To correct or not to correct
Posted 09 May 2005 - 08:39 PM
I understand why to correct and do often but I just find the asthetic of blue daylight very appealing.
Posted 09 May 2005 - 08:55 PM
I agree it looks cool (pun!), especially on low-key nighttime interiors. But it's not natural; your eyes don't discern those differences in color temp nearly as much, and is thus distracting to some if you're going for realism. "Eyes Wide Shut" is an extreme example, but the whole story is like a dreamworld anyway (hence the title "Traumnovelle" it was adapted from).
Posted 09 May 2005 - 10:05 PM
Posted 10 May 2005 - 10:25 AM
Posted 10 May 2005 - 10:46 AM
Our eyes and mind "adjust" to what is "white". If you are outdoors at dusk, the tungsten lights in homes look very warm and yellow. Go indoors and the lights look "white", and the early evening light outside looks blue. Film allows you to work with your color timer or colorist to achieve the "look" that fits the production. Moonlight isn't really blue, but we may want it to look that way. Firelight may be pleasantly warm, or menacingly red.
Posted 10 May 2005 - 03:27 PM
I generally don't like blue or excessively orange people unless motivated by the scene.
There are no rules governing esthetics and it really is a matter of taste and style as to when to correct or not.
Sometimes I like it when windows blow out - again if it fits the idea and mood of the scene.
It's like music in a way. Sometimes that guitar needs some distortion, sometimes not.
Posted 11 May 2005 - 02:44 PM
Posted 11 May 2005 - 05:14 PM
Posted 17 May 2005 - 10:09 PM
Soderberg (sp?) used mixed light in Traffic. It was a cool shot, but only because he used it for effect. Generally speaking, mixed color is a sure sign of incompetence. Rarely, will anyone see your mixed color footage and think, "Wow, what a revolutionary!". It's like bad sound in a movie. It cues the brain in the wrong ways. But all of that is only an opinion. I sure wouldn't try to step all over your creativity.
Posted 14 June 2005 - 07:43 PM
1. The scene takes place early in the morning in an interior lit by a large window
2. I want to put a light near the window to add contrast to the scene and want to match all lights to daylight
3. Production can't afford HMIs, just tungsten light fixtures
Which of these options would you go for?
Shoot w/ 250 D film, place a CTB gel on the tungsten light, and deal with the resulting loss in light level.
Shoot w/ 200T, gel the window with CTO, and convince my low-budget production to buy enough gel, which is unlikely
Build a black tent outside the window to block out all daylight, and light everything with tungsten. Maybe add 1/4 CTB to the light to raise the color temperature and make it cooler. (What color temperature does early morning light in a clouded winter day have?)
Thanks for your suggestions
Posted 14 June 2005 - 08:04 PM
I like off colour temperature stuff in video; it's one of my personal stanbys to shoot off then desaturate and partially correct in post.
On the other hand, I'm with our previous correspondents on avoiding having blue daylight outside a warm room; while I might shoot the whole thing bluish, having them enormously mismatched looks "wrong" to me. Having said that, the blue is rendered nicer on film than video; video, unless you fiddle with it in post (and you will) ends up being a rather unfortunate bright cyan.
It's probably a lot easier to light the interior in daylight and choose camera or stock colour balance to taste, than it is to gel all the windows, if you're not going to be there a long time and you aren't reliant on a lot of practicals. If either of those situations does apply, then gelling the windows may be easier - but that's really very situationally dependent. If you've got a need to ND the windows anyhow, to make your interior lighting work, then it might be just as easy to get ND+CTO and do it all in one hit. So, it's very situationally dependent.
Cloudy days are bluer; winter days are bluer. Both together is... more bluer.