• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

To overexpose, or to not overexpose?

H

harmonica44

I notice a lot of movies, when shot outside, are either overexposed or not. It depends on the style of the director and/or DP, as to whether or not they want to do that. But what is the reason for the choice of exposure? Here is a scene from Skyfall for example. A lot of the shots are overexposed as evidenced by the sky being blown out white:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRLX8jRjq8

Compared to this shot, also from a Bond movie, where the sky is pure blue the whole time, and not everexposed at all during the shots it seems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUcpcxZURA0

Here's also an overexposed shot from Gran Torino. Notice how the light hitting the side of Eastwood's face is overexposed, when he gets out of the car, and from the kid's point of view, when he is on the ground:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9Tpw1ICJEc

Compared to this scene, from The Good, the bad, and the Ugly, where and no overexposed sun is hitting the actors faces from any side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJCSNIl2Pls

So is there a reason why some use it and some not, or is it just personal preference really, and there is no rule?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Well.. the examples you specifically reference, the first "overexposed" example was shot digitally so it can pretty much be chalked up to that since digital only has a fraction of the latitude you get with film. Gran Torino was shot on Kodak 500T, and it's entirely possible those shots weren't properly exposed to begin with and had to be pushed in post to get acceptable exposure on Eastwood's face. The "not overexposed" examples were both shot on film, significantly slower film...

50 ASA in the case of the Good, the Bad, & The Ugly. In the case of 'For your eyes only' 100 ASA.

Film has SIGNIFICANTLY more latitude than digital, and with such low speed film, so generally you'd have to throw a LOT of light at it before it would lose detail in highlights.

But, you're really comparing apples and oranges here..

IMHO, Neither of your 'overexposed' examples are really over exposed, per se.. In Gran Torino, they are pushed really far, allowing some highlights to clip, but the majority of the image is properly exposed. Given the huge difference between highlight and shadow in that shot, perhaps they simply didn't have the option to not let it blow like that to still be able to expose his face -- without adding a massive amount of light for fill. But it's a gritty scene, and it works well for the story, so it could have been a creative choice.

At any rate, there's a huge difference between digital and film.. and a huge difference between 500 and 50 or 100 ASA film stock in terms of latitude. ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's true, they are not really overexposed, just pushed far in lights coming in from the sides and back. Since they are all major productions that could afford fill lights if they wanted, it is as you say a stylistic choice. But what is the reason for that choice exactly? Just to make it look more gritty?

Also if the DP screwed up and it had to be taken down in post, that seems odd, since big budget movies, especially James Bond, want to hire the best of the best, who do not make mistakes like that, if it was a mistake that was made, just because digital is more forgiving.

I did some tests trying to emulate the Gran Torino shot though, and you can shoot it with the same style as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and make it work. The darker part of the face is just darker, and hidden in shadow. For example in The Good, the bad, and The Ugly, in the shot where Eastwood looks down at Eli Wallach on the ground, the sun is not pushed near as far, and his face is hidden in shade. I did some tests and the Gran Torino shot works both ways. You can expose the front of the face, so it's not dark, and the side and back will be very exposed to the point of very white. Or you can expose the side and back normally, and the front will be hidden in darker shade, but it still looks natural. So I wonder how the style is more gritty, when you get more shade and shadow with the older film style.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I looked at two of your examples and found no overexposure and no underexposure.

I'm also going to suggest that you stop asking cinematography based questions regarding exposure based on youtube material. Most particularly to do with exposure and colors. Due to how Youtube compresses their content for streaming some funny things happens. This is sometimes doubly so when you don't know what the uploader did to the clip before sending to youtube.

there is no rule?
Click to expand...

If you want a rule, go look up Ansel Adams. It's more to do with B&W picutres, but it'll give you a solid foundation to work from.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
H44 - I didn't watch the other clips, and this will sound so obvoius, but it's important look at the suns shadows. The is reverse-engineering lesson one , surely? In the case of the Bond examples, FYEO was shot well after/before midday with the sun behind the cam for the most part, with only the very occasional shot towards the sun for compositional/artistic reasons. Blue sky, no clipping - classic oldskool simple solution.

The outdoor scene in skyfall was shot in near-midday sun (look at Bond's short shadows) and presumably somewhere with a much brighter sky than the FYEO set. As well as having a higher EV to deal with, blues are not as saturated at that time of day either. Consider air quality of the location too and its haze effect in that sort of light. An additional benefit to this sort of action scene, is that we also see no flare as the sun is well above the horizon and out of frame.

I suspect they will also have chosen that time of day to suit both the context (busy streets full of civvies swerve to avoid crazy chase, boxes get knocked over, and a moto x bike inevitably ends up in someones kitchen etc), as well as to ensure consistent light for as many cam angles as possible in narrow streets.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
Also if the DP screwed up and it had to be taken down in post, that seems odd, since big budget movies, especially James Bond, want to hire the best of the best, who do not make mistakes like that, if it was a mistake that was made, just because digital is more forgiving.
Click to expand...

Other way around.. if anything, the Gran Torino footage looks like it was brought up in post, not down. Very little contrast on Eastwood's face, as if that area were initially underexposed a bit.

Also, digital is decidedly LESS forgiving than film.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Also TGTBATU footage looks like it was shot with plenty of fill. H44 - just look at the shadows. You can clearly see the fill lifting the shadows, and also secondary shadows from additional light sources. Theres only so much DR in any system, and like Will said already, the digital footage from GT will suffer more from DR limitations.

On a personal note, I really don't like the look of early digital. It made everything kinda look like low budget US tv. I don't really have any experience beyond the odd bit off handycam use back then, so would be interested to hear from anyone that can give me a quick 101 on the mushiness and strange smoothness of that look. Just how different technically were pro digital movie cams from thier modern counterparts? Is some of that just because I would've only really seen PAL conversions, or was there something inherent with the technology?

Sorry to digress, I usually enjoy a good read of H44's threads so thought I get that in there before it becomes entertaining. :P
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. I wanted to attach photographs I took to compare, but the site will not let me attach my own personal photos it seems. I will keep working on it.

So the reason why Gran Torino didn't use fill is because digital has less DR, and fill will not have served the purpose compared to film then?

There are some locations I want to use in shoots, where if I want actors to walk down the street, and then into an area with shade, I am not sure what to do. I can start out with it exposed like TGTBATU, but then when I get into the shade areas and reflectors are not doing as much as good, then I can expose it like GT. However, when you go from a no shade area, to a shade area, and have to change exposure, how do you make it not look so obvious? You got a bright white near blown out sun on an actor's face in shot, then when it cuts to the next as they walk out of the shade, all of a sudden then sun not near as exposed and white. How do you hide the difference in shots more seamlessly?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
harmonica44 said:
So the reason why Gran Torino didn't use fill is because digital has less DR, and fill will not have served the purpose compared to film then?
Click to expand...

Umm, no. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I realise that you may have misread my post and mixed two points together.

Fill is fill regardless of format. GT being digital just means it stands a greater chance of having clipped highs and and lows if not careful, regardless of fill or any other lighting considerations.

GT was just badly shot. Better fill would've been absolutely even more useful in that scene.

harmonica44 said:
How do you hide the difference in shots more seamlessly?
Click to expand...

Don't make them differences in the first place?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. Can you tell me how it looks on your TVs to compare? Here are two comparisons I took with my camera.

http://youtu.be/qbktMHgUB84
http://youtu.be/TCngXo-Acyc
Which pic looks more professional do you think so I have an idea of how to shoot? The first two pics are more TGTBATU style, but with no fill light. However, what if I want harsh shadows to get a grittier look and am okay with on fill light? Or is fill essential and must be applied for any style to look good? Is the first pic okay for that style?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
So here's the thing. None of the clips you posted are incorrectly exposed. Every single clip was exposed the way the DP wanted it to be exposed. Sometimes, you want to over or under-expose something. In the case of Gran Torino, it's entirely likely that they did all sorts of things with the stock and then the grade to get that to clip, as it was unlikely to be that clipped initially.

In the case of Skyfall, you can actually see that there is detail in the sky. There's a lot of cloud cover, however there are also portions of blue where there is detail. It's obvious the sky was left (or even pushed there) as a creative decision. It's also difficult to compare a shot where the sky is mostly cloud to a shot where the sky has no cloud and attempt to make a comparison between the skies and assert that one is over-exposed because the sky isn't blue...

If you look at the Good Bad and Ugly, it's relatively obvious that they've thrown a bunch of light in there to combat the sun and get the exposure sitting where they want it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gran Torino was NOT digital. It was shot with Panaflex cameras on Kodak 500T stock. They used a digital intermediate, and digitally color corrected, but the film itself was actually shot on film. The only one from the list of four that was digital was Skyfall, using Alexa's and RED.

Good, bad, ugly was shot on 50ASA film stock, and for your eyes only on 100ASA film stock. Pretty sure I said all of that in my first comment. ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
jax_rox said:
In the case of Skyfall, you can actually see that there is detail in the sky. There's a lot of cloud cover, however there are also portions of blue where there is detail. It's obvious the sky was left (or even pushed there) as a creative decision.
Click to expand...

My guess is that several of the shots for that sequence had a gray sky, so the choice was made to push those with nice blue skies in that direction so they played together better.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay thanks. I watched Dances with Wolves (1990), and noticed how it is shot similar to TGTBATU, but with less fill, and they embrace the shade more. I also watched Set it Off (1996), and that movie seems to have in an in between exposure between TGTBATU and GT. I think that might be a happy medium is shoot Set it Off style. I am happy with that or TGTBATU as long as I can get someone to hold a reflector and give some fill.

One thing I have noticed is that a lot more movies nowadays are shooting like GT and really brightening the sun compared to older movies. I saw the Korean movie A Company Man (2012), and that movie has the sun and sky so bright and white, that it looked unusual, but it's newer trend for sure, compared to older movies.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top