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 Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment People 
Thread started 13 Mar 2005 (Sunday) 14:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please

 
serissolutions
Senior Member
Avatar
625 posts
Joined Mar 2005
     
Mar 13, 2005 14:02 |  #1

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/M​ystery.jpg (external link)
http://www.serissoluti​ons.com …ndid/Victorias_​Secret.jpg (external link)http://www.serissoluti​ons.com …ndid/Voctorias_​Secret.jpg (external 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


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

More of my work:
http://www.serissoluti​ons.com/photos (external link)
http://www.photo.net/p​hotos/albertaguirre (external link)
Add me to your MySpace friends list! I dont want to look like a loser! haha
http://www.myspace.com​/zorro3201 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
karusel
Goldmember
Avatar
1,452 posts
Joined Nov 2003
Location: Location: Location:
     
Mar 13, 2005 14:08 |  #2

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.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
serissolutions
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
625 posts
Joined Mar 2005
     
Mar 13, 2005 14:19 |  #3

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?


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

More of my work:
http://www.serissoluti​ons.com/photos (external link)
http://www.photo.net/p​hotos/albertaguirre (external link)
Add me to your MySpace friends list! I dont want to look like a loser! haha
http://www.myspace.com​/zorro3201 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
serissolutions
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
625 posts
Joined Mar 2005
     
Mar 13, 2005 14:38 |  #4

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


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

More of my work:
http://www.serissoluti​ons.com/photos (external link)
http://www.photo.net/p​hotos/albertaguirre (external link)
Add me to your MySpace friends list! I dont want to look like a loser! haha
http://www.myspace.com​/zorro3201 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AFCop
Member
Avatar
188 posts
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Maine
     
Mar 13, 2005 14:44 as a reply to  @ serissolutions's post |  #5

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


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
NikonF4s
Member
116 posts
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Mar 13, 2005 14:50 as a reply to  @ serissolutions's post |  #6

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!)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Columbus ­ Photo
Senior Member
331 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Feb 2005
     
Mar 13, 2005 15:20 as a reply to  @ NikonF4s's post |  #7

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lamplight
Goldmember
Avatar
1,072 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2004
Location: Bellingham, WA
     
Mar 13, 2005 16:53 |  #8

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:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eljustino
Member
245 posts
Joined Jan 2005
Location: London
     
Mar 13, 2005 17:02 |  #9

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!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
serissolutions
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
625 posts
Joined Mar 2005
     
Mar 13, 2005 17:07 as a reply to  @ eljustino's post |  #10

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


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

More of my work:
http://www.serissoluti​ons.com/photos (external link)
http://www.photo.net/p​hotos/albertaguirre (external link)
Add me to your MySpace friends list! I dont want to look like a loser! haha
http://www.myspace.com​/zorro3201 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
berto
Senior Member
Avatar
725 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2004
Location: Guam
     
Mar 13, 2005 19:18 |  #11

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.


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/bert671 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bluelens
Senior Member
Avatar
350 posts
Joined Nov 2002
     
Mar 14, 2005 15:10 |  #12

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.


My photoBlog (external link)
My gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
"What a Tool I am"
Avatar
8,860 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Nov 2002
     
Mar 14, 2005 16:58 |  #13

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.


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
charlesu
Goldmember
Avatar
4,316 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 107
Joined Jan 2003
Location: Somewhere south
     
Mar 14, 2005 17:48 |  #14

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.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TexKen
Senior Member
Avatar
519 posts
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
     
Mar 14, 2005 21:55 as a reply to  @ charlesu's post |  #15

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?



>>
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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,823 views & 0 likes for this thread
Intentional overexposure? Your opinion please
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment People 
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 HBGPhotos
731 guests, 456 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.