Roger Deakins on not using (oh that's right USING postproduction):
Skyfall was no exception. “Sometimes Sam would be watching another monitor and he would make a comment,” Deakins says. “I’d take him over to the DIT’s station and say, ‘That is what the camera is seeing, and I can change it here or in post.’ I think that was very advantageous, and also I think it was nice for Sam...
Oh and by the way, exposing to the right does not change anything about the way you light. The only thing that is changed is how many bits will be allotted to your actual image (or rather to the range of the image with the meaningful information). This happens due to the linear nature if the sensor. Yet again there seems to be a confusion about lighting exposure (ratios of lights etc) and the exposure needed to allow sensor capture an image.
I am not trying to imply that Deakins didn't believe in using the tools available in post production or that it was somehow bad. However, the explanations when it comes to exposure have seemed a bit simplistic and pair that with recommendations I have seen from users that the use of light meter is unnecessary and it can become easy to send the wrong message to people who are still learning the craft.
Proper lighting isn't as simple as dial it down until you don't see zebras. I had a shot of a grassy field that I did that with and the exposure for the grass was very high in the curve. When I brought it down in post something seemed a bit off about it. Could have been my imagination maybe, but it made me wonder should we ever consider exposure that simple? Just dial it down until your just under zebras?
I am not saying that exposing to the right is necessarily wrong but I think it's important that we elaborate on that some. Should I really let important parts of my scene get up in the high 90s? If the brightest part of the image is the most important should I take it that high when exposing? Or should it fall more around in the 80s?
Also, why in the world would we tell someone not to get a light meter because we are shooting RAW? It's seems kind of a silly suggestion considering that this is a cinema camera. I just got my first light meter today and already I feel as though I am better understanding how light falls around a room. Just the few hours I have used it have been very enlightening. I feel like it will ultimately help me become a better cinematographer.
I don't think anyone intends to over simplify lighting and teach bad practices to up and comers but there are a lot of people who might take things the wrong way and decide that instead of proper lighting they just need to expose to the right and "light it in post" using mask in Resolve. The truth is that a manipulation in post isn't the same as an artistically lit set. It will look different. I think Deakins likes that he has the flexibility in post, but unless the film calls for a lot of manipulation (i.e. Oh Brother Where Art Thou?) he prefers to keep things simple. He has been very clear on this point. He has said time and time again that what he gets in camera is very similar to what you ultimately see in the theater. Of course he does add a LUT, but there isn't too much more than that done to his films.
If I light and expose my film in a traditional way without ETTR and keep my post work minimal (adding a lut) is my image going to come out all noisy and crappy? Or is ETTR for when you know you are going to be pushing things around a lot in post?
I think this clarifies Deakins stance on the DI suite:
understand what you are saying and I would fully embrace the 'don't touch my original' maxim if it were really practical. The speed at which most productions are forced to work these days makes the DI, for me, a great tool. As I have said many times, I do very little in the DI suite and I aim to get my 'original' as close as possible to the final result I am after but.... When a white wall is being hit by a hot sun and there is no time to flag it or wait for the light I am quite happy that I have such technology to hand.
There was a shot done on the film 'Cleopatra' for which they waited 6 months. The first time the shot was set, with the cameras ready to roll, the cinematographer realized the sun had shifted and was not hitting the set at the correct angle. 6 months later it was again in the perfect place. I wish I had that kind of control!