Jump to content

Digital doesn't look bad at night after all - but with one caveat


Recommended Posts

There's digital, and then there's digital. Digital as in 4:2:2 MP4 is not the same thing as Red RAW or ProRes or ProRes RAW. The reason why so much digital footage taken at night looks terrible is not because it's digital - it's because it wasn't shot in RAW.

But, RAW is step one. Step two is to underexpose by several stops. Have a look at this photo taken on a Leica M11. There are many examples like this. The photographer underexposed by five stops, then brought the exposure up later. You don't need to go as far as five stops. But look at how the colour in the light sources is completely preserved. You do have to bring down highlights, which the photograph hasn't done here. 

Leica Q3Leica Q3

But, nonetheless, the light source problem is solved. It should have been obvious, because modern sensors are insanely good. Digital RAW gives nothing away to film. But you have to underexpose.

However, I am working on a possible solution for those who can't or don't shoot RAW. It won't be perfect but I think it can work. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yes, I do that all the time for stills, basically expose for the highlights like neon signs, underexposing most of the frame, and then bringing up the shadows in post. But you have to have a camera that is fairly clean at higher ISO's, otherwise you get very noisy shadows.

image.thumb.jpeg.9b706a329ad55534b0fcd4d3f5f94647.jpeg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Yes, I do that all the time for stills, basically expose for the highlights like neon signs, underexposing most of the frame, and then bringing up the shadows in post. But you have to have a camera that is fairly clean at higher ISO's, otherwise you get very noisy shadows.

image.thumb.jpeg.9b706a329ad55534b0fcd4d3f5f94647.jpeg

That looks terrific.

The problem I think is that most people are shooting compressed video files. Also, people are exposing RAW files 'correctly'. Both of those factors would make you think that digital is deficient. Well, when you step back and look at the big picture, digital is not at all as deficient as one would think. 

There is also the question of modern sensors. They are the final piece of the puzzle. Before the Nikon D3, negative film was way, way better at higher ISO ratings. For medium format digital, the light source problem was solved years ago if the photographer wanted to exploit that. Smaller formats are now getting there. I hate to say it David, but I think film is finally retired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Tim Tyler changed the title to Digital doesn't look bad at night after all - but with one caveat

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...