When I know more than the editor...

[Marc Wielage]

The director asked me what happened, and I had to explain to him that a piece of film, given a sensitivity, requires x amount of light to be properly exposed. If you have more light, you have to close down the iris, if you have less light, you have to open up the iris. In either case, the same amount of light is hitting the film and exposing it. Of course other physical changes occur depending on the size of your iris, etc, but the principle of exposure seemed to elude him (and the DP too, seemingly).

 

That is absolutely correct. Note that all this is fixable if the director hires a good colorist for the final finish. One of the things we constantly do in post is figure out a way to bring down the background and bring up the people's faces in the foreground -- not rocket science to do, but it takes time and effort. The issue with opening up to 2.8 is that you'd have much shallower depth of field, which you may or may not want. Some people like the look, but it's a creative choice, like anything else.

[conleec]

The issue with opening up to 2.8 is that you'd have much shallower depth of field, which you may or may not want. Some people like the look, but it's a creative choice, like anything else.

Yes of course. But as I mentioned, it was all the light we had, and I really had no choice under the circumstances if I wanted a balanced exposure (which I foolishly assumed the prior DP had done as well). I don't know what those kids had learned in film school, but it wasn't what I learned, I can tell you that.

 

Chris