Why the “milk black” look is now the most abused technique in amateur cinematography

Independent filmmakers constantly strive to have their low-budget films mimic high-budget productions in any way. One of the most common goals of directors and cinematographers is to recreate a “movie look” (something I can certainly relate to!). But unfortunately, in the search for this look, there have been some very unpleasant and cheap looking techniques that have become overly popular in recent years… The first is the overuse of shallow depth of field, a phenomenon that exploded a few years ago when the 5D MK II was first released, but more recently it’s the milky black look that ruined the color of many filmmakers’ artwork.

For those of you who don’t know what I’m referring to when I say a “creamy black look”, I’m simply referring to a color grading technique that features the shadow being crushed to black (when color grading) and then lifted up, Let the black spots of the image never be truly black. Areas of the image that should have been completely black and high contrast are now somewhat cloudy, smoky, or milky. This look works well in some situations, but for the most part it’s completely overused and misused by many amateur photography instructors. Take a look at an example of how it might look in the photo below. First the original shot, then the first level (with crushed blacks), then the final shot with lifted blacks:

raw

broken

milky

Why is this look so popular? As we’ve already mentioned, it’s often associated with a more cinematic or cinematic look, as this technique softens the image in the same way as some types of old film stock. It’s also a particularly easy look to achieve because once you figure out how to do it (it’s really only two steps in any basic color software or NLE), it’s quick and easy to achieve consistent results. In a way, this sounds good on the surface, but it’s not – in fact, I think it’s just the least cinematic thing you can do to your footage in many scenes.

Let’s take a step back and discuss the concept of milky white as it relates to the “film look”. This is indeed far from the truth. Yes, there are some films that have very low contrast and create a milky look, but the vast majority of DPs who still shoot in 35mm stay away from these films unless they are doing something super stylized, which is where this film is used . Additionally, saying that lifted shadows are characteristic of a film’s look completely ignores all of the myriad variations in film stocks. There are many different types of stocks, all of which have their own unique look and feel, and all fit into different stories. Just because a low-contrast look is the easiest to achieve, doesn’t mean it’s the best technique for any given story.

A few years ago, everyone with a digital SLR would shoot wide open to get a razor-thin depth of field, believing it would give their work a more cinematic feel. Ironically, it labeled their work as a digital SLR because it was so over-the-top. The producers would use full-frame cameras to shoot at F1.4, and they would eventually capture shots where only one eye of the actor was in focus. It’s truly a terrible look, allowing the filmmakers to be lazy and rely on selective focus to hide poor production design and composition from the audience by using a shallow depth of field. This aesthetic itself is not characteristic of the film’s look, except for a handful of rare feature films intentionally shot in this style. Shallow depth of field is nice, but in most cases, a very thin, super shallow depth of field is overkill. It just went too far and now the exact same problem is happening with the creamy black exterior.

There’s a lot more food for thought on this subject… Nowadays, high-level DPs and directors who actually shoot on 35mm film often shoot on extremely clean film with very well-balanced contrast. Think back to recent movies like The Master, Django Unchained, The Fighter, or any other big-budget film production in recent years. They all have beautiful contrast, black levels in the right places, and are very cinematic.

Even in a film like Black Swan that intentionally uses 16mm film to achieve a grainier look, the DP and colorist still pay attention to its black levels to ensure that there is still good contrast in the image. Today, the vast majority of films shot on film use extremely modern and clean-looking 35mm film stock, which in many ways is not far removed from high-end digital formats like ARRI RAW.

Great cinematography is born when the DP and director make purposeful choices to serve the story in the best way possible. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to crafting, and every project should be approached in a unique and intentional way. Some pieces may require a cleaner, more clinical look, while others may be better served with an underexposed and subdued color palette. There are no right or wrong choices here, as long as the visual and artistic choices made are chosen based on their specific relationship to the creative project and not simply out of convenience.

That being said, there’s nothing wrong with the creamy black look if used correctly. In fact, I’m a big fan of this look when used correctly, and I use it myself from time to time – but only when it’s relevant to the story. For example, the movie Martha Marcy May Marlene made excellent use of this technique, but it only worked because the aesthetics of the dark world the filmmakers created required it. They didn’t choose to shoot and color this way because it was easy or because others were doing it.

So if you’re going to use this technique, make sure your project really needs it and don’t go overboard. Even just lifting the shadows a little will give you this look, so don’t try to go too far and reduce the image quality!

For a more in-depth look at cinematography techniques, be sure to click the link below to pre-order my Guide to Shooting Cinematic Images with a Digital SLR! Or click here to learn more!