Personal View site logo
Skyfall's boring color grading-Is it just me?
  • So I just recently watched Skyfall and was curious about the cinematography of Roger Deakins. After all the praise I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. And no doubt, Deakins shot a beautiful movie. Parts of it are truly amazing to look at, especially the tense sequence in the abandoned building in Shanghai where he uses glass, lightning and tons of reflections to create an amazingly dense atmosphere that's just artistic enough to be noticed without taking you out of the story.

    But is it just me, or is -again- an example of our modern addiction to the teal & orange look?! Is it just because I now that I know this look I spot it more often, or is it a real change in the way we light and color our films these days. Skyfall literally is drenched in the duo tones of teal/blue & orange. It's in the lightning, set decoration and costumes. There was hardly a scene with any other dominant color. Maybe some greens in the scotland-scenes and that's about it.

    I can't deny the film looks gorgeous but to me that look really is starting to become boring and predictable. I remember a cool blogpost which addressed this problem (http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.nl/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html) in 2010, but so three years later we still have all these blockbusters bathed in blue and orange tones.

    I understand the theories behind it, how it creates great contrast, how skin-tones pop etc. but I just don't see the artistic value of making everything look 'the same'. The movie Drive also had these tones in abundance, but at least there it related to the characters and their emotions. In films like Skyfall it just feels boringly plain as a simple 'blockbuster look'.

    It's like a weird full-circle thing. We started out filming in black and white, then we went on to color, and after a few decades we decided that blue and orange are the greatest colors ever, so again we now are filming in monochrome/duotone with blue and orange instead of black and white...

    Should we start campaigning to save the greens, purples etc. from extinction?

  • 14 Replies sorted by
  • Drive also had some really nice reds. I hear what you're saying, and I notice as well that this complimentary duo tone is pretty much the current standard look for DI, kinda like the way everyone went bleach-bypass look for a while.

    As pretty as some of these modern films are (and I absolutely love everything about Drive) they've made me really appreciate the look achieved pre-DI with fewer radical possibilities through photo-chemical timing and more of the inherent look of individual film stocks preserved. Just pop in a BD for your favorite movie from the 70s/80s/90s and you'll be almost be shocked by the tones present in the image, in flesh tones and lips in particular and fewer orange people running around.

    I watched Fight Club the other night, for the first time in a long time and it was almost like parts of my eyes that had gone to sleep from lack of stimulation suddenly were awake.

    The Dark Knight Rises is a very contemporary film that didn't succumb to the duo tone look. It's still very neutral by comparison with lots of deep, saturated reds and natural color. I seem to recall reading that they specifically graded in their DI to photo-chemical specs.

  • Yeah, the Dark Knight Rises was an example that popped in my head also as one where the tones were much more varied than blue & orange. In a way DI is a double edged sword, like CGI; if you can do anything, especially if you can adjust and alter anything at anytime, you're bound to lose something creatively as you are less challenged in the moment, less open to accept accidents as gifts and might see surprises as unwanted ('lensflares are nice, but if I want them, I'll put them in in post).

    Still; as I'm slowly learning Davinci Resolve, I can't help to be amazed by the tools to learn & master and how you can 'work' on your image so much after a shoot. Hopefully we'll learn to appreciate other color-combinations than teal and orange eventually!

  • Teal and orange is one thing, mostly seen in stuff aimed towards the cinema and a few tv-series. My worst look is the "lazy alexa" look. In other words, a flat, hazy, often with excessively short DOF and often with Zeiss master primes and often with "lazy" lighting. The name comes because this or something close is what you get if you rent an "alexa" at a rental shop, use it like a dslr, shoot prores and don´t bother doing any extensive coloring, not to mention add any amount of contrast or texture to the footage.. It´s like a highly contagious eye-sore on tv and the cinema!

    There´s good looking stuff coming from the alexa of course, but 90% looks shit. At least in my part of the world.

  • @rrrr is the new HBO show Girls an example of that flat Alexa look to your eyes? I think I understand what you're describing. Though many of my favorite styles of cinematography might lean towards that flat-look. And to a certain extend I do enjoy the flat-look of, for example, Girls, and understand how it fits their style and story.

    But then, there's a difference between designing a look that feels natural & realistic, and just not working on your shots. Like reading a script and choosing to deviate from it, or not reading it at all and just doing something.

  • The Following is an absolutely great looking show shot on Alexa. That one example does much to prove there is no "Alexa look". In fact there is no "lazy Alexa" look there are lazy colorist looks. "LUT jockeys" as I've heard them called. The flat, hazy cast is a danger with all LOG-based cameras if the colorist doesn't handle them well.

    To make matters worse, shows are often broadcast with a flat, hazy look baked in, my guess from the bad old days of crap broadcast standards that have, for whatever reason, remained even though everyone is watching on a digital set these days. There's virtually no difference between a modern TV and computer display. Rec709+"broadcast range" is a bad joke but on top of that broadcasters often seemingly double the setup, at least in the States.

    I couldn't help but be blown away by how much better The Walking Dead looks on BD versus how disappointed I was when it was broadcast and how, ironically, I thought it was the worst looking show on AMC from a photography standpoint. It was just how they were broadcasting it tuned for old people somehow watching on a B&W television I guess.

  • For the duration length of the movie, it also helped as being a "refresher". Otherwise I enjoyed the movie and didn't focus much on anything else.

  • @BurnetRhoades You are correct in that there´s a bunch of lazy colorist looks. The bottom line is that alexa footage is mistreated in a majority of cases and that only adds to what might be more of a producer issue; saving up on lighting e.t.c. advocating very shallow DOF or anything that might lessen the amount of lights and time needed for each shot. In the end we get a LOT of end products which looks like DSLR, the expensive way. It´s not just shows, it goes for many, many commercials as well. Ugly as hell.

    @Reinout I wouldn´t put Girls into that category even if it´s sort of flat; they have generally taken a lot of care in lighting setup and they don´t use excessively shallow DOF (which only smears a low-con / muted look). I haven´t watched it in any optimum conditions though.

    One of the nicest looking shows I´ve seen on TV lately - Les Revenants, does indeed use both the Alexa and an emphasis towards teal and orange. However, the set seems to be the French Alps so it´s not your normal (boring) teal and orange. There´s plenty of green, and punchy red too.. Enough contrast and it´s all very well matched to the context of the show.

  • @RRRR even film standard is undergoing the same situation. I was really dissappointed with Les Miserables, shot on 35mm film Arri Studio/Lite. Stupid stupid DOF, stupid colours, and I better not talk about anything else that went horribly wrong in that movie. I'd need a lot of time for that.

    My personal view, is that it is a little involution in the 7th art, which as everything, has a lot to do with the economical crisis, social movement and the social perspective of the future. Just like under any big social movement, wether it's a positive or a negative one, art also goes better or worse. But I believe it's temporary...

    Some other productions (as the ones you recall), are already standing up, trying to do best. But still it's nothing too impressive, nothing looks as per say "spectacular", it's OK or good most of the times, nothing else.

    Yeah that makes DSLR footage much closer to proffessional standard most of the times, when there's good innovative people behind the cams, and also, good proffessionals and colorists. And producers.

  • @RRRR I'd actually say, bottom line, this isn't an Alexa issue they're just a very popular camera right now. Go look up the specs on mainstream, decent budget, all-digital project and odds are you're going to find either Alexa or one of the RED cameras involved. That look is given to them though. It has nothing to do with the camera.

    In fact, these looks originated from digital IP work on film-based projects that predate most of these cameras.

    I don't agree that the duo-tone look, which could now be replicated faithfully with an Instagram-level filter and given as a prize inside every box of Cracker Jacks, is ugly. It works quite well, I think, and is quite pleasing, consistent with its complimentary color theory and all the science and psychology behind that. But it's so ubiquitous and homogenized now to the point of being boring.

  • @BurnetRhoades

    The look has nothing to do with the camera you say? I beg to differ. Neither RED nor Arri nor anyone else as far as I know make cameras that behave like blank papers. If worked on, then the differences are minute. With very little post work and standard settings, most cameras are quite easily recognizable. Yes, I get that people preapply LUTs to their alexa prores footage but the bottom line is; a LOT go for the same or nearly the same, flat, boring - near "out of the box" look which makes me angry as I have to watch it, way too many times. It´s lazy and you can´t associate that kind of look to any digital IP work on film-based projects that predate the cameras simply because at that time it wasn´t used AS much, it was a tool in the box. When a tool gets used without any consideration of the implications it´s aesthetic has; it´s lazy. When a tool gets used in a majority of productions without any consideration of it´s aesthetic - it´s a disease. Name it any way you want.

    Then there is the issue of texture. Out of the box, it is different for different cameras. processed, it´s much harder to tell what is what.

    Ugly is a perception based on context. If duo-tone orange/teal wasn´t overused it might not be so ugly. Especially if the context advocated that kind of look.

  • @RRRR no film camera is a blank paper. Each film stock has its own response, it's own signature look. You're thinking far too myopically.

    If a look originates with FILM-BASED DIGITAL IP it has absolutely NO correlation with any particular digital camera. That is a simple, basic truth.

    edit: *also, there are thousands upon thousands of films shot on film, that look like nothing special, flat, flashed, boring, using the same cameras, same stock, same lenses as other films that look fantastic. This isn't a new phenomenon. This isn't specific to any camera, at all. *

  • @BurnetRhoades

    *also, there are thousands upon thousands of films shot on film, that look like nothing special, flat, flashed, boring, using the same cameras, same stock, same lenses as other films that look fantastic. This isn't a new phenomenon. This isn't specific to any camera, at all. *

    Absolutely!

    My point though, is that what looks bad and good (except for a few general agreements that span over time) is highly contemporary. In a time and age when a LOT of tv-productions (and many other productions too) is shot on one and the same camera, it´s exhausting it´s "freshness". The same happened with the "DSLR revolution" and other capturing media / devices before that. Years down the line, people will be remembering certain cameras / looks with nostalgia and films which do not look exciting today might be a lot more appealing.

    Each film stock has its own response, it's own signature look.

    Exactly.

    If a look originates with FILM-BASED DIGITAL IP it has absolutely NO correlation with any particular digital camera. That is a simple, basic truth.

    You can´t change the TEXTURE of a certain digital camera, nor alter time related effects. This all adds to a look. Not just it´s color/light response. With film the camera is just a "container".

  • You can´t change the TEXTURE of a certain digital camera, nor alter time related effects. This all adds to a look. Not just it´s color/light response. With film the camera is just a "container".

    ...and with digital the camera is the stock. I don't agree though that you can't change the "texture" of a digital camera, unless you're going for some esoteric use of the word besides a spatial quality. After noise-reduction, contrast and sharpness enhancement and then an application of either synthetic or scanned "grain" the original structure inherent to the camera is gone, utterly, and it would only be through knowing via log or record or first person witness to the process, from that point on, that you could know what image came from what camera.

    On a GH2 you don't even have to go that far since even raw, unaltered footage is so varied thanks to patches and the near infinite combinations of lenses being used.

  • I was going back through ACM back issues online today, looking for which one had an article on the shooting and processing for Tony Scott's DOMINO and was kinda surprised to see an archived article on The Dukes of Hazzard of all things.

    I didn't recall off the top of my head what this movie looked like, or why it might be worthy of a technical article in ACM, so I went looking for the trailer:

    http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedukesofhazzard/

    ...there it was, an early version of the duo-tone. That's 2005, shot on Super-35 and DI'd. I only remembered noticing it as far back as the Transformers movies.

    I still haven't found which issue has DOMINO...hrumph.