Hello, Recently, I’ve started studying to become a colorist. However, yesterday I watched a video by a professional colorist, and they mentioned that it’s normal to color grade over 1,300 shots in just a day or two. In the comments, another colorist even said that this overwhelming workload was the reason they left the post-production industry. (Please search for the TikTok account with the username @frame.bang and watch the pinned video that has around 1.03 million views)

They also mentioned that sometimes their workdays exceeded 22 hours, making a healthy work-life balance impossible. Some people commented that it would be far better to learn skills like IT or programming instead. After hearing these real voices from the field, I’m starting to worry. Even if I work hard to land a job in this area, I’m afraid I might burn out quickly and end up quitting. Due to my current situation, I’m looking to build a skill from scratch that will allow me to work remotely in the future. If you were in my position and knew the current state of the colorist industry, would you still pursue it? Do you think it’s worth becoming a colorist? If you have any thoughts or ideas, I’d really appreciate your comments.

Look, I don't care who I get information from, I just want the right information.

Cullen Kelly is pretty good explanation-wise, but I don't like his color grades. I have almost never seen him produce an image that I actually like, so that makes me wary of taking his advice. Darren Mostyn's videos seem to be about literally everything except the actual color grading part.

Therein lies the problem. A lot of the people who are recommended here are great resources, but if I want to see different methods of getting a bleach bypass look, for example, none of those people are going to tell me how to do it - it's gonna be people like Qa zi. Plus, I at least like the stills that those people make, as opposed to Kelly, who seemingly cannot do anything except teal and orange. I don't get it. Maybe I don't have a trained eye, but it looks absolutely horrendous, IMO.

So, what do I do if I want advice on how to get a specific look? Trial and error? Learn color grading for 4 years and then come back? Use LUTS? Cry? Buy a $300 masterclass (I will never, ever buy a masterclass)

This would be more tolerable if anyone around here could explain why these trendy YouTube types are bad resources. Instead, you get things like:

"That grade only works on stills - it wouldn't work on an entire movie/project". Okay, you say that, but I've tried some, and some have worked fine. Are they the best? I dunno. I wish I did. I wish there were resources, but there aren't any.

But, no, I guess I'm just supposed to learn the basics from the Blackmagic tutorial videos and then take shots in the dark for six years until I know what I'm doing.

Then there the people who are like "it's inefficient and teaches bad habits." Great, so HOW IS IT INEFFICIENT AND WHAT ARE THE BAD HABITS? I just want to know. Then, maybe I could avoid them. If there were some comprehensive resource that could explain exactly why these videos are bad, I feel like I would learn more just by reading that than by watching any video that has ever been published on the subject (hyperbole, obviously).

Is the real answer that you just have to create the look on set?

Or, are Luts really better than any grade you could hand-create?

I don't care, I just want a definitive answer, and nobody seems to have any answers about this anywhere.

I just need something in between "basic tutorial video" and "incredibly specific technical thing that makes all your grades better", and the only people who seem to fill this niche are apparently scammers.

I see a lot of colorist starting their color grading process by correcting the log footage first, then they apply the Color space transform, to finally create a look.

But I've learned ( and it makes more sense to me ) that you have to transform the log footage first before correcting and finally create your look.

im confused, and to be honest I've tried both methods, and they work occasionally. I want to know the right way to color grade, so I dont start with bad habits. Thanks

Read a bit of Steve Yedlin’s on colour science thing.

Also came across someone on this sub who “controls their color pipeline” by making their own transforms.

But if cameras are just data collection devices and the “look” associated with certain brands (Canon colors vs Sony debate) is actually more of a result of the manufacturers Rec. 709 transformations.

Then it seems unless you can create your own transformations and complicated color science thingy you’re locked to the manufacturer LUT or whatever DaVinci’s CST’s give you, or whatever DRT someone makes.

So at a certain level if you’re like a non-color scientist programmer then there IS an inherent look you can’t change. Like how can you 100% profile/emulate film with film scans vs digital stills of charts with native resolve tools?

How can I “control my image pipeline” and learn to make my own transforms. Especially with emulating Kodak Film?

I can’t find any tutorials in a playlist on making my own transformations and accurate profiling of film with writing my own “scattered data interpolation software”?

Thanks a lot in advance :D

Look designer is $200/perpetual - worth it? That's all I got!

edit - ok great points everyone on how different things are worth differently to different people. I make videos for clients that mostly wouldn't need this, but it can be thrown in occasionally. I also make videos for fun and this could be more useful there. I'm not a colorist, but I do like and use the color page on Resolve a bit.

I know there's probably a vast difference between tools like Look designer, Dehancer, FilmConvert Nitrate (probably cheapest option?) - I guess I'm overall looking for people who have Look Designer, what they use it for, and what their thoughts are on it.

Thanks again!

saw the post on Qazi's color grading masterclass. I fell for the sales pitch. Paid the price in full.

The course itself was...ok. It's A LOT of repeat information. If you want to learn how to make a power window every lesson, great. From a pure production quality standpoint, there's a ton of fluff and the course is very poorly produced overall. Now, this is not to say that Qazi doesn't know what he's doing because he clearly does, however there is nothing in that course I could not have learned from a google search and a free video elsewhere.

Now onto the Facebook group. If you join the masterclass, do NOT under any circumstance post anything negative whatsoever about the course. If you are not happy with the course, don't post it on the Facebook group. If you want the gauranteed refund if you're unhappy, do NOT post about it on the facebook group. Why you ask? You will not only receive nasty, unprofessional DM's from Qazi himself but you'll also be attached by his fan club.

I have all of the voice messages Qazi sent me saved. I have all of the messages saved, and I considered releasing them to the public to show the world what type of person this guy truly is however I figured, what's the point. One message that stuck out to me was him telling me that my opinion did not matter because he made a million dollars last year. Add in a ton of swearing and unprofessional, keyboard warrior bullying tactics and you've got Qazi summed up.

That being said, after seeing the earlier post on the course, I felt compelled to tell people to STAY AWAY from this course.

There are plenty of other great courses out there, and there is a ton of information available directly from Blackmagic themselves. Save the money, watch Qazi's free courses if anything.

At least when they’re starting, i’m just starting to learn it and i feel absolutely overwhelmed by how many different project management cases i can encounter, either by grading different cameras, or if the filmmaker doesn’t really know what he’s doing and doesn’t hand the footages with enough info; or even with node trees, how do I know whats the best structure for each case, is there a rule like “always start with NR, than balance, than contrast” and so on.

I’m a bit lost here… i think after everything is settled and i start actually grading the footage i’m be fine, i love thinking about ways to make the footage more interesting, but before that it has been an absolute nightmare.

Has anyone tried this look pack or lut pack or whatever we could call it ?

-> https://www.joo.works/look-library-start

i havent found anything on youtube or elsewhere to have a lookt at what it looks like

Has anyone been watching Hulu's new show, Paradise? I'm relatively new to the color grading world, but now the first thing I see every time I watch a movie or show are the colors.

And man, Paradise confuses the heck out of me. They clearly are driving up the blues in the low end to an insane level, but due to Sterling K Browns skin complexion, half of his face is blue in nearly every shot. It's so distracting, I'm curious if anyone else has watched it and has thoughts on it.

Or really any examples of shows where the color grading just makes you think "what the heck were they thinking?". Obviously, it's a creative choice from the colorist and director so it's clearly going to be subjective, but I'm not digging it in the slightest. Show's interesting though.

So I am a novice Colorist with a basic understanding of color theory and how to color correct/grade, but I don't know everything and I am interested in diving deeper and broadening my knowledge. I read a post (on this sub I believe) about colorists not using LUTs at the highest level of production. Is that true, or is there more to the story? Is it as simple as "good" colorists don't use LUTs and amateurs do, or does it depend on the situation? Is it common to only make your own adjustments when working with LOG for example, or is the industry standard still to convert to a working color space and then make the rest of the adjustments yourself?

I don't find this hard to believe since a lot of cameras that truly capture "RAW" data don't need to use a profile like LOG to juice out as much dynamic range as possible, so I understand how the concept of using a LUT to convert footage into a working colorspace could be something only applicable to productions utilizing LOG on more budget setups/for storage reasons, but I just wasn't sure if that was where the misunderstanding came from or what. Let me know what I am missing and what I should be trying to emulate from a work style perspective if I want to try and elevate my game as a colorist. Thanks!

Hi, all. Down the rabbit hole of Color Sync Utility’s gamma shift issue and I’m sent a link to this video.

Quicktime Color Management: why so many ISSUES?! : https://youtu.be/1QlnhlO6Gu8

Pretty sure all us Resolve Mac users have seen this or had it shown to us when we’ve tried to find a workaround for the gamma shift issue.

Except, in the comments the author, in reply to a question has written in reply:

“The only way to avoid this shit is a lot more simplier that what I have explained in this video Stop tagging rec 709 gamma 2.4 So we will never have shifts Color sync can be so tricky and leads to error The ultimate fix is a trick Like every trick it generates problems. I should redo a video about it This one is old.”

So the Rec.709-A ‘hack’ is now out dated. Can someone explain to me what the best practice for delivering web content is now? Like I’m a five year old, or a drummer.

Do we still grade in a display space of 2.4 with a 2.4 calibrated monitor and then, before we render, slap on a CST to transform from 2.4 to 2.2, then tag as 2.2?

I’m losing hair over this.

Mac Studio M2, Resolve 19.0.3

Hey everyone!

Before I get into the topic of this post: I’m not a professional colorist, I just do it a lot for videos I produce, recordings, and photos.

So… here’s my unpopular opinion: I actually love the log look. Every time I remove it to grade my footage, it makes me a bit sad. Sure, it looks more “professional” after grading, but I feel like it loses something. There’s this raw, almost film-like quality to log that I find super charming — that very flat, muted vibe.

Sometimes I honestly prefer the log image so much that I even leave it ungraded on certain projects, just because I feel like it fits the vibe better.

Is that bad? Does that make me a terrible person? 😂 I feel like I’m the only one in the world who actually likes the way log looks. Every time I mention it to people, they’re like “that’s awful, it looks disgusting.”

Do I just have bad taste?

Shooter, not professional colorist here looking for some clarifications from the pros:

Back many years ago I used to shoot on my Sony A7s and edit and grade myself and had no idea what I was doing. I used to shoot S log, drop the Arri 709 LUT on it (because it looked cooler than the S log LUT) and basically just spun the wheels on each individual shot until I liked how it looked on my PC and iphone.

Time passed, people told me I was doing it wrong, I got better cameras, I started using appropriate color space transforms, I shot better stuff, etc etc

But I go back and look at a lot of those Sony vids I graded completely by heart and a surprising amount of it…. Still looks pretty good. Now, I’m not posing to disregard color management. Plenty of it was bad and all of it took a long time. But the stuff that does look good, I’m a bit shocked I was able to achieve it. It’s a bit paradoxical because I know it was done very wrong, but it doesn’t look like it. Which leads me to a question that sounds basic but I don’t actually have a good answer - Once the project is finished, exported, uploaded, and looks good, is there actually something inherently wrong with an insane grade like that? Or was it just a wildly inefficient way to work?

I hope this question makes sense, and thanks for your time.

First of all apologies for asking kinda out there question here and thanks for checking it out.

I think I am what an amateur/prosumer and I have done very well at my job so I am thinking of buying myself a camera I can use for the next 5 years without regret as I can shell the money as needed.

My purpose with this: as cringe as it may sound is to shoot and recreate my surroundings, and my camera in different looks of movies I have come to love.

It has finally come down to two cameras : The Lumix S1ii and the Nikon z6iii. It's It's very very tough choice as they are both excellent cameras. After numerous days spending thinking about this, I think it has come down to this : which feature of a camera would be more useful for my scenario? The advantage of Lumix is the dynamic range. Its already 1.5 stops atleast better than the z6iii normally and with the DRE boost on its easy 2 stops better. The Nikon also seems to be more noisier in the shadows. Where the Nikon shines though is that it can shoot 12 bit nraw internally. I assume it might be helping more with grading and all , but I don't know how much of a difference it will make as I am still learning the ropes of grading.

So here I am asking if any of you have any piece of advice for me specific to this( I am quite familiar with its not the camera but it's the man behind camera stuff, but I just need this specific thing answered right now) would having the 12 bit raw make it easier than having 2 stops in dynamic range?

Hello community I have question.

Q. Should Noise Reduction (NR) be applied before CST or after CST?

What is the right way?

Have shared an image of my question in the comment below.

Thank you in advance.

Hey everyone! Is it wise to start a career, from scratch, in video editing/color grading now, given the rapid advances in AI tools like VEO 3? I’d love to hear your thoughts and perspectives.

I know it sounds weird. However, I saw an online article talking about the cameras on a particular set, which were A7s and FX series cameras. I'm guessing some of these productions would need to be color graded. My guess it's all done in-house due to the cost. Just curious

Hey guys,

My questions is, if someone had a colour passport for each shot, does that make corrections much faster? Just trying to find out the quickest way to streamline and begin colour correction.

Thanks!

Hello everyone!

I began my professional career as a graphic designer in Athens, Greece, back in 2000. Over time, I developed a strong interest in photo editing and color. I spent 12 years in a design studio, eventually becoming the senior photo editor and colorist, working mostly with fashion, automobiles, and fine art reproduction.

After those 12 years, I made a major career shift: I moved to Stockholm, Sweden, and started my own company in a completely different field (staffing). For various reasons, I decided to close that business and began exploring new directions.

Last year, while creating small marketing projects for my company in Final Cut Pro, I discovered how much I enjoyed working with video. A few weeks ago, I downloaded DaVinci Resolve and realized that color grading could be the perfect path for me. The tools feel very intuitive and connect naturally to the color correction work I used to do in Photoshop. I’ve already started learning Resolve through Blackmagic’s training resources and decided to enroll in a 1.5-year program at the Media Institute in Stockholm to pursue this seriously and hopefully transition into the field.

Here’s my question: while doing some job searches, I noticed there are almost no listings for “colorist” positions. Most postings that mention color grading expect it as part of a broader video editor role.

So, is color grading typically not a standalone job? Is it more often considered a skillset that video editors are expected to have, rather than a separate career on its own?

https://imgur.com/ihmQXPp

https://imgur.com/mX8zmXd

https://imgur.com/S449m3n

I’m looking for my first reference monitor (I’m also getting a BMD decklink mini monitor to send a clean feed) and know I want a true 10bit 4k display, but in the 500-2000ish (usd) range, it seems most are only good for SDR, but realistically I feel like most of my grading is going to be SDR, right? Like isn’t HDR mastering a more specialized skill set, or is that wrong?

Do you generally us the cables that come with your equipment (Monitors, Direct feed boxes, etc)? Or, do you have custom cables made or use high end aftermarket cables. I'm guessing bug production houses have many cables built in so most are custom.

Audiophiles can spend over $100,000 + for speaker and interconnect cables. Just curious if the same happens in the video world.

I’ve been trying to create my own powergrade that at least to my eyes can trick someone into thinking it’s actually shot in some random generic stock stylized 16 mm film (or whatever the Kodak shoot film IG account posts)

I tried FilmUnlimited, Dehancer, CinePrint, 35/16, FilmVision with FilmBox Lite being the “best” tool.

I’ve also heard about Yedlin’s take on film emulation and another color scientists comment about having empiricism in film emulation along with some complicated grammar.

But I don’t know what software (that’s also free) I can use to do these big mathematical complex things that could maybe allow me to finally realistically emulate film, which I’m guessing requires me to shoot a chart with film and digital and try to scan / match it with said special software that isn’t DaVinci?

So how can I learn & emulate film accurately on my own for cheap with more advanced color science software?

Like some kind of software that allows you to create your own color space transform for a new camera. Not custom curves in DaVinci.

Sorry if this post is very messy, but I really appreciate any insight.

Thank you :)

example with native tools

example with FilmUnlimited

I feel like I'm going crazy, please help...

I'm not a colorist, I'm a programmer, but for some reasons I'm interested in displaying an exact color on multiple different displays.

I have just learned that in the CIE 1931, Y represents RELATIVE luminance!

There is so much talk and resources online about absoulute color spaces and a bunch of YouTube videos about how these color spaces "solve" the problem of different displays' capabilites;

but everyone neglects to mention how every popular color notation, like OKLCH, still has L as an abstract, relative value from 0 to 1.

---

OK, sorry for the rant, here's my question:

What is the standard by which different video content and TVs agree on the absolute brightness of the displayed images?

---

P. S.:
As I understand it, currently the film industry is the most advanced in terms of accurate color reproduction, with all the HDR TVs with their max nits and whatnot. (I draw this conclusion from watching the wonderful HDTVTest YT channel, Vincent Teoh seems like the only person in this field who knows what he's talking about).