictures some highlight overexposure can even be saved in the raw-editor. Video isn't as forgiving when you shoot a MPEG, MJPG or H.264 codec.
When shooting video I like to expose as bright as possible, but I also try to keep skintones around 70%. This is where zebras are a great tool (that many DSLRs seem to lack).
Under-exposing is something I like to avoid: it only introduce extra noise when correcting it in post.
However: when shooting video with a DSLR you can meter the light.
You know you shuttertime and ISO, so measuring properly will tell you what diafragma (stop) you need for correct exposure. (But is something not a lot of people do for video.)
Last edited:
This (for photography). Even then, you should try and get the correct exposure to maximize the range of data/information stored but if you're going to lean to a side, lean to the right.
For DSLR's (which is what i think you are using, harmonica): Get your look in camera as much as you can. Correct exposure, the lighting look you want etc etc because DSLR video breaks down very fast in post. Get as close as possible in camera and then just tweak in post.
Are you adding light? If so, absolutely, expose for the highlights, then light the subject to match that exposure, then add light to the shadows to bring them into range... if not, you're going to want to expose for the subject correctly (where people will be looking; @ 65-80% of white depending on the color of the subject)... then adjust slightly up or down to make the rest of the image suck as little as possible. If either end clips, the information is gone. Yes, pulling the color information up will reveal the existing noise... but if it means the sky has some clouds in it rather than being a purely white blotch, then a tiny bit of noise is OK (and can be smoothed slightly with a luma matte and gaussian blur). If having to choose, I'd rather the blacks clip than the whites as the human eye is drawn to light first, then motion... the highlights will be more obviously wrong if clipped than the darks.
Okay thanks. I did some shots with lots of light, and it looks great, and crystal clear by comparison, to lower light. The only thing is, is that the actor's faces are white. Because of all the light, even if you bring it down in post, the faces still stay white color.
Last edited:
That means it's "over exposed" or "blown out".
You never do that. It's unrecoverable.
What you were talking about earlier about what your photo friend said in this post as "over expose" is a misnomer.
It's a good idea to expose the shot as bright as you can, it will eliminate help noise. You can't over expose though. Even if the scene is supposed to be a little dark, it's good to expose it bright, or expose it properly really, to help with the noise. If you shoot a dark scene dark in camera, there's a really good chance you'll have nothing but noise or lose all your detail because your set or in-camera monitor lied to you about how bright the image was. Especially with the cheaper DSLR's, like your T2i. I've only had a T2i on set once, and it's monitor was way more pink than the actual footage. On my 7D it's a lot more spot on, even then I don't trust it 100%.
Yes it's very hard to tell with the T2i. I did well on one shoot, cause I was the one behind the camera. But it was hard to tell when I'm acting and someone else shooting. I will light more carefully next time. The scenes where the actors faces are not overexposed though. I mean there is nothing in the shot that is not recoverable. It all looks crystal clear, but can I just recolor the faces, and get rid of the white skin?
You need to post some screen shots. If the levels don't come down by adjusting the brightness/contrast of the image then it's pretty unrecoverable. The only time it's remotely acceptable IMO (and others, because you see it everywhere) is when the sky is blown out but everything else in the shot is properly exposed. Even then, it's not ideal.
Example:
This shot is over exposed and un-fixable.
The levels come down no problem, it's just the whiteness stays, no matter how much you bring it down.
That means that it doesn't come down. That means it's over exposed. Sorry mate.
The levels come down no problem, it's just the whiteness stays, no matter how much you bring it down.
here's the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy3xgkEy3Eo&feature=youtu.be
It's the part where the woman is at the door, and she turns her head back. The white ness is on her face. You can see her face perfectly when you bring the brightness down, but it's just still colored white. If it won't come down, can I recolor her face? In i-photo you can move peaces of skin around to cover up parts of a face, like pimples, can the same thing be applied here?
here's the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy3xgkEy3Eo&feature=youtu.be
It's the part where the woman is at the door, and she turns her head back. The white ness is on her face. You can see her face perfectly when you bring the brightness down, but it's just still colored white. If it won't come down, can I recolor her face? In i-photo you can move peaces of skin around to cover up parts of a face, like pimples, can the same thing be applied here?
Last edited:
Okay wow, I didn't know it was overexposed. Apparently missing information looks better than I thought, even with some whiteness.
Well I am on the search for a colorist to make the exposure, lighting, and shadows match in all the shots. I am editing based on emotion, but I don't want him or her to say that some shots, cannot be fixed and I should have gave him/her other takes. So before you said that clipped whites, images that are too dark, and, sound clippings, and echo cannot be fixed for sure. I just found a feature in after effects that allows me to move shadow in places if I want to! Are there any circumstances where the shadow cannot be moved, unmoved?
Well I am on the search for a colorist to make the exposure, lighting, and shadows match in all the shots. I am editing based on emotion, but I don't want him or her to say that some shots, cannot be fixed and I should have gave him/her other takes. So before you said that clipped whites, images that are too dark, and, sound clippings, and echo cannot be fixed for sure. I just found a feature in after effects that allows me to move shadow in places if I want to! Are there any circumstances where the shadow cannot be moved, unmoved?
Last edited: