Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'overexposure'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Cinematography Forums
    • General Discussion
    • Cine Marketplace
    • Cameras Systems and Formats
    • Lighting for Film & Video
    • Camera Operating & Gear
    • Camera Assistant / DIT & Gear
    • Grip & Rigging
    • Visual Effects Cinematography
    • Post Production
    • Students, New Filmmakers, Film Schools and Programs
    • Lenses & Lens Accessories
    • Film Stocks & Processing
    • Books for the Cinematographer
    • Cinematographers
    • Directors and Directing
    • In Production / Behind the Scenes
    • On Screen / Reviews & Observations
    • Business Practices & Producing
    • Camera & Lighting Equipment Resources
    • Jobs, Resumes, and Reels
    • Please Critique My Work
    • Cinematography News
    • Sound
    • Off Topic
    • Accessories (Deprecated SubForum)
    • Regional Cinematography Groups

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





My Gear


Found 2 results

  1. From most of the sources I have read, it was always written than overexposing film (thicker negative) would lead to increased latitude in the highlights and underexposing film (thinner negative) would lead to increased latitude in the shadows (the opposite is true for digital which makes sense). However, I am currently reading Glen Kennels excellent book on "color and mastering for digital cinema" and am now a bit confused if what I have read regarding overexposing = more highlight detail and vice versa is true. Perhaps I must be misunderstanding something. 1) Now in this book he mentions that to obtain more details in the shadows, you would want to overexpose to obtain a heavy negative and then print down to extend the range into the shadows. This would lead to deeper blacks as he shows in a diagram, but as he also mentions, is that can uncover "details that might otherwise have been lost". As well as to underexpose the negative to assure that all the highlight information is obtained in the negative. Perhaps I am confusing underexposing to ensure that all the highlight details are captured and overexposing to obtain a larger range of details in the highlights as the same thing, when in reality they are different. However, it seems like it would make much more sense to underexpose and then print up to obtain more details in the highlights. Furthermore, I don't understand how underexposing would lead to more details in the shadows compared to as is mentioned in the book, overexposing and then printing down. I hope someone could maybe help me clear up some of my confusions regarding this. 2) Another point I would like to mention is that overexposing the negative is said to lead to more contrast; however, when I'm looking at the curve of the color print film, the gamma of the curve seems to be the same, which is theoretically the definition of contrast in projected print. Although I thought that perhaps the reasoning is that we now have a larger difference between the minimum and maximum amount of density on the color film print. Is this correct?
  2. Newcomers tend to ask if a certain film stock will over or underexpose in a specific camera they have just purchased when shooting in the automatic exposure mode. Has anyone actually gotten negative footage that was either too over-exposed or too under-exposed when shooting in the automatic mode, and of course assuming there was adequate light with which to shoot?
  • Create New...