Blown out BG

[Stephen Schleicher]

Any chance of using a graduated ND filter? From your shot, it looks like you should be able to grad it R-L and get a good exposure on both. Of course it could look odd, but it is a suggestion.

Cheers

[Shaughan Flynn]

Since this is the ending shot where the camera tracks with the actor to the bench on a dolly, a grad-ND is out of the question :(

[Jimmy McKenzie]

Looks like a docu-drama you're making? If so, then the story likely doesn't say "guy reading a book who lives in a busy location with many buildings and vehicles in the background".

Perhaps shoot high with the pov of the camera pointed down.

To get the dof you are after you want the iris open. Try more zoom and adjust for no sky...

You could also open with an establishing shot of outdoor evenly exposed area to tell the viewer that the scene is outdoors...

[Joshua Provost]

Originally Posted by John Jackman

The CineGamma does not give increased latitude, in fact it probably decreases it slightly.

Thanks for the clariciation. I work mostly with Panasonics, and the CineGamma features on those cameras do produce increased latitude.

Originally Posted by John Jackman

There is not a contrast control in most cameras.

Most cameras, perhaps, but a $5000 camera? I believe it doesn't, but it should. I have a $1200 Panny GS400 and it has a contrast control that when adjusted results in an extra stop of latitude.

Originally Posted by John Jackman

First, a circular polarizer is not needed for video and a polarizer wouldn't help this shot much. A low-con filter might.

I've had similar shots where the polarizer cut the glare and darkened the sky sufficiently to bring it back into exposure range. It may or may not be enough in this shot, but you can't tell just how far overexposed the sky is from this image.

[Shaughan Flynn]

>>Looks like a docu-drama you making?

Nope - it's a comedy short. If the fabric trick fails then I will change the angle of the camera to exclude the BG.

[John Jackman]

Originally Posted by Joshua Provost

I work mostly with Panasonics, and the CineGamma features on those cameras do produce increased latitude.

Not in my tests. It may LOOK like increased latitude but it actually can reduce it some. The black point and white point remain the same for a given exposure, and light areas blow out a little earlier and very dark grays are crushed to blacks. These cameras essentially tilt the gamma line, they do not use an "s-curve" that would more reflect actual film gamma.

Most cameras, perhaps, but a $5000 camera? I believe it doesn't, but it should. I have a $1200 Panny GS400 and it has a contrast control that when adjusted results in an extra stop of latitude.

Professional cameras do not have a "contrast" adjustment for the recorded picture (they do for the VF), they have controls like black stretch and knee which work somewhat differently.

I've had similar shots where the polarizer cut the glare and darkened the sky sufficiently to bring it back into exposure range. It may or may not be enough in this shot, but you can't tell just how far overexposed the sky is from this image.

A polarizer will cut haze glare and make the sky a deeper blue but will not fix the other items in the background. A lo-con filter will effectively compress the range of the picture.

But adding light in the shadows via reflectors or lights is the ideal solution for this pic.

[Wayne Orr]

John Jackman said:
"Someone suggested additional layers of scrim, but this can create a moire pattern that makes the fabric noticable."

Well, John, I am the one who suggested multiple layers of scrim, but I also said, "Anything till it becomes obvious." Depending on various conditions, you can get away with multiple layers, as Shaughan found out, to his satisfaction.

"BEST solution is reflectors."

Actually, that isn't true either. The BEST solution is the one that gives you the look that makes you happy. It could be a HMI hardlight, or an HMI punched through a silk or Chimera, or it could be a hard reflector, or a soft white card, or it could be available light, or it could be a combination of all of the above.

And as Shaughan's last post indicates, he likes the look he gets with multiple layers of diffusion. (BTW, Shaughan, keep your depth of field as shallow as possible and your lens as long as possible to avoid seeing your "scrim." Here's another trick: shoot your establishing shots as you have indicated. Then, if you move in for tight coverage, add a black art card to the shadow side of your subject's face, very close, just outside of picture. This will help create contrast to make the close up more interesting. This is what is called "negative fill." You are "killing" some of the ambient light that is completely surrounding your subject in your set-up.)

One of the big problems lighting with reflectors is, the darn sun keeps moving, and you have to continually adjust the reflector. This can be a real problem for extended interviews. You don't notice the light going slowly away from the reflector, until you edit. And of course, there is the possible problem with clouds, but they would be a problem with ambient lighting also.

That said, reflectors are a great, cheap light source, and everyone should get experience using them. A great way to make models in bikinis really pop at the beach. No, not that kind of "pop." Sheesh.

Wayne Orr, SOC