Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 06 Feb 2012 (Monday) 04:59
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Should I continue to avoid overexposure?

 
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 531
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Feb 06, 2012 15:02 |  #16

Ross J wrote in post #13834710 (external link)
Hack photographers don't know what the hell they are doing so they always resort to blowing the highlights. Good photographers know how to control lighting ratios and never have to blow highlights. It's up to the OP to decide whether to be good or to be a hack.

The problem with treating this post as a "joke" is that Ross is aptly describing working with studio lighting, where controlling the lighting ratio of two or more studio lights is "how it's done" and if you "resort to blowing the highlights" then you are doing something wrong.

The problem, Ross, is that this works in the studio but not in scenarios where you can't control studio lighting! Outdoor scenes where you can't artificially light things and then control the lighting to where something like a bright sky can be "kept down" while your foreground is illuminated by your studio lights, well, these scenes have a higher dynamic range than your camera can naturally "handle". This is where we have to make choices that often mean "sacrificing some highlights".

So, your post, labeling photogs who take such approaches as "hacks", well, it doesn't make a positive contribution, does it?


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
5,473 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 589
Joined Dec 2010
     
Feb 06, 2012 15:14 |  #17

What if I intentionally blow out the white background in studio headshots and product shots? How about specular highlights on shiny products, models' jewelry, etc?

I mean, I accept the fact that I'm a hack, but it's not solely because I sometimes blow the highlights :D


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 531
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Feb 06, 2012 15:30 |  #18

nathancarter wrote in post #13836139 (external link)
What if I intentionally blow out the white background in studio headshots and product shots? How about specular highlights on shiny products, models' jewelry, etc?

I mean, I accept the fact that I'm a hack, but it's not solely because I sometimes blow the highlights :D

Ah, well, then we can call you a "Super Hack":)!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Grimes
Goldmember
1,323 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2006
     
Feb 06, 2012 15:33 |  #19

If a light bulb or a bright metal object (ex chrome highlight) is blown out, then don't worry about it. Some things look great "pure white".


Alex
5DMKII | 85 f/1.8 | 17-40L f/4 | 24-105 f/4 IS | 40 f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,426 posts
Likes: 175
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Feb 06, 2012 17:16 |  #20

Grimes wrote in post #13836268 (external link)
If a light bulb or a bright metal object (ex chrome highlight) is blown out, then don't worry about it. Some things look great "pure white".

I've told this story before, but I'll bore you all with it again:
Back in the '50s newspaper photographers started working with 400 ASA (ISO) Tri-X, for obvious reasons. It was grainy (noisy) as hell and for a long time was used only by newspapers. But eventually the shrinks that worked as advisors for ad agencies noticed that the general public had started equating graininess with truthfulness and the art directors began to ask the photographers on location shoots to use Tri-X.
The point is that there are certain characteristics of photographs that we - all of us - have been conditioned to expect and accept as "realistic" and truthful. Blown highlights is one of them. In many contexts a detaled highlight will appear "photoshopped" and phony.
Recently the Washington Post printed an HDR on its front page and was attacked for being "unjournalistic". Although the HDR came closer to recreating the photographer's perception of the scene, it was called unethical manipulation. The inevitable inference is that a blown sky would have "shown it like it really is".


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ross ­ J
Member
147 posts
Joined Oct 2011
Location: After Just Now
     
Feb 06, 2012 18:52 |  #21
bannedPermanent ban

tzalman wrote in post #13836897 (external link)
I've told this story before, but I'll bore you all with it again:
Back in the '50s newspaper photographers started working with 400 ASA (ISO) Tri-X, for obvious reasons. It was grainy (noisy) as hell and for a long time was used only by newspapers. But eventually the shrinks that worked as advisors for ad agencies noticed that the general public had started equating graininess with truthfulness and the art directors began to ask the photographers on location shoots to use Tri-X.
The point is that there are certain characteristics of photographs that we - all of us - have been conditioned to expect and accept as "realistic" and truthful. Blown highlights is one of them. In many contexts a detaled highlight will appear "photoshopped" and phony.

That's exactly right tzalman. The "certain characteristics" that you referred to are known as vernacular qualities and they are errors in craftsmanship made by people that are just trying to take a picture without worrying about it being perfect. Many photojournalists had to ignore craftsmanship in order to get a shot for a story and they produced many photographs filled with vernacular qualities. This may be totally acceptable in photojournalism where the practical concerns of getting a story outweigh concerns with craftsmanship, but it is still bad craftsmanship (aka hack work)

After WW2, the public became overwhelmed with both news and advertising imagery. News was mostly delivered to them in a vernacular style and this created the perception that bad craftsmanship was truthful because it was un-staged. Meanwhile, commercial photography was mostly well produced and the public began to associate high levels of craftsmanship with staged propaganda. The advertising agencies became aware of this shift in public perceptions and fought back with "guerrilla marketing." Guerrilla style imagery refers to advertising photographs that are intentionally produced with vernacular qualities in order for the public to perceive them as un-staged truth rather than propaganda. It worked perfectly and many photographers can credit their entire careers to this type of shooting. Guerrilla style advertising shooting totally destroyed quality craftsmanship during the grunge rock era of the early-mid 90s and is partly responsible for the reality TV craze of the 2000s.

The main point of this post is that vernacular style imagery led to guerrilla style advertising and a reduction in quality of ALL photography. Yes, bad craftsmanship may be perceived as un-staged, but it's still HACK work. Again, I'd like to thank tzalman for giving me the opportunity to provide some background information that also happens to tie into one of my earlier posts on a related subject: https://photography-on-the.net …?p=13760539&pos​tcount=128




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SOK
Goldmember
Avatar
1,592 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
     
Feb 06, 2012 22:10 as a reply to  @ Ross J's post |  #22

I'm a hack.


Steve
SOK Images - Wedding and Event Photography Gold Coast (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ross ­ J
Member
147 posts
Joined Oct 2011
Location: After Just Now
     
Feb 06, 2012 22:21 as a reply to  @ SOK's post |  #23
bannedPermanent ban

^ I don't own a camera, so that makes me even lower than a hack :lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,426 posts
Likes: 175
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Feb 07, 2012 02:43 |  #24

Most of us are blends of hack/craftsman/artist. The tricky part is controlling the percentages.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,426 posts
Likes: 175
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Feb 07, 2012 02:45 |  #25

Ross J wrote in post #13838940 (external link)
^ I don't own a camera, so that makes me even lower than a hack :lol:

Or higher than an artist, a critic.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JimAndersson
Senior Member
Avatar
596 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
     
Feb 07, 2012 02:49 |  #26

I'm the opposite of hack! :D Not that I'm awesome and great in every way. When I fail it's because of impossible circumstances or incompetense not because I made a hack job. :)

http://en.wiktionary.o​rg/wiki/hack_job (external link)


Canon EOS 5D EOS 1Ds Mark III | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM EF 50mm f/1.8 II EF 17-40mm f/4L USM | Canon Speedlite 430EX II | Yongnuo YN-560-II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stsva
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,360 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 284
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Feb 07, 2012 13:26 |  #27

Ross J wrote in post #13837443 (external link)
That's exactly right tzalman. The "certain characteristics" that you referred to are known as vernacular qualities and they are errors in craftsmanship made by people that are just trying to take a picture without worrying about it being perfect. Many photojournalists had to ignore craftsmanship in order to get a shot for a story and they produced many photographs filled with vernacular qualities. This may be totally acceptable in photojournalism where the practical concerns of getting a story outweigh concerns with craftsmanship, but it is still bad craftsmanship (aka hack work)

After WW2, the public became overwhelmed with both news and advertising imagery. News was mostly delivered to them in a vernacular style and this created the perception that bad craftsmanship was truthful because it was un-staged. Meanwhile, commercial photography was mostly well produced and the public began to associate high levels of craftsmanship with staged propaganda. The advertising agencies became aware of this shift in public perceptions and fought back with "guerrilla marketing." Guerrilla style imagery refers to advertising photographs that are intentionally produced with vernacular qualities in order for the public to perceive them as un-staged truth rather than propaganda. It worked perfectly and many photographers can credit their entire careers to this type of shooting. Guerrilla style advertising shooting totally destroyed quality craftsmanship during the grunge rock era of the early-mid 90s and is partly responsible for the reality TV craze of the 2000s.

The main point of this post is that vernacular style imagery led to guerrilla style advertising and a reduction in quality of ALL photography. Yes, bad craftsmanship may be perceived as un-staged, but it's still HACK work. Again, I'd like to thank tzalman for giving me the opportunity to provide some background information that also happens to tie into one of my earlier posts on a related subject: https://photography-on-the.net …?p=13760539&pos​tcount=128

Really interesting posts by you and tzalman. It seems to me, however, that there may be a fairly high degree of craftsmanship involved in producing a deliberately un-staged looking image (in other words, you have to really know what you're doing to produce faux "hack" work). :)


Some Canon stuff and a little bit of Yongnuo.
http://www.pbase.com/s​tsva/profile (external link)
Member of the GIYF
Club and
HAMSTTR
٩ Breeders Club https://photography-on-the.net …=744235&highlig​ht=hamsttr Join today!
Image Editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Grimes
Goldmember
1,323 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2006
     
Feb 07, 2012 17:35 |  #28

Ross J wrote in post #13837443 (external link)
That's exactly right tzalman. The "certain characteristics" that you referred to are known as vernacular qualities and they are errors in craftsmanship made by people that are just trying to take a picture without worrying about it being perfect. Many photojournalists had to ignore craftsmanship in order to get a shot for a story and they produced many photographs filled with vernacular qualities. This may be totally acceptable in photojournalism where the practical concerns of getting a story outweigh concerns with craftsmanship, but it is still bad craftsmanship (aka hack work)

After WW2, the public became overwhelmed with both news and advertising imagery. News was mostly delivered to them in a vernacular style and this created the perception that bad craftsmanship was truthful because it was un-staged. Meanwhile, commercial photography was mostly well produced and the public began to associate high levels of craftsmanship with staged propaganda. The advertising agencies became aware of this shift in public perceptions and fought back with "guerrilla marketing." Guerrilla style imagery refers to advertising photographs that are intentionally produced with vernacular qualities in order for the public to perceive them as un-staged truth rather than propaganda. It worked perfectly and many photographers can credit their entire careers to this type of shooting. Guerrilla style advertising shooting totally destroyed quality craftsmanship during the grunge rock era of the early-mid 90s and is partly responsible for the reality TV craze of the 2000s.

The main point of this post is that vernacular style imagery led to guerrilla style advertising and a reduction in quality of ALL photography. Yes, bad craftsmanship may be perceived as un-staged, but it's still HACK work. Again, I'd like to thank tzalman for giving me the opportunity to provide some background information that also happens to tie into one of my earlier posts on a related subject: https://photography-on-the.net …?p=13760539&pos​tcount=128


While I don't disagree with anything you have stated, sometimes it is really just impossible to go beyond the limits of your equipment, no matter what your level of craftsmanship. Film/sensors, whatever, will only have so much dynamic range, and sometimes you cannot make composite images due to movement. That's where the hacking comes in? haha.


Alex
5DMKII | 85 f/1.8 | 17-40L f/4 | 24-105 f/4 IS | 40 f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rankinia
Senior Member
449 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Feb 07, 2012 20:15 |  #29

Get out and shoot photos you like. If the over exposure ruins your vision, fix it. If it doesnt affect what you want to show then who cares. Shoot for yourself.


1ds, 30d, 17-40/4 180/3.5, mt-24, 580ex2
http://adamrose.wordpr​ess.com (external link)

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

4,145 views & 0 likes for this thread
Should I continue to avoid overexposure?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
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?
Register to forums
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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is hearters
820 guests, 316 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.