How not to use a DRAGON

[Christoffer Glans]

I apologize in advance, but I need to chime in.

Far be it from me jumping in and discussing anything about this, but at it's core the reason the orange/teal look has grabbed hold as something creators aim for is squarely due to color theory.

Orange and teal are complements of each other and therefore provide a high level of color contrast which essentially helps focus the viewer. It's as simple as that.

There's nothing truly unnatural about it. It is an enhanced version of reality. Sometimes pushed to interesting extremes. I find it interesting that during magic hour if you beef up the saturation of the last light as key on the subject you get something familiar in relationship to this look. If you look at various Maxfield Parrish paintings for instance you will see even larger extremes. Some chase natural images, some chase a surreal quality. There's no "wrong" way in reality, though there are of course technical and subjective "best practices". Heh. If you guys read Sargent's painting notes on skin tones it might drive you insane.

Back when I was a Digital Colorist I worked on about a dozen or so films that desired a similar look. Interestingly enough however, usually for scenes here and there and not throughout an entire project. Though I've seen a motivated effort on some films to become more "uniform" in their grades. Personally I don't think "uniformity" to the palette is always the best way to go, but to each their own. That's their vision and take on the story.

Side note. While everybody is entitled to their own opinion do acknowledge that their of REDusers and shooters working on these films who visit these boards. Often times, especially on projects of this scale, you are looking at a year or more of work.

From a creators perspective influences and inspiration can be found anywhere. Like the look or not, the creators of this project did. Commercial success or not, it's what was decided on. Be critical of what you like and don't like, but certainly be open minded about the concept that there is certainly more than one way to go about things. Especially when relating to color theory and composition. Otherwise you'll be trapped in a tiny box full of other people very excited to be locked up in there with you oblivious to the spectrum of wonderment outside those confines.

I'm with you on this, but what I think you refer to is the subtlety of it's use. The "teal/orange" I'm refering to as a sickness is the plastic and unnatural look that destroys the colors and look of the locations in favor of that extra "zing". Of course my opinion is my opinion and I think everyone is more or less used to community forums and the fact that there are opinions expressed and people agree or disagree with each other... just like in real life

But once again, I think this quote says it all: a cinematic equivalent of compressing the dynamic range of recorded music for extra kick-ass loudness; both add extra zing, producing a product that's superficially exciting, at the cost of subtlety.
That says it all, this over the top use of teal/orange makes the images pop out, but the substance is reduced. If you think about it, it's the equal of taking a colored image and make it black and white, just the other way around. You pop out those real colors to such an extreme that they loose their fidelity. The richness of an image is lost just to create that "zing".

Colors is another tool in storytelling, just like camera moves, composition etc. If you squeeze colors into a box of constant teal/orange, you aren't working through the story being told. It might be good for commercials and posters to get people's attention, but I think it's on the lazy side of storytelling. Productions use it to stand out, to be seen, that's why it's used so much. Simple as that... commercial.

 

[Mike Garrick]

So everyone wants a natural soft organic look in a Sci-Fi Epic with bright colourful 6 storey high Robots riding on fire breathing dinosaurs.....right ?

 

[Christoffer Glans]

So everyone wants a natural soft organic look in a Sci-Fi Epic with bright colourful 6 storey high Robots riding on fire breathing dinosaurs.....right ?

You mean that there is only two types of looks? Teal/orange and natural soft?

It's possible to actually work with the actual colors of a scene. To enhance the colors of the robots and fire breathing dinosaurs without compressing everything through a teal/orange color scope.

 

[shashbugu]

Yeah, I know it's existing throughout the industry in more ways than this. I use it many times just to get a starting point, but I do it slightly and that is I believe the difference. Most colorists use it slightly for adding more color contrast, but it's more of a pre-balancing before setting the actual look or tonality of the images. But the concept of "Teal/Orange" with capital T, the grading technique that this over saturated and super pushed look has and what is regarded as the more common look when mentioning "teal/orange" today is the "fantasy look". When mentioning "teal/orange" today, this is what people thinks about...

Plastic, unnatural and extreme in the worst way.

hmm! i don't see anything wrong with these images or T3. The grading may be cliche in the eyes of colorists DP's etc, but its definitely not shit or awful. I spent big bucks to buy a 70" TV and home entertainment system, Megan fox and Mark Wahlberg better look super orange on it... or else

 

[Zach Hilton]

Interesting thread. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I have to say the look of the film was definitely created in the DI. Amir Mokri is a very talented DP and got the most out of the mediums he was using. I can pretty much guarantee that most if not all shots / scenes that are distractingly noisy or different from the rest of the film are not Epic or Dragon. The sunset shot at the farm previously mentioned, film. I can remember a few Go Pro shots that do stand out (car crash through the electric fence at the farm, and motorcycle crash with Tucci and Bing Bing). I looked at almost every digital shot and the negative was clean and well exposed. Anything beyond that was an executive decision made by Bay.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

hmm! i don't see anything wrong with these images or T3. The grading may be cliche in the eyes of colorists DP's etc, but its definitely not shit or awful. I spent big bucks to buy a 70" TV and home entertainment system, Megan fox and Mark Wahlberg better look super orange on it... or else

The look should support the story, the mood, the character of scenes. There might not be anything wrong with those images, but it's just LUT over context. You apply that look to whatever film your doing. This overuse of teal/orange is so overly used that there are certain plug ins for adobe that are said to give a "cinematic look" to the images you are working with, stills or video. What is it? What does the plug-in do? It LUT's the whole image into auto-teal/orange mode.
It's made for consumers because it pops out, there's no thought behind it except making the image pop. This is why I oppose that it's an artistic view or choice. It's so overly used as an extreme look in different films made by different studios and people behind the camera. It's nothing more then a color gimmick.

If you are using teal/orange you should use it as a basis, something to build upon. Balance your image but not overly use it, otherwise it's in my opinion just lazy and looks fake in a bad way.

But the most extreme and destructive way is this
http://notonbluray.com/blog/orange-and-teal/

Remastering old classics with a teal/orange look are destroying the original look and feel of the movie. Colors matters extremely when it comes to emotion in storytelling and if a movie was shot with the intention of having a more neutral look, then why the hell are people remastering them into color destruction? The last image tells it all, that the people behind the remastering of Patton just did the regular teal/orange pass and then people remarked upon it. The second image shows what remastering should be all about, improving the original look.

If that's not a "sickness" of color grading, I don't know.

 

[shashbugu]

The look should support the story, the mood, the character of scenes. There might not be anything wrong with those images, but it's just LUT over context. You apply that look to whatever film your doing. This overuse of teal/orange is so overly used that there are certain plug ins for adobe that are said to give a "cinematic look" to the images you are working with, stills or video. What is it? What does the plug-in do? It LUT's the whole image into auto-teal/orange mode.
It's made for consumers because it pops out, there's no thought behind it except making the image pop. This is why I oppose that it's an artistic view or choice. It's so overly used as an extreme look in different films made by different studios and people behind the camera. It's nothing more then a color gimmick.

If you are using teal/orange you should use it as a basis, something to build upon. Balance your image but not overly use it, otherwise it's in my opinion just lazy and looks fake in a bad way.

But the most extreme and destructive way is this
http://notonbluray.com/blog/orange-and-teal/

Remastering old classics with a teal/orange look are destroying the original look and feel of the movie. Colors matters extremely when it comes to emotion in storytelling and if a movie was shot with the intention of having a more neutral look, then why the hell are people remastering them into color destruction? The last image tells it all, that the people behind the remastering of Patton just did the regular teal/orange pass and then people remarked upon it. The second image shows what remastering should be all about, improving the original look.

If that's not a "sickness" of color grading, I don't know.

I actually agree with you on remastering classics. They should be digitized with dust and scratches removed, but that should be it. Tampering with color or contrast can really affect the original artwork.

 

[Hugues Dagallier]

The look should support the story, the mood, the character of scenes. There might not be anything wrong with those images, but it's just LUT over context. You apply that look to whatever film your doing. This overuse of teal/orange is so overly used that there are certain plug ins for adobe that are said to give a "cinematic look" to the images you are working with, stills or video. What is it? What does the plug-in do? It LUT's the whole image into auto-teal/orange mode.
It's made for consumers because it pops out, there's no thought behind it except making the image pop. This is why I oppose that it's an artistic view or choice. It's so overly used as an extreme look in different films made by different studios and people behind the camera. It's nothing more then a color gimmick.

If you are using teal/orange you should use it as a basis, something to build upon. Balance your image but not overly use it, otherwise it's in my opinion just lazy and looks fake in a bad way.

But the most extreme and destructive way is this
http://notonbluray.com/blog/orange-and-teal/

Remastering old classics with a teal/orange look are destroying the original look and feel of the movie. Colors matters extremely when it comes to emotion in storytelling and if a movie was shot with the intention of having a more neutral look, then why the hell are people remastering them into color destruction? The last image tells it all, that the people behind the remastering of Patton just did the regular teal/orange pass and then people remarked upon it. The second image shows what remastering should be all about, improving the original look.

If that's not a "sickness" of color grading, I don't know.

I respect your opinion and I agree with the fact that changing colors of old classics is a problem. Colors are very important for mood & emotion. I agree with that.

Nevertheless, the popness of an image can be an artistic style, an artistic choice. It is an aesthetic tool. When you use it, it changes the feeling of an image, like every color grading. I respect that some people likes this feeling. Better yet, I understand it.

What if an artist finds that his images are more beautiful with this teal/orange contrast ? What if an artist considers that the popness of his/her images increases their beauty ?

The second problem I have with your post is that you oppose commercial and artistic. You should not. You can be commercial & artistic. Trust me.

I am more a pastel-like guy, and I love when the images are very organic. But it is my own choice, my own sensitivity. I respect that Bay likes when the images pop out.

 

[Jarek Zabczynski]

Harsh thread. I have no problem admitting I'm a Bay fan. I've been a fan since his commercial days. The man probably shot some of your favorite commercials and you have no idea. It's so easy to hate the guy, but in most cases it comes off more like jealously. Sorry, I'm not trying to disrespect anyone here, but any professional that says Bay doesn't have a clue should look in the mirror.

The media tends to show him off to be this raging madman of a director, but when you're dealing with the stuff he's shooting, you'd be yelling at everyone 24/7 too trying to get it all straight. I've met the guy and he's so much more like the rest of us geeks on here than you'd think. Really chill and down to earth.

 

[John Hope]

The issue you are pointing out has nothing to do with digital. As Steve pointed out, the examples you provided from the web, with skin tones that you did not like, were shot on film. So they can make any medium look non-pleasing to you. Personally the grading of the film did not bother me. Its a look they wanted and I respect that.I do think it would be interested to see the movie again with an on-screen label for which camera was used on every shot. I did not care for the movie, but then again I did not like the previous ones either. I do consider myself a Michael Bay fan. He has some great popcorn flicks.I did think some scenes were a lot noisier than others. I was curious why that was. Was it underexposed and then pulled up in post, was it something else?

As i wrote twice, i'm talking about the WHOLE film. And the colorist had to match all cameras so the effect is visible in those shots too. But the problem is consistent trough the whole movie.

 

[John Hope]

The release prints, which were the summing of a lot of celluloid generations, sported a teal-orange look.
When i.e. i watched the Sleeping Beauty in the 70s it was (like the early DVDs) impregnated by a teal-orange color cast. When the Blu Ray was released, during the restoration process they "forgot" to simulate all those steps, and the BD audience was very upset because it looked totally different from what they saw in the theaters. And from what Disney had done.
In conclusion, we have to be aware that the good film DOPs took in account the negative, positive, copies and release prints, all those steps were part of the look of the film.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Orange and teal are complements of each other and therefore provide a high level of color contrast which essentially helps focus the viewer. It's as simple as that.

I agree. Michael Bay is also an extremely technical, hands-on guy who gets exactly what he asks for. Good or bad, this is his creative choice. Good or bad, Transformers: Age of Extinction will make $1 billion worldwide before too much longer (it's at $966M right now), so Bay and the people who work for him can claim with some justification that this is the look audiences will pay to see.

I don't see a colorist credit on the current Transformers movie on IMDB, but Stefan Sonnenfeld and the people at CO3 in Santa Monica did the first three, so I assume they did the new one.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

The release prints, which were the summing of a lot of celluloid generations, sported a teal-orange look.
When i.e. i watched the Sleeping Beauty in the 70s it was (like the early DVDs) impregnated by a teal-orange color cast. When the Blu Ray was released, during the restoration process they "forgot" to simulate all those steps, and the BD audience was very upset because it looked totally different from what they saw in the theaters. And from what Disney had done.
In conclusion, we have to be aware that the good film DOPs took in account the negative, positive, copies and release prints, all those steps were part of the look of the film.



View attachment 54969View attachment 54970View attachment 54971View attachment 54972View attachment 54973

The difference here is that those cinematographers shot the film using the palette. They used cold and warm lights, that's a whole different game from grading shadow/highlights into teal/orange. There are also no "orange" plastic skintones on those.

 

[John Hope]

Grading shadow/highlights into teal/orange is the artificial and horrible cheap way to simulate it.
Of course when i say teal orange i mean the serious way as you say (lighting + film resaponse)

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Yeah, exactly, it's the good old "we'll fix it in post". It's the lazy notion that we can do anything in post these days so why bother on getting the look right when shooting.

Problem as I see it is that I think many lack a clear vision. If you know what you are going to do before you do it and then stick to that vision you not only save time in post, you will also have a better result. If you shoot neutral colors, then keep and enhance those natural colors. If you shoot for a look, then enhance that look. Never recreate something that wasn't there if it's not essential to support the edit (matching shots for instance).

There are many that oppose this way of thinking, but I've personally never seen ANYTHING that was created in post to match the quality of doing it on location. I'm not talking about CGI vs Practical effects, that's a whole different thread where I think CGI is working better if done correctly, but for working with the actual image, no over the top grading, no fake slomo fake stabilizing etc. manage to enhance the image better then doing it practical.

Shoot what you planned and enhance what you did.

wait... I'm actually gonna change my signature with that line

 

[John Hope]

Yeah, exactly, it's the good old "we'll fix it in post". It's the lazy notion that we can do anything in post these days so why bother on getting the look right when shooting.

Problem as I see it is that I think many lack a clear vision. If you know what you are going to do before you do it and then stick to that vision you not only save time in post, you will also have a better result. If you shoot neutral colors, then keep and enhance those natural colors. If you shoot for a look, then enhance that look. Never recreate something that wasn't there if it's not essential to support the edit (matching shots for instance).

There are many that oppose this way of thinking, but I've personally never seen ANYTHING that was created in post to match the quality of doing it on location. I'm not talking about CGI vs Practical effects, that's a whole different thread where I think CGI is working better if done correctly, but for working with the actual image, no over the top grading, no fake slomo fake stabilizing etc. manage to enhance the image better then doing it practical.

Shoot what you planned and enhance what you did.

wait... I'm actually gonna change my signature with that line

I couldn't agree more Christoffer,
I have given color grading courses in a Filmmaking academy, and the most important lesson is that the color grading begins with the production design, the lights, the costumes, the props, the recording medium and last but not least the lenses.