Natural Light

I feel like I may have misconstrued the information I was given on direct light. It seems the consistent criticism I have been given is that my photos are underexposed, or aren't capturing enough light. This tends to be the case during my early morning location shoots. Should I be actively trying to take shots in brighter conditions, these seem to be more desirable? While my preference is actually the exact opposite, I do want to be able to capture the preferred image. The first image is what I have noticed would seem to be a more desirable image because of the light, but 2nd is actually more of my preferred style. Is this a correct assessment?

I'm not sure exactly what your question is based on these two images. The first appears to have been taken during the middle part of the day, where the sun is so bright that the images dynamic range is beyond what the camera can capture. You have highlights with no detail and shadows so dark you cant see any detail. The second was taken in better light, in that you have retained your highlights and you still have some detail in the shadows. WIthout knowing what the information you were given was its hard to say if you misconstrued anything. But ideally you want to shoot in conditions where you can capture both shadow and highlight details. Usually the best natural light is in the morning and evening during the golden hours. The first and last hour of indirect light. But you dont have to be limited to those times.

sorry I don't have access to more comparable images online just yet. Ill upload two edits later today but essentially what am I asking is why brighter pictures seem more desirable to everyone. Is this is a "rule" or a preference. Personally I don't like many of these ultra bright fashion type photos, but what I think I am missing is this additional light is brining something else to the photo that mine lack. Perhaps enhanced DOF? Not sure

Bracetty wrote in post #16841060
sorry I don't have access to more comparable images online just yet. Ill upload two edits later today but essentially what am I asking is why brighter pictures seem more desirable to everyone. Is this is a "rule" or a preference. Personally I don't like many of these ultra bright fashion type photos, but what I think I am missing is this additional light is brining something else to the photo that mine lack. Perhaps enhanced DOF? Not sure

You can underexpose in good light as well as bad. Your tendency to prefer something less bright than others has little to do with the quality of light.

In both cases the exposure seems to have been chosen based on a motivation to light the subjects (people in first, statue in second) well. It just so happens that the circumstances (time of day, architecture of location, nature of background) resulted in a bright ambient background in the first and a darker one in the second. If you're shooting ambient, I find both images to be totally fine.

But to more directly respond to your question, I think dark and bright tend to affect the feel of a photo and how people emotionally respond to it; and perhaps more people tend to respond better to a light and airy and bright and cheerful image.

What makes you think that people respond better to photos like the first one ?

I think what you're getting at is the trend in family/portrait/weddin​g photography to expose images so faces are nearly blown out. I'm not a fan of this look either. I always make sure my clients and I have a mutual understanding of what to expect from the output.

That said, the bg in the first image is bright, because the subjects are in the shade and the bg is in bright light. I would not consider the subjects in that image to be overly bright, it's more just a matter of where the light is falling.

Based solely on the critiques of other photographers, either in the forum or elsewhere, the preference seems to be for more exposure. Which greatly contrasts with my vision of what is appealing, but I do understand. I simply want to be able to cater to others as well as satisfy my taste. Christopher you are right on, when I am taking photos I am just working with what is available not attempting to add or remove anything with lighting but perhaps this is a flaw. While the first pic was taken in direct sun, and the second in early morning I wasn't considering lighting as a tool to add to the image. While I am certainly not saying either image is "good" I want to more closely understand what makes the first more appealing. Would taking the 2nd image and enhancing in post make it essentially a better photo, or should I have focused on capturing more light in the initial shot? Sorry if that was confusing

I think you're over thinking things a bit. It's good to understand critique, but if that critique doesn't match your vision or purpose, you don't need to adhere to it. The general goal is to light your subject in the way that you see fit. Some people prefer a slightly brighter exposure for the subject than others. The relative brightness of the background may be an artistic or circumstantial decision as well, but it isn't really something to get hung up on. If your exposures are meeting your vision, that is what matters. It isn't necessary to follow trends or to do what others think is best.

bacchanal wrote in post #16841406
I think you're over thinking things a bit. It's good to understand critique, but if that critique doesn't match your vision or purpose, you don't need to adhere to it. The general goal is to light your subject in the way that you see fit. Some people prefer a slightly brighter exposure for the subject than others. The relative brightness of the background may be an artistic or circumstantial decision as well, but it isn't really something to get hung up on. If your exposures are meeting your vision, that is what matters. It isn't necessary to follow trends or to do what others think is best.

I think that's what I needed to hear. thank you

Whether shooting with natural light or with flashes, the key concept is not to lose IMPORTANT detail, not in the highlights nor in the shadows. If the important parts of the image are exposed and processed properly, but there are highlights or shadows that are lost but which weren't important to the image/look/style anyway, then I think you can still consider the image to be a success.

I shoot a lot of low-key stuff, and will often lose unimportant detail into the shadows. I might even clip the highlights in the same image. in these images, my histogram is almost never a hill shape; it's either a "L" shape or even a "U" shape. It's a style that I like, though it doesn't appeal to everyone.

Photographers can so often "pixel-peep" and get caught up in the technical details, that they (we) lose sight of the overall aesthetic look and feel of an image.

I'd say these things are largely a matter of personal preference -- if you are happy with your capture, well good, although some may prefer something else, that's the nature of the beast!

And then, there is also the challenge to practice and experiment with a variety of approaches. Even though you (and many others) prefer to shoot in "available light", well, you could experiment with such approaches as "fill light", so for example your first shot might have a bit of light added to the subjects while your overall ambient exposure may be lowered a bit to get more "stuff" brought out in the background...that may or may not improve the photo, it's just something to try...

As to whether the second photo would be "improved" by brightening it up a bit, well, you can play with it, but in the end it's down to what pleases you (and maybe some viewing it that you want to please)!

Bracetty wrote in post #16841060
. . . essentially what am I asking is why brighter pictures seem more desirable to everyone.

They don't. In your #1 in this thread, the background is so light and sketchy that it grabs my attention, at the expense of the subjects. I'd prefer a more neutral background, which means a darker one.

Proper exposure is not the same as brighter or darker. look up high key and low key lighting.
When things that "should" be exposed properly are blown out where detail is lost, or detail is lost because there isn't enough light, that's when people will tell you it is under or over exposed.
Sometimes in an image there are elements that are beyond the camera's ability to record properly at a specific setting. In this case you are said to be exceeding the dynamic range of the scene. So looking at your top photo, your people are exposed properly, but the background is much brighter than the camera can record so the background is overexposed. If you exposed for the background, your people would be too dark. Your only solution is to move to a position where the background is darker, or bring the light up higher on the people so their light is closer to that of the background so you can decrease exposure of the full scene while still exposing the people properly.

I highly suggest "understanding exposure" by Bryan Peterson. http://www.amazon.com …Photographs/dp/​0817439390

Bracetty wrote in post #16841060
sorry I don't have access to more comparable images online just yet. Ill upload two edits later today but essentially what am I asking is why brighter pictures seem more desirable to everyone. Is this is a "rule" or a preference. Personally I don't like many of these ultra bright fashion type photos, but what I think I am missing is this additional light is brining something else to the photo that mine lack. Perhaps enhanced DOF? Not sure

I don't think "brighter" pics are more desirable but perhaps you're thinking of "high key" which is a fashion magazine type style (I'm also not a fan!)

I get this point. Most non photographers prefer over exposed images as opposed to under exposed images. Non photographers, in my experience, don't notice a blown out background (as in your first picture).