Filmic usability -- my usability "study"

[Mister_Teatime]

@Phil_Smith

It’s rare that I then need to go back the exposure module again.

That is one big reason I made this video in the first place: What kind of magic does everybody use to get the exposure setting right the first time, before even having filmic set up, accurately enough that they never need to touch it again?

I keep being told that that is “how you do it”. I conclude that there must be a way, too, but I’ve no idea how. I think it means that either you have edited so many photos with a very consistent look that you can just eyeball it and be always right, or you are using other tools to change the brightness of the photo with other tools, independent of the exposure module. Which, by the way, is a feature I’d love to see in filmic but keep being told that the exposure module and only the exposure module must be able to change affect middle grey …

[Mister_Teatime]

@s7habo

I think that you always have a subject in the photo, otherwise you will not make that photo. But this does not mean that you have to have this subject in the “middle gray”.

Yes, I agree on that. I did not express that too clearly in the video. The question was not really “what is my subject?” but “which criterion should I use to set exposure, and how would I know if I’ve set it right?”. Which I find hard to answer, particularly if changing exposure means that filmic needs to be readjusted.

[paperdigits (Mica)]

So, this is what I came too rather quickly, 30 seconds tops:

I didn’t touch the exposure, I just left it where it was. In my mind, this is a pretty decent starting point for a filmic based edit.

My base set of modules so far, for getting an image that is ready for some artistic edits is:
white balance, exposure, filmic, local contrast.

I think the problem with this image is that your subject matter is the mountains, and they fall in the shadow area, and you’ve clipped the sky pretty badly.

@Mister_Teatime

Do you simply not try to use filmic as much and directly proceed to local adjustments?

I first set the mid-tone where I want them, on in lieu of mid-tones, I use exposure to set some tone where I expect them to fall in the brightness range of the image. I think part of the problem in this photo is that the mountains are in shadow and you want them to be brighter, but you’ve clipped your highlights so trying to make the mountains brighter throws the clouds way out of range.

I try to "tame the histogram,’ that usually amounts to just getting the dynamic range of the images to fit the dynamic range of the output (Adobe RGB or sRGB).

@Mister_Teatime

Do you always have a well-defined “subject” in your scene, adjust exposure to put it at middle grey, and then work around that?

I always try to have a subject, yes. And if its going to be a great photo, that subject should be the brightest thing in the frame (not middle gray). Being the brightest thing in the frame will draw the eye straight to it.

If I put a dropper on the brightest part of the mountains, it’s something around L 35-40 in LAB. You’re just approaching mid-tones in that case.

@Mister_Teatime

Or do you change brightness of the mid-tones in display-referred space, after filmic has been applied?

I’m usually happy with my mid-tones after adjusting exposure. So I don’t generally alter the mid-tones of the whole photo. I do often do some local edits with a mask and tone equalizer or another instance of the exposure module, if the photo calls for it.

[Mister_Teatime]

@s7habo

Here it is not a middle gray that is important, but the relationship between these two elements, which must be placed in such a way that both are easily recognizable, but at the same time, without the “reality” of the scene suffering much.

That is pretty much what I was trying to do. I don’t usually care much about middle grey, but about the things which I want to be discernible being discernible.
And after looking at the videos you linked to, it would seem that you don’t actually use filmic to tweak the image at all. In most cases, you seem to just leave it on (your) default, and exposure is also just used for a rough pre-adjustment step. The range of other modules is then used to get everything lit up as you like it.

So, do you simply use filmic like a fixed base curve, then?

Is the answer to my question about tweaking filmic settings “don’t tweak them, compensate with other tools”?

[Mister_Teatime]

Would have loved to see it with a little more eye liner, too

[Mister_Teatime]

@ggbutcher

Tell a parametric curve to do THAT

Ha, thanks!
My focus was in fact on the knobs and dials in filmic but yes, a hand-drawn curve can do a lot more, of course. I used to use those a lot back in the days when I mostly used the software which Canon ships with its cameras.

[wpferguson (Bill Ferguson)]

@Mister_Teatime

So, do you simply use filmic like a fixed base curve, then?

Base curve was intended to give you a reasonable starting point from which you could edit. Filmic serves the same purpose, it gives you a starting point.

[Mister_Teatime]

@wpferguson

My take. I tried to lead the viewer…

Yes, that’s the direction what I was trying to end up with, too. I find the green a little too strong.
The photo itself probably does not lend itself to this kind of edit but very roughly that’s the look I was trying to move towards.
Really need to sit down one of these days and do the rest of it…

[Mister_Teatime]

I really like the good advice I’m getting here, and it’s pretty useful.

And it’s actually quite informative to see how most of you use filmic – by turning it on but mostly not really interacting with it much. Most people seem to some decent setting that is not changed much, and then shape the data that goes into filmic, or the data that comes out of it, to produce the outcome they want.

My frustration comes mostly from trying to make it a much more active part of my process. But if rather than tweaking filmic you tweak what goes into or comes out of it, you’re evading all of those issues.

[wpferguson (Bill Ferguson)]

I think most people’s frustration with filmic seems to stem from the belief that it is more than it is. If your image is reasonably well exposed, then you really don’t need to mess with it. When I’m shooting portraits, where I control the lighting, the only filmic setting I touch might be midtone saturation.

[Mister_Teatime]

After looking at your version some more (dude, I should be in bed…): You’ve got two extra exposure instances, in the display-referred section, and the first of them is not masked.

I’m guessing you did that to avoid changing the original scene-referred exposure because that would have required you to update all the settings for the whole rest of the pipeline?

[PhotoPhysicsGuy (Bob)]

@Mister_Teatime

And it’s actually quite informative to see how most of you use filmic – by turning it on but mostly not really interacting with it much. Most people seem to some decent setting that is not changed much, and then shape the data that goes into filmic, or the data that comes out of it, to produce the outcome they want.

Is this not a conceptual problem though?
If I have adjusted the overall exposure to my liking, what is all the exposed parameter glory of filmic there for when the user gets told “don’t iteratively tweak with filmic”, like in this case for tackling the highlights? What is the module there for when a set of LUTs could do the job?

@wpferguson

I think most people’s frustration with filmic seems to stem from the belief that it is more than it is

Possibly.

@wpferguson

If your image is reasonably well exposed, then you really don’t need to mess with it.

But that’s trivial. If my scene has a dynamic range that fits onto my display, theres no need for the module at all. I could use display-referred base curve then. So that’s not the use case, is it? If I paint in the exposures I want locally, why not do this under a LUT? Or asked differently: what’s the raison d’être for the module if not selective reigning in highlights (and shadows) which are outside of display-space?

[Mister_Teatime]

@wpferguson

I think most people’s frustration with filmic seems to stem from the belief that it is more than it is

That makes a lot of sense to me, especially after reading the other replies here.
The weird thing is that I still believe it could be more. It may well be that my tendency to tweak everything is getting the better of me here, but I also think that this way could actually work. Maybe it wouldn’t work quite as I imagined, but adjusting exposure after the fact and changing the curve around a bit should be possible. Right now, everyone seems to avoid that, and I don’t think they should have to.

[wpferguson (Bill Ferguson)]

The first instance was to increase the overall contrast by blending using multiply. The second instance with the masks was to darken the upper left corner. Both of these were applied as an edit from the starting point rather than a correction trying to reach the starting point.

[paperdigits (Mica)]

@PhotoPhysicsGuy

@wpferguson

If your image is reasonably well exposed, then you really don’t need to mess with it.

But that’s trivial. If my scene has a dynamic range that fits onto my display, theres no need for the module at all. I could use display-referred base curve then. So that’s not the use case, is it? If I paint in the exposures I want locally, why not do this under a LUT? Or asked differently: what’s the raison d’être for the module if not selective reigning in highlights (and shadows) which are outside of display-space?

I read “reasonably well exposed” to mean highlights not blown to hell, not as “fits into monitor dynic range.”

[wpferguson (Bill Ferguson)]

@PhotoPhysicsGuy

But that’s trivial. If my scene has a dynamic range that fits onto my display, theres no need for the module at all.

You’re right. Some images don’t need filmic. I’ve had some images that didn’t need filmic or base curve, and applying either one just messed them up.

EDIT: For a long time my starting point was display referred with no base curve. Some images needed a base curve applied, and some needed filmic and a scene referred workflow. A lot required neither and I tended to use a scene referred workflow without filmic and the starting exposure.

[wpferguson (Bill Ferguson)]

Filmic is in it’s 4th iteration. The starting points for the scene referred workflow (exposure +0.5, exposure compensation enabled, and filmic defaults) were chosen to provide a good default editing start point for most images. Just like base curve, in the display referred workflow, was designed to provide a starting point for editing most images. Base curve wasn’t meant to be adjusted, but it could be if necessary. Filmic doesn’t need adjusted for reasonably well exposed images, which should be most. The difference between filmic and base curve, as far as setting the starting point, are for badly exposed images. Filmic can be adjusted to handle badly exposed images and base curve couldn’t.

[pass712]

@wpferguson

I think most people’s frustration with filmic seems to stem from the belief that it is more than it is.

Exactly ! Filmic simply contains such a lot of nice sliders, bells and whistles. It’s very tempting to use them on every image. We’re spoiled .

@wpferguson

The difference between filmic and base curve, as far as setting the starting point, are for badly exposed images. Filmic can be adjusted to handle badly exposed images and base curve couldn’t.

That’s the way it should be used. By the way: Correctly exposed I doubt that this image needed filmic at all. Clipped highlights aren’t really handled by filmic alone.

[rvietor]

@pass712

That’s the way it should be used. By the way: Correctly exposed I doubt that this image needed filmic at all. Clipped highlights aren’t really handled by filmic alone.

“Correctly exposed” isn’t the same as “has a dynamic range the display/print can handle”. If an image is badly exposed, any tool will have trouble to give a good result. It’s just more pronounced with over-exposure, as there is hard information loss. (with under-exposure, the information gradually disappears in the noise).

Filmic can deal with large variations in dynamic range, which “basecurve” cannot. So several tools are less needed or used differently with filmic as we don’t have to adjust the dynamic range before the scene→display transform.

Landscapes can have rather large dynamic ranges, so you probably will have to adjust filmic to compensate for that. Otoh, a reproduction of a document, or a shadow-less image in general, will have a much lower dynamic range, so there you also may want to compensate with filmic (depending on the image and its intended use).

[s7habo (Boris Hajdukovic)]

@PhotoPhysicsGuy

But that’s trivial. If my scene has a dynamic range that fits onto my display, theres no need for the module at all. I could use display-referred base curve then. So that’s not the use case, is it? If I paint in the exposures I want locally, why not do this under a LUT? Or asked differently: what’s the raison d’être for the module if not selective reigning in highlights (and shadows) which are outside of display-space?

When you use raw file to edit your photos, you want to have complete control to process photo according to your taste.

1. If everything is right with the exposure, filmic gives you a good starting point by giving the very “flat” look of the raw file a look that you know from analog film. This is in fact already the “first” step towards adapting to the human visual experience. If you don’t have to fight with the dynamic range, tweaking just a few things in filmic can be the last processing step.
   And this is not trivial, because by providing this general look, it does not try to mimic any camera specific curves like the base curve, but provides - at least as a base - a consistent look for all photos.You can then decide yourself if you want to keep this look or change the contrast and latitude to a neutral look and use filmic as…

2. … protection of the gamut by changing exposure, adjusting colors and contrast of the photo with scene-referred modules like tone equalizer, color balance color calibration before the filmic. With filmic you can make sure that there is no overexposure or underexposure due that processing.

3. And finally, it also serves as a tone mapper when necessary.

So, you can say that it is a central element for the processing and a reasonable starting point.

LUT are unsuitable for this, because they are hard-coded values, which can be changed only partially afterwards.

With a LUT, you are already locked in from the beginning and don’t have the flexibility to change the look of the photo afterwards. Of course you can always use a different LUT, but that doesn’t change the approach. You always limit yourself to a certain look.