Weekly Assignment #97: Blown out!

Nikolai

Sometimes you just have to stand up and show who's the boss. And if a piece of the image is blown - so be it.
Blown out areas, i.e. areas where at least one (or even all) of the RGB channels registers maximum possible value (255 for 8-bit), are usually considered a technical flaw, since such area usually carry no detail or even no color information. However, in some cases, especially if you shoot silhouettes or simply high-key, you do want some areas to be totally blown, thus making sure you have an even, uniform background with no distraction (clouds or creases).
Each entry for this class should consist of TWO images. One final, with some rather large area blown out, and another "draft", with the same area showing details. It can be two physically different captures of the same scene (preferably), or simply two different copies of the same frame rendered differently in post (if you can't have two frames).
Fresh entries only.
Multiple entries per person OK, provided they are in different posts and of rather different subjects /effects.
Let's blow!

catspaw

I have zero idea what this means so will let someone else go first, then toss my hat in.

well, I suspect I know, but I'm not reaaaaaaally sure and am also working on minimizing my foolish episodes here

Trevlan

Cat, you have to go all in. LoL. I posted a number of flops in the assignments, but a few good ones also. ;-) I'm sure yours will be very nice.

catspaw

Trevlan wrote:

Cat, you have to go all in. LoL. I posted a number of flops in the assignments, but a few good ones also. ;-) I'm sure yours will be very nice.

Oh, I just don't understand the assignment 100%, so I need an example to know I'm submitting it right. ya, ya, ignorant.... working on it!

anonymouscuban

A little confused?
Let's see if I got this straight...

I am to take two exposures of basically the same scene. The first is to have some blown highlights which I intentionally kept in the picture because I believe it adds some aesthetic value to the composition.

The second exposure I should correct the blown out area by either correcting on camera or in post processing, the former being preferred.

Do I understand this assignment correctly?

- Alex

Nikolai

anonymouscuban wrote:

Let's see if I got this straight...

I am to take two exposures of basically the same scene. The first is to have some blown highlights which I intentionally kept in the picture because I believe it adds some aesthetic value to the composition.

The second exposure I should correct the blown out area by either correcting on camera or in post processing, the former being preferred.

Do I understand this assignment correctly?

- Alex

Alex, it's the other way around.
Your first (and "final") picture should contain large amount of blown highlights as an important element of the targeted image. Your second one should be essentially the same frame showing some "details" in the highlighted area.

At this point I don't have a matching couple, but here's what I mean:

This would be an example of a final picture: a lot of purposefully blown (in camera) highlights:


And this would be an example of highlights still showing some details (whether they are needed or not in this particular image is a separate issue):


Clear as mud?

anonymouscuban

I think I understand
Now... does it matter if the highlights are "blown" in camera or can we do it in post?

BTW, the word "blown" has been used so many times in this thread I am starting to feel like I'm in a different type of forum.

Nikolai

anonymouscuban wrote:

Now... does it matter if the highlights are "blown" in camera or can we do it in post?

As it's been said, preferably in camera, but in post is OK, too...

BTW, the word "blown" has been used so many times in this thread I am starting to feel like I'm in a different type of forum.

Some pun was intended, but other than that it's a purely technical term..

catspaw

if I wake up early enough tomorrow, I'm going to blow my camera......

catspaw

ok, I'll bite
fine, I have no post processing abilities so this is what it is -- there's been a running debate on my blog as to which toys my 7 month Weimaraner WON'T end up destroying. I was snapping a photo of the recent death (I totally lost this bet), and decided to see what I could and could not 'blow out'. Personally, I like how the shadow shows up so much more starkly with the pieces of 'death'.

(FYI this *was* an 8 inch diameter tennis ball in magenta and tennis color)






and nope, not the same photo. But that's about as my creative apathy got me today.

Double dare anyone else to try something better (really, THAT'S easy)

Nikolai

catspaw wrote:

fine, I have no post processing abilities so this is what it is -- there's been a running debate on my blog as to which toys my 7 month Weimaraner WON'T end up destroying. I was snapping a photo of the recent death (I totally lost this bet), and decided to see what I could and could not 'blow out'. Personally, I like how the shadow shows up so much more starkly with the pieces of 'death'.

(FYI this *was* an 8 inch diameter tennis ball in magenta and tennis color)


and nope, not the same photo. But that's about as my creative apathy got me today.

Double dare anyone else to try something better (really, THAT'S easy)

Leah,
thank you for entering!

eL eSs Vee

Nikolai, I went for the "two frames of the same" (for now) and enter these:

Processed:


Unprocessed:

Nikolai

eL eSs Vee wrote:

Nikolai, I went for the "two frames of the same" (for now) and enter these:
Processed:
Unprocessed:

Lee,
sorry, not good
The processed one is not blown out. It should be pure white, 255-255-255, no details.
And even if it were... It makes no sense to have it blown out in the first place, at least with the context of the rest of the shot. We're still looking for the reasonably sensible images, not just for "connecting dots", so to speak...

Dooginfif20

Here is one of my attempts.

Dooginfif20

Nikolai wrote:

Alex, it's the other way around.
Your first (and "final") picture should contain large amount of blown highlights as an important element of the targeted image. Your second one should be essentially the same frame showing some "details" in the highlighted area.

At this point I don't have a matching couple, but here's what I mean:

This would be an example of a final picture: a lot of purposefully blown (in camera) highlights:


And this would be an example of highlights still showing some details (whether they are needed or not in this particular image is a separate issue):


Clear as mud?

Nikolia,

How did you shoot these? I have tried shots like these and couldn't get them to work.

Thanks!
Ryan

Nikolai

Dooginfif20 wrote:

Here is one of my attempts.

Thank you, Ryan.. Two questions:
1) when was it taken?
2) where is the required second image?

Nikolai

Dooginfif20 wrote:

Nikolia,
How did you shoot these? I have tried shots like these and couldn't get them to work.
Thanks!
Ryan

Ryan,
I'm not sure I understand the question... It was a bright Arizona noon, she was against the sun... It's pretty much hard not to get this effect under these circumstances...

Dooginfif20

Sorry maybe it had to due with the lack of light in the background cause the silhouette look.

eL eSs Vee

Nikolai wrote:

Lee,
sorry, not good
The processed one is not blown out. It should be pure white, 255-255-255, no details.
And even if it were... It makes no sense to have it blown out in the first place, at least with the context of the rest of the shot. We're still looking for the reasonably sensible images, not just for "connecting dots", so to speak...

Please let me know if I understand: You're looking for images that are intentionally blown out, either in-camera (preferred) or in post, not just a high contrast image that's processed to an even higher contrast. Is that right?


Lee

Nikolai

eL eSs Vee wrote:

Please let me know if I understand: You're looking for images that are intentionally blown out, either in-camera (preferred) or in post, not just a high contrast image that's processed to an even higher contrast. Is that right?
Lee

Yessir!

eL eSs Vee

Thank you for correcting me, Nikolai.

On the hope that I did understand, I shot this image while awaiting your response:


And what I thought (while viewing the back of the camera) was a blown-out background:


Nikon D40X
2007/11/15 16:59:32.9
Compressed RAW (12-bit)
Lens: 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 G
Focal Length: 250mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
1/125 sec - F/16
Exposure Comp.: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 100

And my setup, including unexpected (and mildly concerned) spectator:


Did I do good?

Nikolai

eL eSs Vee wrote:

Thank you for correcting me, Nikolai.

On the hope that I did understand, I shot this image while awaiting your response:

And what I thought (while viewing the back of the camera) was a blown-out background:

Nikon D40X
2007/11/15 16:59:32.9
Compressed RAW (12-bit)
Lens: 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 G
Focal Length: 250mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
1/125 sec - F/16
Exposure Comp.: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 100

And my setup, including unexpected (and mildly concerned) spectator:

Did I do good?

Great, thank you! Nice setup, too!

Trevlan

eL eSs Vee wrote:

Thank you for correcting me, Nikolai.

On the hope that I did understand, I shot this image while awaiting your response:


And what I thought (while viewing the back of the camera) was a blown-out background:


Nikon D40X
2007/11/15 16:59:32.9
Compressed RAW (12-bit)
Lens: 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 G
Focal Length: 250mm
Exposure Mode: Manual
1/125 sec - F/16
Exposure Comp.: 0 EV
Sensitivity: ISO 100

And my setup, including unexpected (and mildly concerned) spectator:


Did I do good?

Jesus christ. With a set up like that, you are far from an ameture. Just goes to show pros can learn from this also. Great job Lee!

Trevlan

Here is my regularly exposed shot.



And here's my blown out version



Yay, nay maybay?

Nikolai

Trevlan wrote:

Here is my regularly exposed shot.

And here's my blown out version

Yay, nay maybay?

Nice converstion! It's not exactly what I had in mind ("blown out" technically means "make it pure white"), but I like this inverse approach.

However, let's try to make another pass at the actual task, shall we?

Trevlan

Nikolai wrote:

Nice converstion! It's not exactly what I had in mind ("blown out" technically means "make it pure white"), but I like this inverse approach.

However, let's try to make another pass at the actual task, shall we?

Oh, okay. Pure white it is! I'll be back with one of those shortly. ;-)

eL eSs Vee

Thank you very much for the huge compliment, Frank.

I am by no means a professional, but I was doing a lot of studio work in college, from the early eighties to the early nineties. Fashion, mostly.

Back in college I was using the schools' Norman strobes. The lights I have here are a $250.00 150 w/s two-light set-up from Adorama. The set you see here was on my bed.

As far as learning from Nikolai's assignments, well, naturally, that's why I do them.

Trevlan

eL eSs Vee wrote:

Thank you very much for the huge compliment, Frank.

I am by no means a professional, but I was doing a lot of studio work in college, from the early eighties to the early nineties. Fashion, mostly.

Back in college I was using the schools' Norman strobes. The lights I have here are a $250.00 150 w/s two-light set-up from Adorama. The set you see here was on my bed.

As far as learning from Nikolai's assignments, well, naturally, that's why I do them.

I've seen a few of your pictures here and there, and they are good. You would have fooled me. ;-)

Great work!

Trevlan

Okay. Attempt #2 and I'm very happy with the results. For this assignment, I employed the beautiful Jarisel Cruz.

The first picture is a regular exposed picture. Not to shabby, but just a regular pic.



And now, my high key blown out version! I think this one is one of my best shots ever. What I like about it is that it's blown out, but doesn't look overexposed. Thanks for the assignment.

Nikolai

Trevlan wrote:

Okay. Attempt #2 and I'm very happy with the results. For this assignment, I employed the beautiful Jarisel Cruz.

The first picture is a regular exposed picture. Not to shabby, but just a regular pic.

And now, my high key blown out version! I think this one is one of my best shots ever. What I like about it is that it's blown out, but doesn't look overexposed. Thanks for the assignment.

Franks, thank you for the entry.
It's always hard to say something when a person prefix a post with the words like "my best shot ever", but I have to...
This is not a high key scenario, and this doesn't work. Sorry.

Trevlan

Nikolai wrote:

Franks, thank you for the entry.
It's always hard to say something when a person prefix a post with the words like "my best shot ever", but I have to...
This is not a high key scenario, and this doesn't work. Sorry.

I thought the idea was to have the background completely blown out? Is that not what I did? It's the same exact thing as my first attempt but I did the inverse (Blew out the Shadows). Does this not work for the assignment?