Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting 
Thread started 11 Jan 2011 (Tuesday) 14:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Show us your setup and the final result!

 
Mindeater
Member
47 posts
Likes: 357
Joined Jul 2016
Location: Congleton, England
     
Mar 12, 2017 16:44 |  #10636

bobbyz wrote in post #18299035 (external link)
That is what I thought so how do you guys says my shot was over-exposed? I assume LR will say the same numbers if on my computer and yours. ;-)a

I don't think looking at RGB values to determine whether an image is overexposed should be used as an out right rule. Overexposure is much more a subjective property, and in portraiture is often characterised by the highlights being blown out. It doesn't necessarily follow that they would reach a value of 255, showing they were clipped by the sensor.

The image being discussed does look a little overexposed, to me, looking as though some of the detail has been lost in the highlights.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Pippan
Senior Member
Avatar
844 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 711
Joined Oct 2015
Location: Darwin, Straya
Post edited over 1 year ago by Pippan. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 12, 2017 17:52 |  #10637

Mindeater wrote in post #18299082 (external link)
I don't think looking at RGB values to determine whether an image is overexposed should be used as an out right rule. Overexposure is much more a subjective property, and in portraiture is often characterised by the highlights being blown out. It doesn't necessarily follow that they would reach a value of 255, showing they were clipped by the sensor.

The image being discussed does look a little overexposed, to me, looking as though some of the detail has been lost in the highlights.

If highlights were not clipped at capture, the sensor has not been overexposed and detail is there to be brought out. If you think it's been processed to look too bright or light, that's another thing but it's not over-exposure. Some people call it high-key.


— Please feel free to offer your thoughts on how I might improve my images —

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,402 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 933
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Mar 12, 2017 17:58 |  #10638

Pippan wrote in post #18299168 (external link)
If highlights were not clipped at capture, the sensor has not been overexposed and detail is there to be brought out. If you think it's been processed to look too bright or light, that's another thing but it's not over-exposure. Some people call it high-key.

Precisely.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
18,731 posts
Likes: 888
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Mar 12, 2017 21:36 |  #10639

Pippan wrote in post #18299168 (external link)
If highlights were not clipped at capture, the sensor has not been overexposed and detail is there to be brought out. If you think it's been processed to look too bright or light, that's another thing but it's not over-exposure. Some people call it high-key.

Yup. Problem I think is that too many folks have their displays set to high brightness where shots like I posted look over-exposed. Usually I don't go that high but I am mostly on little more exposure than typical folks. Helps when shooting female subjects IMHO.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmward
Cream of the Crop
8,959 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 1013
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Metro Chicago
Post edited over 1 year ago by dmward.
     
Mar 12, 2017 21:53 |  #10640

bobbyz wrote in post #18298900 (external link)
Just curious, how do you define over-exposed? What kind of R/G/B numbers you guys looking at the face, forehead. Maybe show some sample shots. Look at this shot from Peter. Isn't it similar to what I posted.

http://pdnpulse.pdnonl​ine.com …ps-for-men-and-women.html (external link)

Bobby,
Your headshot isn't over exposed.
The higher key look for women gives their skin a porcelain look that Hurley, Grimes and a lot of other headshot, glamour and portrait photographers strive for with women. One visual key for me, when viewing these images, is the deep black in the pupil and some midtone contrast in the hair with the smooth highlights and skin tones that are higher value. Normal northern European skin is usually considered to be about 75% in Lightroom. Getting it up to mid to high 8X% works. That still leaves some room for highlights. Its also important, in my view, to keep the red and magenta tones under control.

Like this:

IMAGE: http://dmwfotos.com/iibd/wp-content/gallery/denise/DMWA2593.jpg

David | Sharing my Insights, Knowledge & Experience (external link) | dmwfotos website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmward
Cream of the Crop
8,959 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 1013
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Metro Chicago
     
Mar 12, 2017 22:14 |  #10641

Pippan wrote in post #18299168 (external link)
If highlights were not clipped at capture, the sensor has not been overexposed and detail is there to be brought out. If you think it's been processed to look too bright or light, that's another thing but it's not over-exposure. Some people call it high-key.

Over exposure is not simply a matter of saturating a photosite with photons.
The Zone system, and Ansel Adams tonal control of his landscapes is probably as good a lesson about exposure and tonal control as there is in photography.

Tonal control is about getting every tonal value in an image where one wants it for creative intent.
The range we have available is from white with detail (93 or so % in LR) to black with detail (12% or so)
Its the phototgrapher's artistic choice for placing the skin along the tone curve.

IMAGE: http://dmwfotos.com/iibd/wp-content/gallery/home-p/untitled-0841-3.jpg

HERE (external link) is another image (NSFW), same lighting different processing, less high key.

Both images the histogram is well within the dynamic range of the camera.

David | Sharing my Insights, Knowledge & Experience (external link) | dmwfotos website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,416 posts
Gallery: 211 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 3997
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Mar 13, 2017 03:41 |  #10642

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2879/33265700631_ef0c02934e_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/SFzp​QB  (external link) Kenneth Cole New York: Copper Watch (external link) by tltichy (external link), on Flickr


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
riffster
Senior Member
Avatar
366 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 538
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
     
Mar 13, 2017 10:09 |  #10643

Some cigars & guns.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


5DII | 7D | C100mkII | Tokina 16-28 2.8 I Canon 24-70L | Canon 70-200L 2.8 | Canon 85 1.8 | Sigma 30 1.4 www.riffster.com (external link) www.facebook.com/riffs​terproductions (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
71sbeetle
Goldmember
Avatar
3,257 posts
Gallery: 25 photos
Likes: 591
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV
     
Mar 13, 2017 17:12 |  #10644

Thanks again for the tips on the C-stand (had never used them before)
Here is another shot I did for www.magstang.com (external link) they should have a new website coming soon, very impressive car!


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


gareymartin.com (external link)
flickr (external link)
gear list | CPS.
Feedback:
eBay (external link) | POTN
VWVortex (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tc202
Goldmember
Avatar
1,935 posts
Gallery: 435 photos
Best ofs: 8
Likes: 5349
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Florida
     
Mar 13, 2017 20:31 |  #10645

arthurbikemad wrote in post #18298602 (external link)
Where was the flash? :)


Don't worry it was still in the bag :-)


Camera AF Guides:1DX Mark II (external link)5DS/ SR (external link)7D Mark II (external link)
Location Guides: Yellowstone Winter Guide (external link)Fort De Soto Guide (external link)
Instagram (external link)Guiding Services/ Blog: Outback Photo Adventures (external link)- Thomas

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
waterrockets
Goldmember
Avatar
3,867 posts
Likes: 182
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Austin (near TX)
     
Mar 21, 2017 16:33 |  #10646

Alveric wrote in post #18299014 (external link)
As long as the values are not 255 AFTER processing, it's not overexposed.

That's not true. Overexposing happens during the capture, not during post processing. In post, you can drag the ceiling down below 255, and it just makes all of the overexposed portions gray. They're still overexposed though.


1D MkIV | 1D MkIII | 550D w/grip & ML| EF 70-200mm f2.8L| EF 24-105mm f4L IS | Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC | 430EXii | EF 50mm f1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,402 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 933
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Post edited over 1 year ago by Alveric. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 21, 2017 19:42 |  #10647

waterrockets wrote in post #18307215 (external link)
That's not true. Overexposing happens during the capture, not during post processing. In post, you can drag the ceiling down below 255, and it just makes all of the overexposed portions gray. They're still overexposed though.

Please look at (and maybe quote as well) the context of the question I answered with that. Yes, I agree that proper exposure and/or exposure errors happen at the time of capture. Yet you can still end up with an 'overexposed' end product by blowing out the values in post-processing. Some might call it 'overcooking', but it's still 'post-post-processing overexposure' all the same.

See for yourself:

This is the original image with no adjustments applied, other than the WB correction and the profile for the camera (note the RBG and overall brightness values at the main highlight):

IMAGE: http://diamantstudios.ca/Gemeines/Bilder/Examples/Post_overexposure--001.jpg

This is the image with the final post-processing applied (again, note the values in the red square –they have gone up by a few units but they're not blown out, although the red channel is pushing it):
IMAGE: http://diamantstudios.ca/Gemeines/Bilder/Examples/Post_overexposure--002.jpg

And this is what happens with aggressive post-processing –in this case a strong contrast curve (the red channel is blown out, as is the overall brightness, and the green and blue channels would probably print out as blown out as well, what with them being one point shy of 255):
IMAGE: http://diamantstudios.ca/Gemeines/Bilder/Examples/Post_overexposure--003.jpg

Again, the image was properly exposed at the time of capture, but in the last example 'twas nuked during post-processing. THAT is what I was talking about: an image that will have spots blown out (values beyond 255 RBG/100% CMYK) when it's output –especially for print, since paper has a lower dynamic range than screens.

'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FJ ­ LOVE
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
20,874 posts
Likes: 78
Joined Nov 2006
Location: barrie ont. ca
     
Mar 21, 2017 20:34 |  #10648

dmward wrote in post #18299376 (external link)
Bobby,
Your headshot isn't over exposed.
The higher key look for women gives their skin a porcelain look that Hurley, Grimes and a lot of other headshot, glamour and portrait photographers strive for with women. One visual key for me, when viewing these images, is the deep black in the pupil and some midtone contrast in the hair with the smooth highlights and skin tones that are higher value. Normal northern European skin is usually considered to be about 75% in Lightroom. Getting it up to mid to high 8X% works. That still leaves some room for highlights. Its also important, in my view, to keep the red and magenta tones under control.

Like this:

QUOTED IMAGE

not digging it David, the skin looks over exposed to me regardless of what your histogram says, this is not the look I see in fashion and glam magazines, sometimes we need to forget what Peter Hurley does and please ourselves ;-)a


DILLIGAF about your bicycle or your gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmward
Cream of the Crop
8,959 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 1013
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Metro Chicago
     
Mar 21, 2017 22:04 |  #10649

FJ LOVE wrote in post #18307474 (external link)
not digging it David, the skin looks over exposed to me regardless of what your histogram says, this is not the look I see in fashion and glam magazines, sometimes we need to forget what Peter Hurley does and please ourselves ;-)a

To each their own.
My point is that there is a style that wants skin tones to be bright.


David | Sharing my Insights, Knowledge & Experience (external link) | dmwfotos website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmward
Cream of the Crop
8,959 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 1013
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Metro Chicago
     
Mar 21, 2017 22:13 |  #10650

Alveric wrote in post #18307421 (external link)
Please look at (and maybe quote as well) the context of the question I answered with that. Yes, I agree that proper exposure and/or exposure errors happen at the time of capture. Yet you can still end up with an 'overexposed' end product by blowing out the values in post-processing. Some might call it 'overcooking', but it's still 'post-post-processing overexposure' all the same.

See for yourself:

This is the original image with no adjustments applied, other than the WB correction and the profile for the camera (note the RBG and overall brightness values at the main highlight):
QUOTED IMAGE

This is the image with the final post-processing applied (again, note the values in the red square –they have gone up by a few units but they're not blown out, although the red channel is pushing it):
QUOTED IMAGE

And this is what happens with aggressive post-processing –in this case a strong contrast curve (the red channel is blown out, as is the overall brightness, and the green and blue channels would probably print out as blown out as well, what with them being one point shy of 255):
QUOTED IMAGE

Again, the image was properly exposed at the time of capture, but in the last example 'twas nuked during post-processing. THAT is what I was talking about: an image that will have spots blown out (values beyond 255 RBG/100% CMYK) when it's output –especially for print, since paper has a lower dynamic range than screens.

This, in my view, is nit picking semantics.
When I was shooting film, I could over expose the negative based on the manufacturer's guide. Then, depending on how I developed the negatives end up with a negative with extended tonal range and a flattened tone curve or with a negative with dense highlights that were impossible to print.

Alternatively, I could underexpose the paper upon which I was making a print and then keep it in the developer until the silver emulsion was over processed and there was no paper base white visible, even in the border.

Today with digital we have similar alternatives. We can make an exposure in the camera where photo sites become saturated and one or more channels are blocked up. Or we can use the pixel altering capabilities of the processing software to block up a pixel in the output file.

Either can be called over exposure.

Its more useful, in my view, to call photo site saturation over exposure and pixel clipping in an output file as over processing.


David | Sharing my Insights, Knowledge & Experience (external link) | dmwfotos website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,595,719 views & 7,086 likes for this thread
Show us your setup and the final result!
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Gibby391
684 guests, 393 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.