Colour Grading Guide

Sums up music classes and books, too. Much of visual art has taken a downturn with the advent of postmodernism too and the loss of classical studies. Thanks for the posts! Will watch these soon.

 

Since this thread kind of derailed, this is a summary of where I'm at currently and what I'm after, in case anyone's interested in this topic or fuel for a masterclass is helpful:

So obviously, as suspected, the great directors/DP's and photographers (notably Wes Anderson, Roger Deakins, Bruno Delbonnel, etc) get the vast majority of their look from lighting, costumes, set design/location, all integral components of composition. Processing and some degree of grading footage is done by all, however subtly, but it's clear that it's often only a small percentage of the overall look. This seems to be the case even in more heavily stylized films where the grade is heavier (i.e. Bruno Delbonnel's films -- heavy grade, but a huge emphasis on soft lighting).
(As an aside, an exception to this seems to be "O Brother, Where Art Thou?", but my impression is that heavy grading process wasn't favoured).

Now, as far as I understand the process, when shooting digital, using a LOG profile essentially gives you something of a neutral "negative" and allows for more freedom in the colour correction and editing process. In the photography world (and the example I was trying to illustrate), RAW files are analogically like film negatives -- they require processing (developing/printing) in order to arrive at a workable image. In film photography, your choices in look are largely limited to the restrictions of photochemistry, at least basically. Digitally, one has more flexibility and can affect individual values much more specifically, and therefore artificially. This means one has to approach digital photography with the correct philosophy, as extreme and specific adjustments are tremendously easy to do in contrast to the comparatively arduous nature of developing film on one's own. (I'm not sure if this analogy works in the video world, so it's focused on photography.)

So I'm working on developing an answer to these questions (I have some, but am looking for input from non-photography sources):
-What is generally the basic philosophy of pros when it comes to the initial processing of one's "negative", whether video or photo? Is the first step trying to arrive at a faithful representation of what one saw, or is artistic intent mixed in at this stage? I've seen people approach it both ways. I know some DP's use subtle LUTs for consistency, but I'm not sure if they do this in-camera already or in post.
-When it comes to stylistic grading, specifically, how does one approach this tastefully? Is it simply a matter of understanding how light and colour interact through experience, and taking the time to study and imitate the works of masters? I assume the simple answer is "yes", because that's what it is with most things, but like with music, there are a hell of a lot more "get the cinematic look" articles and videos available than basic philosophical approaches.

 

Thanks for the clarification. And good point, that's something obvious I should have included -- there's no way to introduce nonexisting colours, or magically turn high contrast lighting into soft lighting, at least not faithfully (as far as I can tell). Was watching the Grand Budapest Hotel, and while it's obvious that there's an exaggerated hue in some shots (i.e. the opening scene in the snow), it's clear the vast majority of the work is done by very soft lighting and the colour palette of everything in the scene (importantly, the complete absence of certain colours), not to mention Wes' very distinctive composition.
I haven't bothered shooting LOG yet as I don't feel confident with understanding how to use it properly.
The black and white challenge is an excellent idea. I've been trying to make that more of a discipline with photography in general. It's quite eye-opening.

 

This was more aimed at shooting video, as this only seems important in photography if one wants to colour correct for i.e. skin tones (different cameras and lenses have fairly distinctively different colours coming out of even RAW, despite having the same sensors in many cases). Depends what one wants to represent. If I'm taking landscape shots, I sometimes do want to recreate what I saw. If you want to see bad edits of landscape shots, just peruse instagram, where they add fake suns, change the colour of grass, etc. It's done in a way that's intended to be deceptive, but isn't, and ends up looking very "commercial".

Thanks for the link! I like the mood he creates.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that either -- like with music, intent and control. I like if someone can convince me the photo was taken on an alien planet, but this still requires a good understanding of i.e. how light works.
Indeed, master composers used ostinatos, they just didn't rely on them to pad their entire piece, and they didn't use them because it was the only tool in their toolbox.

Probably not a bad idea. I'll play around.

I think it's difficult to answer, because there are many cases where the answer would change. I'm not that interested in "digital art" (what I would call it, anyway) that some people think is photography, i.e. photoshop the hell out of it to the point of including fake snow, a fake sun flare and a different sky so your photo looks "perfect" -- not that there's anything wrong with digital art, but I think some people are digital artists while believing they're photographers.

I think a good example of some stylized vs non-stylized shots are the screenshots I initially posted. Delbonnel's shots are very obviously graded, but the majority of his look comes from composition (obviously) and very particularly soft lighting. Same with some of Wes Anderson's shots -- he doesn't change blue light into red light, but he alters and exaggerates the hue of a cloudy day to look pink, which is mostly suggested by the abundance of non-contrasting colours in the scene (presumably because they couldn't paint the hotel pink). If one looks at the snow (and behind-the-scenes), it's obvious there's grading done, but the overall effect works. Ditto an evening snowy scene -- somewhat exaggerated blue.
It goes without saying that the absolute vast bulk of Anderson's look is his composition, set design, lighting, etc. I visited the cafe he created in Milan and it feels exactly like one would imagine:


You can see how much the existing lighting and palette is doing with behind the scenes videos (see attached).


The Matrix, I think, did this creatively -- the greenish hue was something you didn't necessarily notice at first, until the contrast between the real world and Matrix showed up.

Here's a photographer who, I think, illustrates the exaggeration idea well:
https://500px.com/photo/260984059/by-adrian-c-murray?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=2977031

There are obvious edits here, but the majority of the intrigue comes from the composition, lighting and environment.

EDIT: Probably the simplest route is to study masters. It seems like behind the scenes footage is a really big help in seeing the difference between some semi-accurate representation of the conditions of a shooting day and the final scene. Taste is an important thing to develop, and it's something I'm working on. I'd actually love suggestions of specific films, DP's, photographers, painters, etc to look at. Master painters are probably some of the best, in this regard.

I should also mention that the majority of the hue adjustments, etc I'm inquiring about have to do with natural light, not artificial light. With artificial light the solution is relatively straightforward, however difficult it is to achieve (i.e. gels). With natural light, you have natural reflections/reflectors to work with, and that's kind of it, unless you want to use filters.

 

Some of these are pretty fantastic examples of really creating the shot "in camera". It's interesting to see how far they took the editing afterwards to create a certain mood, too.

 

Missed this one.

I'll take a look, these two are usually pretty good at putting forward good arguments.

And yeah, it's difficult to find. But ditto Mike's classes -- those weren't common knowledge or something I stumbled upon, it was something I discovered after having been on VI-C for a while. I discovered a few semi-promising looking courses and sites, but they would say things like "You should compose in the Romantic style because that's what people like". Mike did a much better job of explaining why and what people like on a deeper level, irrespective of period.

 

So for whatever it's worth, here's an update roughly 3 years after the initial: what I've learned, how hobby photography has progressed, etc.

I shoot almost exclusively in natural light for the record, since much of what I do is nature oriented and almost always outdoors excluding family stuff inside. I would still like to learn to properly place and manipulate lighting for indoor shooting but it's something I admittedly haven't delved into, so the majority of my experience has come as a result of chasing light.

The more I simply paid attention to light in nature and through more "reliable" mediums like the painting greats, photographers who don't manipulate their photos to death and great DP's like Deakins, the more I learned. "Transcribing" is also helpful (go figure), not necessarily in the sense of recreating a specific photo but of analyzing and trying to figure out what was going on with light/colour/etc and how those elements interacted. Interestingly, chasing natural light did teach me to some degree about manipulating light as well: the particular looks I was occasionally chasing came in very specific moments of specific seasons, like sunset reflecting off billowing clouds and creating an ultra-soft "softbox" with an unusually orange/pink hue, for instance. Portraits in the snow on cloudy days have a unique "glow" to them because the snow acts like a reflector. This stuff is obvious when said aloud but learning it practically and when to find it is another process. I eventually found an app that would map sun angles and shadows based on calendar day and location which was really helpful with experimentation.

Unsurprisingly, and especially in the natural world, light/colour/luminance/contrast are inexorably linked. Perhaps thanks to my poor editing skills, I was always frustrated trying to manipulate a photo in order to achieve a specific look. It's not that it's not doable, but the more I continue on, the more I loathe pretending digital art is photography. My photos are certainly not the most eye-catching or snappy, but I don't really care; I'd rather do the hard work of letting composition and lighting make those wins through effort and struggle, and the photos that stick with me the longest are the ones that capture interesting or beautiful moments within the parameters of what is believable to a skeptical eye. That's not to say I don't like digital art, but the two are distinct in my mind and the principles are the same in either medium.

So regarding editing: most of my best photos required little to no editing. I think of editing as a medium to simply nudge what's captured into the vision I had initially, or to simply correct for whatever may be initially untranslated -- slight white balance shifts, contrast adjustments to convey the appropriate dynamic range of the scene, and at most very slight colour emphasis, though this 90% is done through appropriate in-camera lighting and colours . If it's not already close, it's not worth editing usually.

The tricky thing is the range of options you have with digital. Seeing light the way the camera sensor will see it is an extremely important skill, considering cameras don't have the dynamic range our eyes do from scene to scene and focal lengths have obvious compression effects. Knowing what you're after and planning accordingly is crucial. If I want an interesting macro shot, it may be necessary to take a range of shots to focus-stack them in order to avoid constraining the aperture to i.e. 22. Similarly, multi-exposure shots can be helpful to ensure you don't completely blow out your sky or crush the shadows of a scene -- not for an "HDR" effect, but simply to reduce noise in the image and get it closer to what your eye saw. On other occasions, blown out light is perhaps exactly what you need, or shadows so dark that it removes distracting elements.

What I also quickly realized is that while lighting and colour are interesting, your photos need to be of something. I spent many days chasing lighting in an area of the world that often hides it behind trees and mountains, and when I occasionally timed it right, I often realized I wasn't really taking a photo of anything. So obviously, composition is king, and although it's also inexorably linked to light. Also unsurprisingly, composition is by far the most difficult to master, depending on the genre.

Below are are a few. Haven't edited any in the last year due to busyness so hopefully there are some better ones on the horizon. I do realize many of these would perhaps be more interesting with a human subject, but they are what they are at this point.

View attachment 1177
(I should probably make the last one black and white but my editing computer is in storage currently)