Canon Digital Photography Forums  

Go Back   Canon Digital Photography Forums > 'Photo Sharing' section > People
Register Rules FAQ Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 13th of March 2005 (Sun)   #1
serissolutions
Member
 
serissolutions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 625
Default Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

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

Last edited by serissolutions : 13th of March 2005 (Sun) at 17:18.
serissolutions is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 13th of March 2005 (Sun)   #2
karusel
Senior Member
 
karusel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,452
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

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.
__________________
5D and holy trinity of primes. Now the 90mm TS-E TS-E fly bit me. I hate these forums.
karusel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th of March 2005 (Sun)   #3
serissolutions
Member
 
serissolutions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 625
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
This ad block will go away when you log in as member
Old 13th of March 2005 (Sun)   #4
serissolutions
Member
 
serissolutions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 625
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

Damn, my wife is not bad lookin for 39 yrs old eh?
serissolutions is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th of March 2005 (Sun)   #5
AFCop
Member
 
AFCop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Maine
Posts: 188
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

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!
__________________
AFCop
Hacked Digital Rebel, 18-55mm Kit Lens, 75-300mm III USM, remote release cable
--That's Air Force Cop, not Auto Focus Cop!!
AFCop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th of March 2005 (Sun)   #6
NikonF4s
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 116
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

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!
__________________
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!)
NikonF4s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th of March 2005 (Sun)   #7
Columbus Photo
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 280
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

I think your wife is smoking! Very beautiful! Anyways I like the second picture(besides the fact I work for Victoria Secret )
Columbus Photo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th of March 2005 (Sun)   #8
Lamplight
Senior Member
 
Lamplight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 1,067
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

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.
Lamplight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th of March 2005 (Sun)   #9
eljustino
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 245
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

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).
__________________
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!
eljustino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th of March 2005 (Sun)   #10
serissolutions
Member
 
serissolutions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 625
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

Quote:
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
serissolutions is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th of March 2005 (Sun)   #11
berto
Member
 
berto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Guam
Posts: 724
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

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.
berto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th of March 2005 (Mon)   #12
Bluelens
Member
 
Bluelens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 350
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

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.

Last edited by Bluelens : 14th of March 2005 (Mon) at 15:13.
Bluelens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th of March 2005 (Mon)   #13
drisley
"What a Tool I am"
 
drisley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,718
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

I like them both. But, I prefer #2. It's very natural looking. Very nice.
Quote:
Damn, my wife is not bad lookin for 39 yrs old eh?
Yes of course. And 39 is not old at all.
__________________

drisley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th of March 2005 (Mon)   #14
charlesu
Goldmember
 
charlesu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Somewhere south
Posts: 4,239
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

Nice shots. I don't see a problem. But remember that in PS editing you can edit across the tonal range in Curves.
__________________
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.
charlesu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th of March 2005 (Mon)   #15
TexKen
Member
 
TexKen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 519
Default Re: Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

Quote:
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?
__________________

>>
Canon 30D | EF 28-135mm IS | 50mm 1.8 | 580 EXII | 430 EX

"Wait... let me take your picture... it won't hurt... much"
TexKen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does intentional vignetting ever work ? icicle Critique Corner 4 24th of July 2006 (Mon) 19:59
Intentional out-of-focus, what do you think? T.O. People 14 17th of November 2005 (Thu) 03:48
Background Overexposure Mark_48 General Photography Talk 4 27th of June 2005 (Mon) 00:41
Overexposure sony23 Canon EOS Digital Cameras 0 25th of June 2005 (Sat) 08:56
A 70 flash overexposure dojere Small Flash and Studio Lighting 2 22nd of June 2005 (Wed) 00:11


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:11.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This forum is not affiliated with Canon in any way and is run as a free user helpsite by Pekka Saarinen, Helsinki Finland. You will need to register in order to be able to post messages. Cookies are required for registering and posting. HTML in messages is not allowed, plain website addresses are automatically made active by the board.