In Post, is it BETTER to raise ISO or Increase EXPOSURE ??

[jake blackstone]

In many cases you cannot expose properly in wildlife settings (and much so underwater) and especially so in 3d underwater where we want much DOF....so there are in fact times when one makes a decision or is forced to make a choice....but c'mon your mincing words here...thanks for the technical evaluation of my wording, but i think it's understood what i'm suggesting.

The original question posted was Is THAT a good idea, and would it cause problems with the curves, etc, etc? to adjust metadata vs, exposing it correctly. And your answer is plain wrong. It is always better to expose correctly, unless you have no other choice and you are "forced" to underexpose. In that case your answer applies...

 

[Johnny Friday]

Not if you need (forced, choose or stumble upon) more DOF and you need to shoot at lower exposure.....which is what George is doing....Then the question is "read post #1"

 

[George D.]

If you're happy with the increased noise as a result, then go ahead and do it...

I realize that is a risk, but is a one-stop increase really going to bring the noise up THAT much? Actually, if the original ISO was on 1600 and I underexposed by one stop, then I suppose it would if I had to increase it to 3200 in post.

.

 

[jake blackstone]

Not if you need (forced, choose or stumble upon) more DOF and you need to shoot at lower exposure.....which is what George is doing....Then the question is "read post #1"

You need to read post #6, that I just quoted. And the answer to that question is still, no, it's not a good idea, if you can avoid it. But hey, you can shoot anyway you want. You're the DP, but I would hope, that you'd stop giving out wrong information to others.

 

[jake blackstone]

I realize that is a risk, but is a one-stop increase really going to bring the noise up THAT much? Actually, if the original ISO was on 1600 and I underexposed by one stop, then I suppose it would if I had to increase it to 3200 in post.

.

As I said, there is no free lunch. Yes, you can increase exposure in post, but there usually a price to pay. There will be noticeable increase in noise level going from 1600 to 3200, that probably will require post noise reduction, that takes considerable amount of time and skill to do it correctly. Going from 400 to 800 probably will not affect image much. Sometimes you need to underexpose in order to protect your highlights. It's your vision and you need to decide what is proper exposure.
So, if you can avoid underexposure, do it. If you're forced to underexpose, underexpose and fix it in post:yesnod:

 

[Johnny Friday]

You need to read post #6, that I just quoted. And the answer to that question is still, no, it's not a good idea, if you can avoid it. But hey, you can shoot anyway you want. You're the DP, but I would hope, that you'd stop giving out wrong information to others.

Jake, again this is not wrong info same as when i adjust flut then iso to get to the same place you do by just adjusting flut. WHEN you choose a lower exposure in order to OBTAIN more DOF (as many nat. hist. shooter do), then what is best method to adjust exposure? well....many roads to get to from there....So, i'm sorry if you feel that i have given bad information, but this is something we as shooters in our genre come across all the time. AND much more so in underwater. Thank you for your opinion. :beatdeadhorse5:
And thanks for the insult as usual.

 

[George D.]

You need to read post #6, that I just quoted. And the answer to that question is still, no, it's not a good idea, if you can avoid it. But hey, you can shoot anyway you want. You're the DP, but I would hope, that you'd stop giving out wrong information to others.

Jake,

Thanks for your input, but you need to calm down and relax. Easy man!!

Both you and Johnny are right, and just have different approaches to the same problem. You are BOTH easy for me to understand, and I know far less than either of you when it comes to editing and color timing R3D footage. I'm a shooter, not an editor or color grader like you.

I got the answer to both my questions and it is clear to me what to do.

Thanks to you both.

George

.

 

[jake blackstone]

I see way to often material not exposed correctly. Hey just fix it in post, relax right? Oh, why is my stuff looks so flat and noisy? Oh, I needed to do the black shading?
I'm the one who ends up to fixing all problems, that were perfectly avoidable during the shoot. I'm the one, who must figure out crazy metadata adjustments applied and make it all work and match across hundreds or thousands of shots. And I'm the one who gets blamed, if material doesn't look perfect. If you want perfect finish you need to give me something to work with. It's simple GIGO- garbage in garbage out. And the sooner everyone will understand a simple fact, that the proper exposure is important, the better the result will be.
And you're welcome, as usual, Johnny.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

It does confuse people, when there is FLUT set at .6 and ISO also adjusted a third of a stop too. There is no reason to do that. Just move FLUT .9 and be done with it. People down the road from you in post will thank you.

I disagree, most people understand ISO values so it's better to do the majority of the change with the ISO control so people understand approximately where the exposure is. The FLUT is then used for a slight tweak too small for the ISO control. If you do it all with the FLUT control, most people won't have a clue where the exposure is...no one's going to thank you for that.

Keep in mind that the ISO is always going to be set to *something*...so basically the choice is to have an accurate ISO setting, or an inaccurate ISO setting. Why on earth do you think an inaccurate ISO setting will be less confusing?

 

[jake blackstone]

I disagree, most people understand ISO values so it's better to do the majority of the change with the ISO control so people understand approximately where the exposure is. The FLUT is then used for a slight tweak too small for the ISO control. If you do it all with the FLUT control, most people won't have a clue where the exposure is...no one's going to thank you for that.

Keep in mind that the ISO is always going to be set to *something*...so basically the choice is to have an accurate ISO setting, or an inaccurate ISO setting. Why on earth do you think an inaccurate ISO setting will be less confusing?

In the past two years or so this subject had been discussed ad nauseum and, personally, I'm not about to revisit it again and again and again...

 

[Elsie N]

I see way to often material not exposed correctly. Hey just fix it in post, relax right? ...

Jake, this brings up an interesting question... that is, what do you post guys see as ideal footage to work on from a RED camera? ISO 800, ETTR, in focus? Just curious as to what a shooter should do to make post easier.

 

[Will Keir]

Is ISO/FLUT the same as exposure? They look like they all do the same thing.

For the tenth billions time- ISO and FLUT are exactly the same, with FLUt adjustable in .1 steps and ISO in .33.

 

[Will Keir]

What happens when you've moved the FLUT slide to the end of the bar?

It does confuse people, when there is FLUT set at .6 and ISO also adjusted a third of a stop too. There is no reason to do that. Just move FLUT .9 and be done with it. People down the road from you in post will thank you.

 

[Will Keir]

George, Love the Fire Ant picture btw.

Pretty much sums it up for me. Nothing difficult to understand about what Johnny is doing here.

Jake,

Thanks for your input, but you need to calm down and relax. Easy man!!

Both you and Johnny are right, and just have different approaches to the same problem. You are BOTH easy for me to understand, and I know far less than either of you when it comes to editing and color timing R3D footage. I'm a shooter, not an editor or color grader like you.

I got the answer to both my questions and it is clear to me what to do.

Thanks to you both.

George

.

 

[Will Keir]

Jake.

What do you consider proper exposure for the Epic? There's ETTR, heard often enough. Some say ETTL even, including the creator of RED101 who teaches this garbage to others. Then there is the ISO debate, 320, 800, where does mid grey belong? Exposure can be difficult, especially shooting underwater on a T[2.9] lens.

Do you have a tutorial video or suggestions on your website for people to expose the way you like? If you want your images a certain way for coloring surely we can expect for you to show us the way you want it?

the sooner everyone will understand a simple fact, that the proper exposure is important, the better the result will be.

 

[Will Keir]

+1.

I disagree, most people understand ISO values so it's better to do the majority of the change with the ISO control so people understand approximately where the exposure is. The FLUT is then used for a slight tweak too small for the ISO control. If you do it all with the FLUT control, most people won't have a clue where the exposure is...no one's going to thank you for that.

Keep in mind that the ISO is always going to be set to *something*...so basically the choice is to have an accurate ISO setting, or an inaccurate ISO setting. Why on earth do you think an inaccurate ISO setting will be less confusing?

 

[Will Keir]

Doesn't seem like it comes up an awful lot to me. It's pretty simple stuff though really...

In the past two years or so this subject had been discussed ad nauseum and, personally, I'm not about to revisit it again and again and again...

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Proper exposure for any camera is not a unique, exact, foolproof setup.
It depends on the scene, not on colorists "likes" or "preferences".
Which is why there are light meters.

What any colorist "likes" or "prefers" in this context is properly exposed material for the scene, purpose and context.
Regardless of the camera type.

If one is using simply ETTR approach with high contrast scene and skin tones in the shade are scene's priority, chances are the material will be underexposed. In that case and for that specific scene, colorist "likes" or "prefers" properly exposed skin tones, and not having to dig them out of darks and getting noise or lack of tonality, just because every bit of detail in bright clouds or car roof for no major reason had to be preserved.
For which no viewer cares about.

Let's say I "purposely" underexposed so we could use a smaller f-stop to increase our depth of field. Then in post, I want to bring the exposure back up to where it should have been.

If I do it that way, we get the correct exposure while STILL keeping a large DOF.

No. You still get underexposed material.
Because you "purposely" underexposed it.

"Underexposed" = "insufficient amount of data captured from the scene & not addible in grading suite"