Index  •   • New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment People
Thread started 13 Mar 2005 (Sunday) 14:02
PREV/NEXT

Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

 
serissolutions
Senior Member
serissolutions's Avatar
625 posts

Joined Mar 2005
MORE INFO

Newbie here, been taking shots for about 2 months after reading several books.
I prefer to take artistic shots, low light, harsh side light in dark room.

What do you think about intentionally overexposing a shot for a bright effect? Is it a good or bad idea? Does it make me look amatuer?

Examples:
http://www.serissoluti​ons.com ...ges/Portraits/Myste​ry.jpgexternal link
http://www.serissoluti​ons.com ...ndid/Victorias_Secr​et.jpgexternal linkhttp://www.serissoluti​ons.com ...ndid/Voctorias_Secr​et.jpgexternal link

My wife was sitting in my office with a window behind her and the sun shining through. Looked like a great shot so i took it.

Top of her head is over exposed, too bright. But I thought it looked good.

Can a shot like this sell? Does it look pro or do pro photographers dislike this?

Thanx in advance.

-Albert

Mar 13, 2005 14:02

Pentax ist DS, 18-55mm wide angle and 70-300mm zoom

More of my work:
http://www.serissoluti​ons.com/photosexternal link
http://www.photo.net/p​hotos/albertaguirreexternal link
Add me to your MySpace friends list! I dont want to look like a loser! haha
http://www.myspace.com​/zorro3201external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
karusel
Goldmember
karusel's Avatar
1,452 posts

Joined Nov 2003

Location: Location:
MORE INFO

Er.. underexposing or overexposing a part of the picture definetely does not make it look amateur. In a lot of scenes there just is no other way, you simply need to choose which way you want to go. I see nothing wrong with those shots, and I prefer the BW one.

Mar 13, 2005 14:08

5D and holy trinity of primes. Now the 90mm TS-E TS-E fly bit me. I hate these forums.

LOG IN TO REPLY
serissolutions
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
serissolutions's Avatar
625 posts

Joined Mar 2005
MORE INFO

Karusel, thanx for your input.
Ok I feel better about these shots, I think your right. Sometimes you cant help it but in these it was intentional. I could have changed the situation, diff angle, dropped the window shade and I could have gotten a shot that was night whited out.
But I thought this would make it more interesting.

anyone else?

Mar 13, 2005 14:19

Pentax ist DS, 18-55mm wide angle and 70-300mm zoom

More of my work:
http://www.serissoluti​ons.com/photosexternal link
http://www.photo.net/p​hotos/albertaguirreexternal link
Add me to your MySpace friends list! I dont want to look like a loser! haha
http://www.myspace.com​/zorro3201external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
serissolutions
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
serissolutions's Avatar
625 posts

Joined Mar 2005
MORE INFO

Damn, my wife is not bad lookin for 39 yrs old eh?

Mar 13, 2005 14:38

Pentax ist DS, 18-55mm wide angle and 70-300mm zoom

More of my work:
http://www.serissoluti​ons.com/photosexternal link
http://www.photo.net/p​hotos/albertaguirreexternal link
Add me to your MySpace friends list! I dont want to look like a loser! haha
http://www.myspace.com​/zorro3201external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
AFCop
Member
AFCop's Avatar
188 posts

Joined Dec 2004

Maine
MORE INFO

I agree with Karusel. The overexposed areas don't detract from the overall look of the pics. The focul point of the pics (her face) are nice and evenly exposed. And yes, she is a very lovely lady!:D

Mar 13, 2005 14:44 as a reply to serissolutions's post 6 minutes earlier.

AFCop
Hacked Digital Rebel, 18-55mm Kit Lens, 75-300mm III USM, remote release cable
--That's Air Force Cop, not Auto Focus Cop!!

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
NikonF4s
Member
116 posts
Joined Jan 2005

Auckland, New Zealand
MORE INFO

Dude, if taking cool and artistic shots of your wife makes you appreciate her more, then I say go nuts. The shots are good, the B + W is prob the best in my opinion. You could always expose for the outside light eg. what is coming through the window, and use fill flash to light her face. However, I suspect that you were going for a 'blowy' effect, where it is 'nice and blownout' from behind. Which is cool, especially since you did it intentionally.Dude, if you keep paying your wife complements, especially in front of other people about how well she photographs, you have an excellent opportunity to buy all the equipment, lenses and flashes etc without getting grief for spending too much!

Mar 13, 2005 14:50 as a reply to serissolutions's post 12 minutes earlier.

Mark from Aotearoa

Don't have a Canon DSLR, But I'm gonna get one!
(still haven't got one, my car has swallowed all availible funds - please don't kick me out!)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Columbus ­ Photo
Senior Member
284 posts
Joined Feb 2005
MORE INFO

I think your wife is smoking! Very beautiful! Anyways I like the second picture(besides the fact I work for Victoria Secret :lol: :lol: )

Mar 13, 2005 15:20 as a reply to NikonF4s's post 29 minutes earlier.



LOG IN TO REPLY
Lamplight
Goldmember
Lamplight's Avatar
1,068 posts

Joined Mar 2004

Bellingham, WA
MORE INFO

I like both shots as they are. :) The overexposure in the first one kind of gives it a '70s look. I don't mean that in a bad way at all. :lol:

Mar 13, 2005 16:53



LOG IN TO REPLY
eljustino
Member
245 posts
Joined Jan 2005

London
MORE INFO

I think the degree of overexposure *does* look a little amateur, but it's possibly a digital thing as well - the latitude of good film is one area where film handles this sort of thing better (and I'm not a "film person" - haven't used the stuff for years).

Mar 13, 2005 17:02

Justin Keery. 20D, 17-85 IS, 70-300 IS and f1.8 "nifty fifty". OK so I've got the equipment right at last, time to focus entirely on the photography!

LOG IN TO REPLY
serissolutions
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
serissolutions's Avatar
625 posts

Joined Mar 2005
MORE INFO

eljustino wrote:
I think the degree of overexposure *does* look a little amateur, but it's possibly a digital thing as well - the latitude of good film is one area where film handles this sort of thing better (and I'm not a "film person" - haven't used the stuff for years).

Interesting that your opinion differs.
I could have reduced the exposure and used a reflector to increase light in the face.
Is this what you would have suggested to eliminate the amatuer look?
Any other technique I could have used in this circumstance?
-A

Mar 13, 2005 17:07 as a reply to eljustino's post 5 minutes earlier.

Pentax ist DS, 18-55mm wide angle and 70-300mm zoom

More of my work:
http://www.serissoluti​ons.com/photosexternal link
http://www.photo.net/p​hotos/albertaguirreexternal link
Add me to your MySpace friends list! I dont want to look like a loser! haha
http://www.myspace.com​/zorro3201external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
berto
Senior Member
berto's Avatar
724 posts

Joined Apr 2004

Guam
MORE INFO

seris,

i like the first pic though i think she was staring at the camera too intensely.
overblown sections look nice in pictures if you can place it strategically where it helps the overall scene otherwise its just an overexposed picture. with your wife, looking at her picture, her hair to my right(looking at her) looks pretty good. not too overblown but the left, just overexposed. you might experiment on working on that.

- if you are going to post process your pictures. a good rule of thumb- as i personally found out is. when taking a picture, slightly underexpose if the highlights might be too overblown. its easier to fix an underexposed picture than to recover any details from an overexposed picture.

Mar 13, 2005 19:18

Canon 40D, 50Dx2, e-pl1, 580ex, 580ex2 with special attachment...me.
list of equipment: camera. memory card. lens. camera strap. camera bag. tripod, etc...
http://flickr.com/phot​os/bert671external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Bluelens
Senior Member
Bluelens's Avatar
350 posts

Joined Nov 2002
MORE INFO

Being a fan of overexposing and underexposing I really like the images you posted. I will throw in my head nod with the others that have said the B&W is my favorite of the two. The color is good and adds an aged raw feel (IMHO) but the B&W just captures me more. Good job and leep 'em coming.

Mar 14, 2005 15:10

My photoBlogexternal link
My galleryexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
"What a Tool I am"
drisley's Avatar
8,752 posts

Joined Nov 2002
MORE INFO

I like them both. But, I prefer #2. It's very natural looking. Very nice.

Damn, my wife is not bad lookin for 39 yrs old eh?

Yes of course. And 39 is not old at all.

Mar 14, 2005 16:58

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=680947

LOG IN TO REPLY
charlesu
Goldmember
charlesu's Avatar
4,266 posts

Joined Jan 2003

Somewhere south
MORE INFO

Nice shots. I don't see a problem. But remember that in PS editing you can edit across the tonal range in Curves.

Mar 14, 2005 17:48

Thanks for stopping in and having a look.
Prints of my work are available for purchase. Please contact me offline or thru PM if you are interested.

LOG IN TO REPLY
TexKen
Senior Member
TexKen's Avatar
519 posts

Joined Jan 2005

Fort Worth, Texas
MORE INFO

charlesu wrote:
... But remember that in PS editing you can edit across the tonal range in Curves.

You mean there's more than just the unsharp mask??? Just kidding, but seriously - what does edit across the tonal range mean?

Mar 14, 2005 21:55 as a reply to charlesu's post 4 hours earlier.


>>
Canon 30D | EF 28-135mm IS | 50mm 1.8 | 580 EXII | 430 EX
"Wait... let me take your picture... it won't hurt... much"

LOG IN TO REPLY

1,850 views & 0 likes for this thread
Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment People

NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO THE FORUMS
Registered members get all the features: search, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, own reviews...




SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF    •   JUMP TO FORUM    •   FORUM RULES    •   Index    •   New Posts    •   RTAT    •   "Best Of"    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality. We do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browsers' data storage methods.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.1version 1.1
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00212 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is Katyfawcett
886 guests, 821 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014