Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

[serissolutions]

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.serissolutions.com/photos...ts/Mystery.jpg
http://www.serissolutions.com/photos...ias_Secret.jpg

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

[karusel]

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.

[serissolutions]

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?

[serissolutions]

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

[AFCop]

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!

[NikonF4s]

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!

[Columbus Photo]

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

[Lamplight]

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.

[eljustino]

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).

[serissolutions]

Originally Posted by eljustino

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

[berto]

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.

[Bluelens]

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.

[drisley]

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.

[charlesu]

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

[TexKen]

Originally Posted by charlesu

... 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?