Log is Boring

[mercer]

I'm at a point where I ALMOST see no point in shooting log profiles. There are a few good ones, but most require more grading after a utility LUT is applied and/or creates scenarios where everybody's footage looks pretty much exactly the same.

So if you're just slapping on a LUT and calling it a day, for 9 out of 10 shots, you could just use a standard rec709 picture profile and get similar results.

With the advent of 10bit video, in recent years, most standard picture profiles look even better than they ever have with thicker color and near perfect skintones. Sure there are instances when you may need the extra stop or two of dynamic range a Log profile offers, or a specific LUT gets you a relatively quick look by shooting Log, but again... 9 out of 10 times, a slightly tweaked Rec709 picture profile will end up looking better and get you there so much easier without worrying about CSTs and color pipelines... especially since damn near ever Log profile is just trying to emulate Arri LogC which in turn was designed to emulate film.

Speaking of, I have the Arri LogC3 software key on my GH6 and it's pretty good... better than vLog but it's still noisy as hell with ugly chroma noise in the midtones and shadows so I recently went back to CineLikeD and V and I am back to making a couple contrast and saturation adjustments and being happy with it. I'm sure there is a slight hit in DR, but nothing so drastic that I'm surprised or wish I shot in Log instead.

So Log is cool, I'm glad it's available, but it's fairly unnecessary in most situations and can cause a bigger headache.

[Emanuel]

Love your insights, you should post more :- )

[kye]

Definitely agree..  especially considering that if you really want to push the image around, you can convert it to LOG and make changes and then convert it back again.

[MrSMW]

I also get where you are coming from and that is why I bake the LUT into my footage.

I set up all my cameras with 3 basic profiles based on ISO and WB for outdoor, indoor and low-lowlight scenarios.

I say LUT, but there are actually 2x LUTS stacked; the conversion LUT and then my own custom ‘Look LUT’ which can be dialled in anywhere between 10-100%.

It gets the look I want SOOC and it’s as unique to me as these things can be, is easy in the workflow and allows me to concentrate more on the interesting side of editing a film rather than the boring to me, more logistical grading.

Only really works if no one else has a say in the end result and I’m fortunate that I’m my work, the grade is 100% my call.

[fuzzynormal]

On 10/10/2026 at 5:55 AM, mercer said:

I have the Arri LogC3 software key on my GH6 and it's pretty good... there is a slight hit in DR

I just bought a used G9 without the LOGkey.  That little bit of extra LOG DR I'm used to on my GH5 is leaving me wanting to go buy the key for the G9.  It's not much increase in DR, you're right about that, but I do miss not having that little bit of extra juice to squeeze ... and, ironically, I do a lot of Standard profile 8-bit.  So I ain't exactly super discriminating about my footage.

[mercer]

25 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

I just bought a used G9 without the LOGkey.  That little bit of extra LOG DR I'm used to on my GH5 is leaving me wanting to go buy the key for the G9.  It's not much increase in DR, you're right about that, but I do miss not having that little bit of extra juice to squeeze ... and, ironically, I do a lot of Standard profile 8-bit.  So I ain't exactly super discriminating about my footage.

The GH6 is odd because they introduced the Dynamic Range Boost setting that supposedly does a dual iso meld like the Alexa does but it stretches the already stretched image so much that it introduces horrific chroma noise in the shadows and the low mids.  So it's basically unusable without post noise reduction... well to be fair, the in camera noise reduction might fix it but I always dial it down.

They fixed the function in the GH7 supposedly. But for an open box GH6 for $900, I can't complain.

That said, I do think there's a hair more DR with the Arri Log than vLog and probably +1-2 stops compared to CineLikeD or my new favorite Flat profile.

I must say the ProResHQ in every resolution is such a great codec. The files are thick and juicy. If you're ever looking for an upgrade without paying GH7 prices, the GH6 is a weird, yet fun camera. The screen mechanism is a dream. 

[Alt Shoo]

I agree to a degree. I definitely think it can get over bearing and could possibly slow down your workflow. That’s why I shoot mostly burning a custom look in camera, but there are times when you really want to push the boundaries of an image. Whatever it is, I just make sure I’m capturing great images. 

[mercer]

2 hours ago, Alt Shoo said:

I agree to a degree. I definitely think it can get over bearing and could possibly slow down your workflow. That’s why I shoot mostly burning a custom look in camera, but there are times when you really want to push the boundaries of an image. Whatever it is, I just make sure I’m capturing great images. 

I don't know if it's overbearing as much as it's an exercise in futility for at least 60-70% of the shots. But my biggest issue is that the utility LUTs just make everybody's footage look the same. Now I don't necessarily mean anyone on this site, but if you go on YT and watch 90% of the reviewers, their footage all looks the same and a majority of those guys have their own businesses separate from their YT channel.

So to eek out an extra stop or maybe two, depending on the shot, let's shoot Log, slap a LUT on there and call it a day... or do a CST... now it's like I shot with an Alexa... and call it a day.

That just doesn't really interest me anymore. I'd rather have DR limitations I'm forced to work around and get more interesting images.

Just a thought I've been wrestling with. It's not like I'll never shoot in Log, I'm just opening up other options and exploring different color profiles now there's 10bit video in almost any camera. 

[mercer]

On 10/11/2026 at 2:19 AM, MrSMW said:

I also get where you are coming from and that is why I bake the LUT into my footage.

I set up all my cameras with 3 basic profiles based on ISO and WB for outdoor, indoor and low-lowlight scenarios.

I say LUT, but there are actually 2x LUTS stacked; the conversion LUT and then my own custom ‘Look LUT’ which can be dialled in anywhere between 10-100%.

It gets the look I want SOOC and it’s as unique to me as these things can be, is easy in the workflow and allows me to concentrate more on the interesting side of editing a film rather than the boring to me, more logistical grading.

Only really works if no one else has a say in the end result and I’m fortunate that I’m my work, the grade is 100% my call.

This is probably a good workaround, especially for business owners that sell their services based upon a specific, signature look. 

[Alt Shoo]

@mercerits trendy to be a lemming 🙄. And that’s what a lot of personalities on YouTube are doing and once someone enters with non NPC thoughts and actions, you’re berated. That’s what stopped me from posting things on YouTube and social media in general, but I’m getting older and I have worthwhile years in the industry. I sure as heck can voice my thoughts and opinions and shouldn’t give a rats a$$ about what people say. 

[kye]

17 hours ago, Alt Shoo said:

@mercerits trendy to be a lemming 🙄. And that’s what a lot of personalities on YouTube are doing and once someone enters with non NPC thoughts and actions, you’re berated. That’s what stopped me from posting things on YouTube and social media in general, but I’m getting older and I have worthwhile years in the industry. I sure as heck can voice my thoughts and opinions and shouldn’t give a rats a$$ about what people say. 

If watching camera YT has taught me anything, it's that there's no such thing as bad attention.  In fact, if you can stir up some haters, then your videos will get more "engagement" and you'll do better in the algorithm.  The two 'personalities' on YT who keep starting arguments with each other are all the better off for the controversy.

So I say...  post away!

Anyone who brings some experience and/or some nuance to the table will definitely be ahead of the pack, especially for camera-related content.

[Framed_By_Dan]

I only use Log for situations which are relatively consistent throughout the whole shoot. It's not a good profile for run and gun filming. 

My commercial work I can keep pretty consistent so it can be shot in Log, my other work is weddings, I ideally need access to the full ISO range on a camera, I need to work indoors and outdoors, variable colour temperatures and lighting conditions. My wedding clients won't know or won't care if I shot Log or not.

I use a tweaked Natural profile on my Lumix cameras, using 10-bit where possible which makes a huge difference in post if my WB is off. The files are still thick enough to push and pull.

Yes I might only have 9 or 10 stops of DR to play with as opposed to around 12 if I shot in Log but at least it's much less stressful to work with on the day and easier to manage in post. I have a PowerGrade with my signature look ready to go in Davinci which I slap on and Adjustment layer then make minor final tweaks to clips where necessary.

[Benjamin Hilton]

It's all just a workflow thing really. We shoot everything in log and it's easy. We have film simulation grades we've developed in post that we input to the camera as a reference LUT. Then in post that same grade is automatically dropped on in the edit. This means we get a pretty consistent look all the way through the process and grading time is minimal. But I agree if we were just dropping a cst on the footage there wouldn't really be a point to shooting log. 

[kye]

It's great to hear that the people doing real work have taken the time to build a custom look for themselves.

Just another reminder than the muppets on social media aren't really representative of how real people use cameras.

[eatstoomuchjam]

In the last year or so, I've been switching to having my projects default to ACES in Resolve with rec.709 set for the output color space.  It's pretty slick.  Most footage is automatically transformed into the color space by Resolve and a lot of cameras look pretty simple, even without cienmatch.

One bummer is that FilmConvert doesn't support it, but Spektrafilm and Dehancer both do and both are pretty great for finding a base look to work from.

Anyway, if the goal is to have a specific look, even across cameras, it would probably be a decent jumping-off point.

[Ilkka Nissila]

17 hours ago, Framed_By_Dan said:

I only use Log for situations which are relatively consistent throughout the whole shoot. It's not a good profile for run and gun filming. 

My commercial work I can keep pretty consistent so it can be shot in Log, my other work is weddings, I ideally need access to the full ISO range on a camera, I need to work indoors and outdoors, variable colour temperatures and lighting conditions. My wedding clients won't know or won't care if I shot Log or not.

I use a tweaked Natural profile on my Lumix cameras, using 10-bit where possible which makes a huge difference in post if my WB is off. The files are still thick enough to push and pull.

Yes I might only have 9 or 10 stops of DR to play with as opposed to around 12 if I shot in Log but at least it's much less stressful to work with on the day and easier to manage in post. I have a PowerGrade with my signature look ready to go in Davinci which I slap on and Adjustment layer then make minor final tweaks to clips where necessary.

I like log in the sense that it provides an option to shoot in a way that is more akin to color negative film where you expose for the shadows and highlights contain detail so you can shoot a main subject in the shade, see the subject properly on the monitor, and yet there is plenty of details in the highlights. Digital cameras in SDR mode work more similarly to slide film in that you expose for the highlights and shadows then go where they may. If I'm shooting outdoors, SDR works generally well, I just need to be aware of the highlights not too significantly blowing out and make sure the main subject gets good light. Where I like log is if I am indoors and want to see the main subject, and yet retain details in the windows without having to specifically expose for them. I also like the "look" of the log files when the N-Log technical LUT has been applied, it is not too saturated, nor too bland. However, for general use, I've encountered several problems as well. If I use N-Log and have auto WB on (e.g. Nikon Z8), sometimes the white balance seems way off for the main subject. My guess is that this is because the algorithm for Auto WB doesn't actually use the log data instead it calculates it the same way it does for the SDR profile, so highlights are prioritised in the calculation whereas in log profile one would normally expose for several stops into the shadows of the sensor data and the WB then comes from a different place in the image than the main subject is likely to be. So if it is low sunlight under a blue sky, and I expose log nominally at ISO 800, then most of the image will have a bluish tint (if Auto WB is used). If I shoot in the same conditions in SDR profile the correctly exposed part is the highlights and those will look like they have approximately correct WB, whereas the shadows will be dark. Another situation where Auto WB failed to produce a good result was when videographing an operette outdoors under cloudy conditions, the WB was initially correctly set by AWB (thanks to a white church being the dominant part of the background) but when the performers lit some torches as part of the performance, the WB shifted blue for the main part of the image. In these cases, if I had used the SDR profile, the Auto WB would have resulted in correctly white balanced footage. I'm wondering if this is something Nikon can work on and if other manufacturers have dealt with it in a better way (to illustrate that it can be done). 

 

Another issue is the NDs, if exposing log footage nominally at ISO 800, in daylight there are many situations where the use of ND filters becomes necessary to keep the shutter speed reasonable for video. If I shoot in bright sunlight with SDR (mitigating contrast issues with Active D-Lighting set to Normal which is Nikon's tone-mapping algorithm) I can set ISO 64 and use a small aperture (f/11ish) and 50 fps / 1/100 s and won't have an issue with the exposure even without using ND filters. This has worked well in situations where I have to get usable footage without significant editing in varying outdoor natural light conditions during mid day (in Finland mid day sun is not quite as bright as in lower latitudes). This to me is a huge advantage that I don't have to fiddle with ND filters. 

 

Then there is the issue of noise. If one wants to retain that highlight latitude using log and exposing normally (e.g. at EI 800 for ISO 800) then one basically has to accept a bit more noise than if shooting in SDR at ISO 64 and exposing for the highlights. This is not a critical problem as the footage can still look really nice at ISO 800, but when the light gets low, and if one wants to shoot in available light, there is not so much one can do in log mode without the noise blowing up significantly. Yes, there is the second base ISO, but in order to minimize noise, overexposing (and losing that highlight latitude) is probably the way to mitigate noise in low light, so one would set the ISO to 4000 and expose like 2000 or 1000, if available light and apertures available permit doing so. But in log mode I find that autofocus gets more erratic and so I wonder if shooting in SDR mode would result in better results (if using AF, which is the only practical way I could use wide apertures) in the same low light conditions. 

 

Thus my conclusion is that log is great when conditions are such that shooting at ISO 800 is viable, but issues show up both in low light (noise, AF performance) and bright light (use of ND filters required), so do log shooters typically deal with the low light by using lighting (which is fine, but then it basically can result in the need of a crew) and don't mind putting on ND filters as the situation requires (sometimes heavy ND filters if the desire is to shoot at a wide aperture in bright light for visual effect, and this in turn can result in its own issues), and setting WB manually to ensure that the clips come out consistently? It would then seem that log is better for somewhat controlled shoots and for more documentary video of unpredictable events in variable conditions SDR may end up being easier to work with? 

[Framed_By_Dan]

2 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

Another issue is the NDs, if exposing log footage nominally at ISO 800, in daylight there are many situations where the use of ND filters becomes necessary to keep the shutter speed reasonable for video. If I shoot in bright sunlight with SDR (mitigating contrast issues with Active D-Lighting set to Normal which is Nikon's tone-mapping algorithm) I can set ISO 64 and use a small aperture (f/11ish) and 50 fps / 1/100 s and won't have an issue with the exposure even without using ND filters. This has worked well in situations where I have to get usable footage without significant editing in varying outdoor natural light conditions during mid day (in Finland mid day sun is not quite as bright as in lower latitudes). This to me is a huge advantage that I don't have to fiddle with ND filters. 

 

Thus my conclusion is that log is great when conditions are such that shooting at ISO 800 is viable, but issues show up both in low light (noise, AF performance) and bright light (use of ND filters required), so do log shooters typically deal with the low light by using lighting (which is fine, but then it basically can result in the need of a crew) and don't mind putting on ND filters as the situation requires (sometimes heavy ND filters if the desire is to shoot at a wide aperture in bright light for visual effect, and this in turn can result in its own issues), and setting WB manually to ensure that the clips come out consistently? It would then seem that log is better for somewhat controlled shoots and for more documentary video of unpredictable events in variable conditions SDR may end up being easier to work with? 

This is where Log doesn't work for me filming weddings. I am constantly outdoors, indoors, outdoors, indoors. 

Even my favourite Nisi Variable ND (which unlike most filters, starts at 1 stop of light reduction) will cause issues if I need to quickly ramp up the ISO indoors for a dimly lit situation. If I can shoot at a stop lower than I'd need if I had ND it can potentially save a shot from being too noisy.

The slightly more crushed look of a Rec 709 profile can help mitigate any visible noise over a Log profile.

I'd rather "shoot as I see" than constantly think about exposing at a stop over in Log.