This is another cherry-picked, garbage comparison.
They just took bright exposures from the old movie and compared them to darker exposures from the new movie. And then they heavily cropped the compositions, removed all context from the scene (time of day, light sources, desired mood) and declared the new movie looks terrible—despite only a minute of footage existing.
These examples are in completely different environments.
They could have at least matched scene for scene.
THE TWEET IS FULL OF LIES.
Someone cranked up the exposure of the original movie to 11.
As if someone was trying to create nostalgia rage bait for internet points.
They were correct about one thing, exposure is an artistic choice. A lot of photographers fall into the trap of "correct exposure." You should always trust your eyes over a light meter. And a brighter exposure is not always better.
Contrast is a ratio, not an absolute.
There is a concept called "scene white." Your eyes adjust to different exposure levels and the brightest white in the scene is your brain's reference for contrast. And because contrast is a ratio and not absolute, your eyes will adjust to the exposure of the scene.
You can have two scenes with very different white levels, but the amount of perceptual contrast could be very similar. Your brain goes, "what is the brightest thing and what is the darkest thing?" If the difference is small, you will perceive low contrast. If the difference is vast, you will perceive high contrast.
This looks like a bright exposure on its own.
The "scene white" in the old movie was actually a *tad* brighter. But your eyes adjust and perceive them both as bright.
And if you put them side by side, the brightest white wins and your perception is skewed. If you compare two different compositions with different scene white levels, your eye is going to gravitate to the brighter exposure. Even though, in isolation, you may not notice how much brighter one scene is over the other.
The original movie had plenty of darker exposures with a lower white ceiling.
And not every frame of the old movie was a visual spectacle.
It's actually a bad thing if you make every scene a spectacle. The visuals need to serve the story and if they are constantly overwhelming, that can actually hurt the immersion.
If I cherry pick, I can make the old movie look bad and the new movie look great.
Boy, the old movie sure looked bland.
But look at how much depth the new movie has!
Look at this squished subject composition in the old movie.
The new movie has much more balance and symmetry.
Visual spectacle should be used dynamically—just like music. If music doesn't have quiet parts, the loud parts will have less impact. And sometimes the quiet parts allow you to hear important detail that the loud parts obscure.
The trailer had several spectacle moments.
I have no idea if the new movie looks better or worse. I literally do not have enough information.
But if we're going to edit images for rage bait...
LOOK AT HOW LIFELESS THE ORIGINAL WAS!
The movie needs to be judged holistically. You can't take extreme crops of single frames, edit them to be 200% brighter, and compare them to make any kind of determination.
All they proved is that when people see brighter exposures next to darker exposures, their brain goes, "Ooooh, that one is brighter! I like bright things!"
dailybridgerton
romaincrisis
2087
dededos
