We are in the early days of the DSLR filmmaking revolution, and everyone looks to film/DI (digital intermediary) workflows that have been established for multi-million dollar projects using very expensive cameras that involve many steps and a multitude of specialists. This work-flow compartmentalizes the jobs of Cinematographer, Camera Operator, Camera Assistant, DIT, Colorist, Editor, Lab, and so on. The person exposing the film will not necessarily be involved in every step of this process. The workflow that makes sense in this world is to capture a scene with a wide latitude with a lot of overhead to make corrections in post. Final color looks are rarely “baked-in” on the set.

Then comes inexpensive video-capable DSLRs and the world of micro production and film-making is opened up to a much wider audience. The barrier to entry for creating high-quality cinema-style motion images is lowered, and many photographers find themselves already owning the gear needed for digital filmmaking.

The tricky part has been figuring out the photography/cinematography (PhotoCine) workflow. Photographers search out information on the web in places like DVXUser and other video forums and start piecing together a process that has trickled down from film/TV where the budgets are high and the workload is spread out. This information is adopted on photographer-centric filmmaking forums, and there is suddenly a common wisdom that has taken root (remember the common wisdom/misconceptions for digital stills?).

My problem with this workflow is the fact that files coming out of HDSLR cameras are heavily compressed and use a small chroma sampling. The advice that color experts are giving seems to be counterintuitive to me as a digital photographer. Would you tell a newbie still photographer to shoot her JPEGs flat and correct in post? No, you would tell her that since the look is baked in due to lossy compression, she should treat JPEGs like she would transparencies—getting as close to a final image as possible. My friend Tom Stratton and I have had this discussion many times and end up feeling like outsiders in the HDSLR workflow world. I have spoken with many post-production people whom I trust who tell me not to worry about the compression and reassure me that shooting flat and correcting in post is the way to go.

I am sure that if you are shooting a feature film using a dozen cameras, the shoot-flat workflow could be advantageous, but if you are a still photographer using one or two cameras for a motion ad campaign, you might want to think differently. You would probably want to shoot as close to the final look as possible to minimize the amount of post work and limit problems in the image files by not having to make major color/contrast adjustments later. As a matter of fact, the H.264 format is a finished format designed for uploading to the Internet, so if you needed to, you could deliver quick dailies straight out of the camera without going through any post process. If you shoot flat and correct later, the dailies will have to go through transcoding, color correcting, and then output encoding. Skipping steps to deliver quick uncorrected clips to the client can be a recipe for disaster.

For example, a producer friend was working on a feature for a big studio using a RED ONE camera for the first time. The show was being shot out of town, and the dailies were being sent back to Hollywood uncorrected due to time constraints. Keep in mind that the RED files are close to being in a RAW format and the workflow is usually to shoot flat and process the look in post. The studio freaked out and wanted heads to roll because they thought the dailies looked terrible. I explained what I thought was happening, and that information was sent up the chain to help ease tensions and start a dialogue with the DP and DIT. Of course, the RED footage looked amazing once it was color graded and everyone was happy. The funny part was that another of their out-of-town projects was being shot on Canon 7Ds, and the dailies were coming in great because the look was at least partially baked in during production. The point here isn’t that Canon is better than the RED. It’s that you can’t rely on the kindness of strangers to understand workflow shortcomings due to time constraints and delivering a flat file could cost you work. You would think twice about delivering uncorrected still photos to a client, wouldn’t you?

My friend Neil Smith at HdiRAW works in Hollywood has a saying that deliverables determine the prep. What that means is that once you know your final output (film out, digital projection, Blu-ray, DVD, web, iPod, and so on), you can then determine what camera and workflow best maximize your needs and budget. I know that those of you reading this are shooting amazing footage that you expect to someday be shown to the Academy on an IMAX screen converted to 3D. For you guys, money is no object and making every shoot into a big production isn’t a problem. But for those of us doing it ourselves as a one-man-band on small projects being tagged onto photo shoots that are destined for the web, there might be a more practical work-flow. One that revolves around making decisions during the shooting process and baking in the look to maximize image quality and minimize time spent in post.

I am not advocating that in every instance, everyone shooting HDSLR footage should burn in the look and bypass grading in post. What I am saying, is that the project should determine the workflow and color-grading in post is not the only option—especially for photographer film-makers who are new to post production and working on minuscule budgets with quick turnarounds.

In a controlled environment like on a studio or a set, you have the opportunity to burn in the look and limit your post workflow, which incidentally can give you a cleaner end product since you’re not making large correction moves in post. These files coming out of DSLRs are optimized for loading to the web, so if you take the time upfront to set the look, you can immediately deliver QuickTime dailies that can be uploaded to the web, iPhone, or iPad, or handed off on a drive or disc.

Consider this quote from Shane Hurlbut, ASC, from his blog:

Ask yourself, why am I approaching my work the same way as a feature film and is that approach necessary? Can I think differently and slow down to make the necessary adjustments on the front end of the video process? Pulling out a camera and shooting tons of footage with the plan to clean it up later is called “spraying and praying” in the still world. If your budget is so low that you don’t have the time or the help to do some of the work up front, where is the money coming from to pay for all the post work? There are always workflow tradeoffs. You either spend the time up front or on the back end, but the time has to be spent somewhere. You just have to choose how many of your resources are allocated to which end of the workflow chain.

As a paid professional, you need to account for your time—all of it. Post workflow hours don’t fall off trees. Your workflow boils down to a series of tradeoffs between quality and time—I think the term workaround is more appropriate. It’s a very personal choice that needs to fit within your skill level, schedule, budget, and worldview. If you have time and the budget and are being paid for your post-production time, then shooting flat and relying on color grading in post is the standard workflow. If video editing is your hobby, then a complex, time-consuming workflow probably adds to your enjoyment. If you’re new and dabbling in video with your DSLR, be careful about bogging yourself down with a workflow that might not be necessary for the level at which you are working. Your time is better spent honing your shooting skills and building your reel so you can get paying gigs doing what you intended to do—shoot great imagery.

So where does all that leave you for setting the Picture Style on a Canon or when choosing similar features on other HDSLRs? In the past I used to shoot neutral and then adjust the sharpness and contrast down a few clicks. However, after working with Snehal Patel, I learned that the Faithful picture setting is the closest I can get to a linear image file. The other picture styles add information to the image chain, whereas Faithful gives you what the chip sees without adding an adjustment curve or making any other visual changes.

The Faithful setting will give you a starting point to dial in your look. Don’t be afraid to experiment to find what gives you results that match your vision. Keep in mind that your goal should be to create a repeatable workflow chain that balances your image quality with your production and delivery times.