Filtration

[Mark Pedersen]

Great discussion. Seems the right answer comes down to the creative process, armed with the knowledge of the plus and minuses of each approach. Coming from film in the early 80's then into video, then digital, then RAW...we used filtration to take the "curse" off of video to make it mor e "film like"... But used diffusion on film as well. After all, that was " the look" back then, along with smoke

But I have to say shooting 5K with Ultra Primes and a straight grade in Resolve looks great, but a tad too realistic. Would love any before/after examples of both in-camera and post filtration.

M

 

[Michael Panfeld]

But I haven't worked in any D.I. suite where there was an instant "1/8 ProMist" button built into the system

Actually, the Tiffen software does just that - at least for the Tiffen brand filters - its not going to have a Schneider Classic Soft button. Not sure that the Tiffen software is up to snuff for grading a big budget feature, but it does give newbies a tool to use on low-end footage or it can be a teaching aid for newbs to become familiar with various diff and other filter effects.

I believe that one of the posters requested before and after shots to compare. Get a trial version of the software and demo it yourself.

Tiffen's software comes either stand-alone or as a Premiere Pro plug-in.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Ketch, my dear friend... I understand your viewpoint and your workflow. IF I always was involved all the way through post....AND had creative power in the grade then I agree with you. But so often the project (insert commercial, music video, TV show, feature) is taken away or we are not able to be involved. In the past, when we shot film, sometimes we would underexpose the film to such a degree that no one could ever brighten it for broadcast. Very extreme but you hopefully see my point.

Hope to see you soon,

Peter

Totally understand that too Peter,

for this I no longer participate in any projects were I don't have control till the end, I have waisted way too much of my talent and time,
and fortunately I can afford to really choose my work now, so for me, if my name is on it, its form Capture to Print or no go...

I got very upset when recently moved from Film to Digital, were I had not yet learned Photoshop and other Post Digital Raw workflows,
all of my pictures were no longer mine, and I wanted no name on the credits from that point on, juts the money, then I tired of it and stopped.

Now I hope to finally be in a good place...

Btw, I did mention that the only filter I would use would be a Polarizer, but I also meant to say ND's and Graduated ND's (my favorites), both vertical and Horizontals.



Hope to see you soon as well Peter, need to know your 2012 Schedule, possibly I'll get you and Brook to work on my next project together, email me...

 

[Shawn Nelson]

As someone young and still learning this stuff, I find more and more I gravitate towards the positions held by Peter in the OP and David's post. I'm acquiring second hand filters as fast as I can find good deals on them. So far I have the full set of Classic Soft, Regular Fog, Double Fog and almost a full set of Black Pro Mist, plus things like Coral 4 (which is awesome), Tobacco, etc. If I'm shooting stock footage, I'll get it clean (just ND or Pola) because I don't know the intended use. But if I'm shooting something for myself then I want to pick a look and go for it. I find that even with RAW, there is something you really gain with glass filtration. This is especially obvious in areas of diffusion, you simply can't fake Classic Soft of BPM in post because those filters fundamentally alter the flow of light hitting your lens. Originally I was against color filters, but recently have been enjoying Coral and Tobacco, and really want to experiment with Antique Suede, 80D DFN type stuff and more. Why? Because RAW is not infinite. I want the digital negative to be as strong and clean as it can be in the direction I want it to go before adjusting in post. I want to be an artist who makes decisions, instead of just kicking the can down the road in the name of options at every possible turn.

 

[sergio arguello]

Ketch, my dear friend... I understand your viewpoint and your workflow. IF I always was involved all the way through post....AND had creative power in the grade then I agree with you. But so often the project (insert commercial, music video, TV show, feature) is taken away or we are not able to be involved. In the past, when we shot film, sometimes we would underexpose the film to such a degree that no one could ever brighten it for broadcast. Very extreme but you hopefully see my point.

Hope to see you soon,

Peter

+! i beleive its a case by case basis...I just shot this for MAC cosmetics piece and the director was pretty specific in the look and wanted me to handcuff the client on the look so i brought out the ol white promists ...hes happy im happy not to mention we baked in the LUT so post had a direction he wanted it to go in...

 

[David Battistella]

Peter,

This is a great discussion.

It seems more to me like the prevailing mood right now seems to be "shoot it clean, fix it later". I think that's a tiny bit of a shame because it does move the DOP away from how you were wanting to capture that light on the day.

For me Filtration comes down to two things.
-manipulation of light and reflection (pola's, grads, ND's)
-manipulation of look and color (warming, diffusion, etc)

I probably use a ND grad/ND combo the most.
I'd tend to prefer High quality soft grads in a rotating stage over tools like HDrX.

I always use an 1/8 blue for tungsten to help eliminate blue channel noise which does not seem to have a pleasant quality about it.

Ive stayed away from warming filters because that tonal quality can be achieved with color balance. Digital is different because there is always an olpf between your glass and "the film". So it's been fun seeing how the sensor "reacts" to how we manipulate light.

I'm not a big believer in "I can't do it all in post" and I have a post background.

There is no substitute for lighting and creating looks with a combination of lights, knowledge of the film/digital sensor, and a filter combo that helps tell a story.

Dink around all you want in post, but i feel there is a magic to just shooting a good "negative" and the best images need little, subtle work.


Thanks for starting this thread.

David

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I agree with you David in not been a big fan of "I'll fix it in post attitude" however when it comes in baking in a certain look, I am absolutely against any kind of filters, PERIOD!!

I want to be able to change my mind later on on the coloring table, and it has been my experience that once you apply a certain look on your RAW files, it makes it worst later one.

Again, unless I'm 110% sure that what I'm adding is the final and permanent look, I'll skip using any kind of Color correcting filters, and or Softening filters in particular.


Then again, this comes form a guy that loves the sharpest and best glass available with a cool look, no warmth or softness fill as in the Cooke glass,
I like neutral, super sharp look, once I have that I can do what ever I want, no compromises to my style of work and personal taste.

The exceptions are always made of course...

 

[Marc Wielage]

I agree with you David in not been a big fan of "I'll fix it in post attitude" however when it comes in baking in a certain look, I am absolutely against any kind of filters, PERIOD!!

I've had this discussion many times with DPs, and there are those who say, "I want to be absolutely sure that my work will not get changed on down the line in post, especially if for some reason I'm not part of the color-correction process." So in some cases, the look is deliberately baked-in for a good reason.

But in general, I agree with you: it's much more flexible to do the filtration as an effect later on in color-correction. But there are certain kinds of looks (glimmer glass, etc.) that are pretty unique and are impossible to imitate digitally. Simple stuff like Tobacco filters we can match pretty well, but unique flares and diffusion are tough. I think grads are better in post as well, only because we can draw the shapes so precisely and then track them quickly and easily.

 

[David Battistella]

I think grads are better in post as well, only because we can draw the shapes so precisely and then track them quickly and easily.

Very true. But the information has to be there in the first place. I often use a grad to recapture what might otherwise be blown out.

Then if I want it blown out. No problem.

It all goes back to not clipping highlights (the ones youdon't want to clip) with digital sensors.

There has to be a balance and it also depends on the production and how much they value the craft as well. If they say, "shoot it flat because we don't know what we want" that is one thing. Hopefully they are hiring a DP for what they bring to the story and filtration, lighting and image control can be more "baked in". That is a different creative discussion though, where tests should be shot and everyone agrees.




David

 

[Ketch Rossi]

I've had this discussion many times with DPs, and there are those who say, "I want to be absolutely sure that my work will not get changed on down the line in post, especially if for some reason I'm not part of the color-correction process." So in some cases, the look is deliberately baked-in for a good reason.

But in general, I agree with you: it's much more flexible to do the filtration as an effect later on in color-correction. But there are certain kinds of looks (glimmer glass, etc.) that are pretty unique and are impossible to imitate digitally. Simple stuff like Tobacco filters we can match pretty well, but unique flares and diffusion are tough. I think grads are better in post as well, only because we can draw the shapes so precisely and then track them quickly and easily.

Yes, for the ND's and Graduated ND's, what you can do in post is great, but only if you do have the info to begin with,
I can make better adjustments and create stronger effects in post, and I do that all the time, but only after I have precisely done my filtering in capture,
so to insure that all information is preserved and nothing is burned out or too dark in areas were I was concern not to blown higlits and I clipped my blacks,
so ND's and especially so Graduated ND's are an absolute MUST HAVE for any serious DP!!

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I like the way actual glass filtration looks, so I filter in camera as much as practical.

That said, I work at a budget level where a decent filter kit is just a pipe dream. So I learned to work the all digital way.

I disagree with the notion that we need to capture as clean an image as possible... you don't. You do need to capture the image you intend as closely as possible.

The real danger with in camera effects is that you actually have to know what you want. You can roll back some effects in post if you choose, but not all of them ... and that is the point!

I find that if I can't figure out how I want it to look between pre and the shoot ... I'm certainly not going to have any better ideas in post.

Of course, I always have ideas.

Another thing I have to say is there exists a certain spontaneity with the work on the set that you can never really recapture in post. "Happy accidents" have already been mentioned, but this is just a part of what I am talking about. Sometimes I just pull out filters and look through them at my scene, and get inspired!

In the end its art, and technical perfection is not (usually!) the goal.

 

[David Battistella]

In the end its art, and technical perfection is not (usually!) the goal.

Thanks for taking it back to an art from. There is plently of technical skill behind the art. We al know that perfection does not actually exist, but beautiful images tend to linger.

Nice post Alexander.