Show us your setup and the final result!

Mindeater wrote in post #18299082
I don't think looking at RGB values to determine whether an image is overexposed should be used as an out right rule. Overexposure is much more a subjective property, and in portraiture is often characterised by the highlights being blown out. It doesn't necessarily follow that they would reach a value of 255, showing they were clipped by the sensor.

The image being discussed does look a little overexposed, to me, looking as though some of the detail has been lost in the highlights.

If highlights were not clipped at capture, the sensor has not been overexposed and detail is there to be brought out. If you think it's been processed to look too bright or light, that's another thing but it's not over-exposure. Some people call it high-key.

Pippan wrote in post #18299168
If highlights were not clipped at capture, the sensor has not been overexposed and detail is there to be brought out. If you think it's been processed to look too bright or light, that's another thing but it's not over-exposure. Some people call it high-key.

Precisely.

Pippan wrote in post #18299168
If highlights were not clipped at capture, the sensor has not been overexposed and detail is there to be brought out. If you think it's been processed to look too bright or light, that's another thing but it's not over-exposure. Some people call it high-key.

Yup. Problem I think is that too many folks have their displays set to high brightness where shots like I posted look over-exposed. Usually I don't go that high but I am mostly on little more exposure than typical folks. Helps when shooting female subjects IMHO.

bobbyz wrote in post #18298900
Just curious, how do you define over-exposed? What kind of R/G/B numbers you guys looking at the face, forehead. Maybe show some sample shots. Look at this shot from Peter. Isn't it similar to what I posted.

http://pdnpulse.pdnonl​ine.com …ps-for-men-and-women.html

Bobby,
Your headshot isn't over exposed.
The higher key look for women gives their skin a porcelain look that Hurley, Grimes and a lot of other headshot, glamour and portrait photographers strive for with women. One visual key for me, when viewing these images, is the deep black in the pupil and some midtone contrast in the hair with the smooth highlights and skin tones that are higher value. Normal northern European skin is usually considered to be about 75% in Lightroom. Getting it up to mid to high 8X% works. That still leaves some room for highlights. Its also important, in my view, to keep the red and magenta tones under control.

Like this:

Pippan wrote in post #18299168
If highlights were not clipped at capture, the sensor has not been overexposed and detail is there to be brought out. If you think it's been processed to look too bright or light, that's another thing but it's not over-exposure. Some people call it high-key.

Over exposure is not simply a matter of saturating a photosite with photons.
The Zone system, and Ansel Adams tonal control of his landscapes is probably as good a lesson about exposure and tonal control as there is in photography.

Tonal control is about getting every tonal value in an image where one wants it for creative intent.
The range we have available is from white with detail (93 or so % in LR) to black with detail (12% or so)
Its the phototgrapher's artistic choice for placing the skin along the tone curve.

Some cigars & guns.

Thanks again for the tips on the C-stand (had never used them before)
Here is another shot I did for www.magstang.com they should have a new website coming soon, very impressive car!

Image hosted by forum (844858) © 71sbeetle THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

arthurbikemad wrote in post #18298602
Where was the flash?

Don't worry it was still in the bag

Alveric wrote in post #18299014
As long as the values are not 255 AFTER processing, it's not overexposed.

That's not true. Overexposing happens during the capture, not during post processing. In post, you can drag the ceiling down below 255, and it just makes all of the overexposed portions gray. They're still overexposed though.

waterrockets wrote in post #18307215
That's not true. Overexposing happens during the capture, not during post processing. In post, you can drag the ceiling down below 255, and it just makes all of the overexposed portions gray. They're still overexposed though.

Please look at (and maybe quote as well) the context of the question I answered with that. Yes, I agree that proper exposure and/or exposure errors happen at the time of capture. Yet you can still end up with an 'overexposed' end product by blowing out the values in post-processing. Some might call it 'overcooking', but it's still 'post-post-processing overexposure' all the same.

See for yourself:

This is the original image with no adjustments applied, other than the WB correction and the profile for the camera (note the RBG and overall brightness values at the main highlight):

dmward wrote in post #18299376
Bobby,
Your headshot isn't over exposed.
The higher key look for women gives their skin a porcelain look that Hurley, Grimes and a lot of other headshot, glamour and portrait photographers strive for with women. One visual key for me, when viewing these images, is the deep black in the pupil and some midtone contrast in the hair with the smooth highlights and skin tones that are higher value. Normal northern European skin is usually considered to be about 75% in Lightroom. Getting it up to mid to high 8X% works. That still leaves some room for highlights. Its also important, in my view, to keep the red and magenta tones under control.

Like this:

not digging it David, the skin looks over exposed to me regardless of what your histogram says, this is not the look I see in fashion and glam magazines, sometimes we need to forget what Peter Hurley does and please ourselves

FJ LOVE wrote in post #18307474
not digging it David, the skin looks over exposed to me regardless of what your histogram says, this is not the look I see in fashion and glam magazines, sometimes we need to forget what Peter Hurley does and please ourselves

To each their own.
My point is that there is a style that wants skin tones to be bright.

Alveric wrote in post #18307421
Please look at (and maybe quote as well) the context of the question I answered with that. Yes, I agree that proper exposure and/or exposure errors happen at the time of capture. Yet you can still end up with an 'overexposed' end product by blowing out the values in post-processing. Some might call it 'overcooking', but it's still 'post-post-processing overexposure' all the same.

See for yourself:

This is the original image with no adjustments applied, other than the WB correction and the profile for the camera (note the RBG and overall brightness values at the main highlight):

This is the image with the final post-processing applied (again, note the values in the red square –they have gone up by a few units but they're not blown out, although the red channel is pushing it):

And this is what happens with aggressive post-processing –in this case a strong contrast curve (the red channel is blown out, as is the overall brightness, and the green and blue channels would probably print out as blown out as well, what with them being one point shy of 255):

Again, the image was properly exposed at the time of capture, but in the last example 'twas nuked during post-processing. THAT is what I was talking about: an image that will have spots blown out (values beyond 255 RBG/100% CMYK) when it's output –especially for print, since paper has a lower dynamic range than screens.

This, in my view, is nit picking semantics.
When I was shooting film, I could over expose the negative based on the manufacturer's guide. Then, depending on how I developed the negatives end up with a negative with extended tonal range and a flattened tone curve or with a negative with dense highlights that were impossible to print.

Alternatively, I could underexpose the paper upon which I was making a print and then keep it in the developer until the silver emulsion was over processed and there was no paper base white visible, even in the border.

Today with digital we have similar alternatives. We can make an exposure in the camera where photo sites become saturated and one or more channels are blocked up. Or we can use the pixel altering capabilities of the processing software to block up a pixel in the output file.

Either can be called over exposure.

Its more useful, in my view, to call photo site saturation over exposure and pixel clipping in an output file as over processing.

Alveric wrote in post #18307421
Again, the image was properly exposed at the time of capture, but in the last example 'twas nuked during post-processing. THAT is what I was talking about: an image that will have spots blown out (values beyond 255 RBG/100% CMYK) when it's output –especially for print, since paper has a lower dynamic range than screens.

Ah, yeah, I was taking it out of context. Good discussion for future readers who may do the same.