are these TOO overexposed?

bwg

i wanted to go for a slightly overexposed look, but i cant make up my mind whether i pushed it too far or not.



rest here:
http://bigwebguy.smugmug.com/gallery/1295005

DavidTO

Well, it depends. It seems to be a reasonable treatment of the shot. You lost some highlights, and you could have some more contrast if you used the full range of values, but I think it's fine!

Owen

I don't think they're overexposed, I think they're properly exposed.

Cute shirt, too.

DavidTO

Heheh. This one looks like me in college....

bwg

thanks guys.

probably just been staring at them too long. the shirt in the one i posted seemed like it was practially glowing.

pathfinder

Ok, I'll be the fly in the punch bowl, I'm afraid.

I think you got the overexposed look - maybe 1/2 stop.

Her left shoulder in her shirt is blown, particularly in the red channel. The red channel in much of her face and hand is also way past printable 250 or 253 even. The white area at the top of the frame is 255,255,25.

If it were my image, I would dial down the Lightness curve a bit. I think the image would look better without the high key look, but that is certainly a matter of taste and not a matter of fact.

Cute daughter:):

DavidTO

pathfinder wrote:

Ok, I'll be the fly in the punch bowl, I'm afraid.

I think you got the overexposed look - maybe 1/2 stop.

Her left shoulder in her shirt is blown, particularly in the red channel. The red channel in much of her face and hand is also way past printable 250 or 253 even. The white area at the top of the frame is 255,255,25.

If it were my image, I would dial down the Lightness curve a bit. I think the image would look better without the high key look, but that is certainly a matter of taste and not a matter of fact.

Cute daughter:):

Leave it to PF to go by the numbers! (jk) The numbers don't lie!!!

Stormdancing

What a cutie!
I have to agree with PF, for my taste they are over a bit.
This one is just precious and maybe the least over.

DavidTo: Which part? The bellybutton pickin or the tokin?

DavidTO

Stormdancing wrote:

DavidTo: Which part? The bellybutton pickin or the tokin?

yes.

pathfinder

I agree the exposure for the face seems better here, but the face is not as bright as the background, and my eye naturally gravitates toward the lighter areas and then on out of the frame. I generally prefer the face to be slightly lighter than the background as a very broad guideline.

I might try dialing back the saturation and lightness of the background behind her, to help focus attention on here face, and create more seperation from the background. I might crop a little from the right side to move the face away from dead center also.



On the left, is a shot of mine that suffers the same bright background and some underexposure of the face, plus you cannot see her eyes.
On the right, is one with a little darker background that helps keeps the viewer's eye on the child's face. Capturing kids well can be a real challenge.
[imgr]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/13797356-M.jpg[/imgr]

Jamoke

Wow - I've never gotten to the smugmug site like that. It's pretty cool. I like the rest of them a lot better. I agree that the first one is a little blown. I like the background of the gallery they are in. I think it enhances the high key effect, and it works well in that gallery.

Great Site - I'm gonna go steal some code / effects from it.

Greatest form of flattery is imitation right?

bwg

Jamoke wrote:

Wow - I've never gotten to the smugmug site like that. It's pretty cool. I like the rest of them a lot better. I agree that the first one is a little blown. I like the background of the gallery they are in. I think it enhances the high key effect, and it works well in that gallery.

Great Site - I'm gonna go steal some code / effects from it.

Greatest form of flattery is imitation right?

right, so here's the deal.

if you want help customizing your site, ask for it.

if you like what i did and are interested in how i did it, ask me.

dont come on here and say "hey i like that, i'm gonna go steal code from it". that's just plain disrespectful, no matter how many compliments you put in front of it.

gus

Jamoke wrote:

Greatest form of flattery is imitation right?

That would depend on the company you keep.

Shay Stephens

Cool, so I can have your wallet and keys to your car and you will consider it flattering...

Actually, when someone who is creative and resourceful and puts a lot of work into something, the last thing they want to hear is:

Cool, I'm gonna swipe it.

It comes across as someone who isn't going to lift more than a finger needed to copy & paste. It is not flattering, it is instead, very very irratating and disrespectful.

Jamoke wrote:

Great Site - I'm gonna go steal some code / effects from it.

Greatest form of flattery is imitation right?

Jamoke

bigwebguy wrote:

if you like what i did and are interested in how i did it, ask me.

Sorry - What I meant was I was going to glean information about customization from your website. I'm not re-creating your site on my servers... But The way that I learn new programming languages is by looking at source, and I am impressed at the code on yours and will learn more about customization by viewing it.

bigwebguy wrote:

if you want help customizing your site, ask for it.

Wow - Really - You would help re-create my website? I'd much rather somebody just look at my code, and figure out how to do what they wanted to do.

Since you offered though. How did you fade the pictures in and out? How did you create a transparent portion at the bottom of the pictures? What code did you use to generate a slideshow at the top of your galleries? (Just interested, not stealing...)

Of course, no matter how well you explain it, reviewing your code would provide more insight than any verbal explination. Would you mind If I answered these questions myself? Or would you really prefer to create a new thread and explain the customization?

sensitive topic? We're all friends here right? I noticed the copyright anyway. So legally your ethically covered. If I plan on copying even a portion I'll ask - but honestly the defensive approach really turned me off of the concept.

Andy

Jamoke wrote:

sensitive topic? We're all friends here right? I noticed the copyright anyway. So legally your ethically covered. If I plan on copying even a portion I'll ask - but honestly the defensive approach really turned me off of the concept.

Hi Jamoke,

Put on BWGs shoe's here for a minute, ok? He puts in hours and hours helping folks get their sites in order, from the trivial to the extreme. Would he help you? You betcha. But it's kind of like walking into FLW's Falling Water home, and saying "nice digs, I'll measure here and there, and I'm putting up the same thing across the street

Yah imitation is flattery. But there's a way to go about it, and then there's the way you went about it. No harm, no foul, let's move on, but please do recognize the efforts that go on here. Thanks!

Jamoke

Shay Stephens wrote:

It comes across as someone who isn't going to lift more than a finger needed to copy & paste. It is not flattering, it is instead, very very irratating and disrespectful.

So don't read it that way. By the way Shay I like some of your lighting techniques so I'm gonna swipe them. I'm actually just going to copy and paste them into my pictures. Come on - have you looked at his code? It's not just HTML like your site, It's a lot of javascript which is not just a copy paste job anyway.

I didn't mean it in any disrespectful or irratating way. I am impressed by the code, and want to learn how he did it. Just like I want to know how people use LAB and photoshop, and Lighting, and etc....

Yeash -

Jamoke

Andy wrote:

Yah imitation is flattery. But there's a way to go about it, and then there's the way you went about it. No harm, no foul, let's move on, but please do recognize the efforts that go on here. Thanks!

That's all I was doing - was recognizing and trying to compliment the efforts put into his work. No harm, no foul, no code will even be viewed - Gosh dang... Three in under 10 minutes. And this was supposed to be about his daughter....

Everybody just misinterprated my post - or rather my post portrayed a motive different than what I meant. Anybody else care to tell me I shouldn't Replicate a Klingon Batlith because my commanding officer scanned one and put it in the computer sensors?

bwg

Jamoke wrote:

We're all friends here right? I noticed the copyright anyway. So legally your ethically covered. If I plan on copying even a portion I'll ask - but honestly the defensive approach really turned me off of the concept.

my friends usually dont steal from me. but i see you clarified your statement, so consider us bestest buddies.

to answer your slideshow questions: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=28348

Jamoke

Thanks for the link.

Shay Stephens

Jamoke wrote:

...or rather my post portrayed a motive different than what I meant.

That was the problem. Words, which is all we have here, convey the only thoughts. When you use language like "steal" it is going to be dicey. So pick your words a little more carefully next time

I would be pleased to have inspired someone to action, to learning, to new heights. And now seeing that that is what you meant to say, then I am sure all about are sharing in your joy

Stormdancing

Back to regularly scheduled viewing........

pathfinder wrote:

PF
Other than have her gazing lovingly right at your cam, what would/could you have done in your settings to improve this picture? Very narrow DOF?
I shot a 1 year old's birthday party this weekend and was fighting this same type of situation on almost every shot - either busy BG or bright windows behind. Not to mention attention elsewhere and not looking into the cam. Tough but fun.

pathfinder

I think the issue is that most of us are shooting as amateurs, grabbing snapshots of our families at family gatherings, and thus are held hostage to the surroundings and the situation.

The backgrounds and furnishings are frequently not conducive to great images, nor is the lighting.

I try to shoot with large aperatures and mid-telephotos to minimize these effects. But it is hard to do all this and make images that compete with a professional results.



A pro, on the other hand, will shoot the children in a studio, where the lighting has already been carefully planned, the background already set up ( frequently a black velvet or dark grey even ) and the child has been carefully dressed and primped by mom..

Hopefully with SIMPLE plain clothing. Many pros specify Plain solid colored shirts or even just off white shirts.

Shooting from the child's eye level is SO important. Shots made standing up from the vantage point of an adult just do not work. You gotta get down where the kids live.

On the left, is another shot of my grand daughter - not a bad shot - but the big red apple on her shirt, while cute, competes with the other subjects in the image - Nightingale and Ellie. That big RED spot is just too hard to ignore. A plain solid color would be so much better.
On the right, is a shot in Kodachrome, shot with a simple camera by my father in the early 1950's - it has all the flaws of Kodachrome, high contrast, poor shadow detail, and a busy background, but notice how low he got to shoot the kids at eye level... I think my dad did a good job here:):

[imgr]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/702458-M-1.jpg[/imgr]

Shay Stephens

Embrace the distractions

pathfinder wrote:

I think the issue is that most of us are shooting as amateurs, grabbing snapshots of our families at family gatherings, and thus are held hostage to the surroundings and the situation.

Also consider that between "unwashed amatuer" and "pro", there is this narrow no-mans land of overthinking a shot. Paying too much attention to the technicals, distractions, blown highlights, and poor shadow detail to the detriment of expression, relationships, emotion, and beauty.

Consider that the "distracting" surroundings and details also play an important part of establishing the context of a shot. Eliminate any trace of the surroundings and you might as well be shooting everything in a studio that has no context, no relationship with the people, and will bring back no fond memories years later.

A favorite red apple t-shirt that seems to distract today may very well be a cherished photo later down the road only after the significance of that detail is realized. There is a place for "pro" portraits, and there is a place for family photos. Don't make every family gathering a sterile studio shoot, you will regret it later

pathfinder

Shay Stephens wrote:

Also consider that between "unwashed amatuer" and "pro", there is this narrow no-mans land of overthinking a shot. Paying too much attention to the technicals, distractions, blown highlights, and poor shadow detail to the detriment of expression, relationships, emotion, and beauty.

Consider that the "distracting" surroundings and details also play an important part of establishing the context of a shot. Eliminate any trace of the surroundings and you might as well be shooting everything in a studio that has no context, no relationship with the people, and will bring back no fond memories years later.

A favorite red apple t-shirt that seems to distract today may very well be a cherished photo later down the road only after the significance of that detail is realized. There is a place for "pro" portraits, and there is a place for family photos. Don't make every family gathering a sterile studio shoot, you will regret it later

Shay, you make some excellent points and I agree that we would be very poorly served if we never had any snapshots, only studio shots and their pristine, but unreal, backgrounds et al.

Capturing the chaos of our families lives is worthwhile, recording for our memories' sakes. But stormdancing asked how to do it better, and attention to backgrounds, lighting, expression, clothing, etc is how you do it better is it not??

I was not saying that technical details are MORE important than emotion, mood, human interaction, just that poor backgroudns, poor lighting, poor clothing choices rarely improve the shot.

There are those occasions where the bad clothing or uncombed hair are precisely the reason for the shot - but I doubt you would want those for the majority of your images either.

I would not want ONLY studio shots of my family - heavens no - but I have shot Christmas candids at a relative's home for a number of years, and I know in advance, the wall paper is Turquoise and Pink paisley - It looks lovely, but is not a good background for candid family portraits at all. And everyone is sitting 1 foot in front of it.

Come on, Shay - you shoot weddings - you know how backgrounds can be less than desireable - in deed, that is part of your job as a wedding shooter isn't it? Watching out for backgrounds?

Speaking of which - Mattias has posted a good suggestion about kids backgrounds here - http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=30413

Shay Stephens

Lest we become mere technicians...

pathfinder wrote:

But stormdancing asked how to do it better, and attention to backgrounds, lighting, expression, clothing, etc is how you do it better is it not??

Well my point is that you (generically used here) can choose better backgrounds in nearly any scene, but the idea of eliminating the background, distractions, etc, can lead one down a wrong path, one where more attention is paid to them than the content of the photo. So be mindful of the background, be mindful of making it look good (positive) rather than trying to eliminate distractions (negative). But this is in the context of making the subject look good. It is better to get a good looking subject with an ugly background than a great looking background with an ugly subject

Come on, Shay - you shoot weddings - you know how backgrounds can be less than desireable - in deed, that is part of your job as a wedding shooter isn't it? Watching out for backgrounds?

Yes, I pay attention to the backgrounds. I look for nice looking backgrounds, but I don't let the lack of one stop me from shooting a great expression That's all, I just wanted to use your post as a springboard for that idea. The idea that it can be detrimental to focus too much attention on secondary photographic objectives.

Now for those who are sitting there saying "he just doesn't get it", choosing a good looking background really just boils down to looking at the background in the first place. Many times the instinct is to just shoot without actually looking at the background so as to see the details that make it up.

When you go to a drawing class, one of the first things you learn is how to see. Sure we all see just fine. We see the floor, the walls, the ceiling, the people. But we don't pay attention to the details. We don't have a mental image of what it looks like. When you learn to see, you actually paint a mental image that you can reference with your eyes closed.

Police officers have this skill too, they can describe a suspect in very good detail after seeing them but once. The average Joe on the street can only remember male or female and at best if they had light or dark clothing on. Why? Because they don't look or see with a purpose.

As a photographer, you have to see the details of your surroundings so that you have a mental image and could describe it in detail when asked. This will help you develop a situational awareness that will help you instinctively choose angles that result in a good background the majority of the time. This allows you to focus your creative energy on the subject.

The more mental clock cycles you spend on trying to eliminate distractions the less you have for the subject. And the only way to shoot instinctively is to see your surroundings before you begin shooting. Develop that situational awareness, identify the best angles before you start shooting, and then let nature take it's course.

Stormdancing

I agree with you Shay, that photo of the cute grandbaby with cousin Joe in the background picking his nose is priceless.

All and all this has been interesting and informative for me and I hope others.
I think what I'm getting from this boils down to:

Be aware of your background - the makeup of it and how it relates to your picture as a whole. (Distracting, trees sticking out of heads, etc.) Composition.

Be aware of your background as it relates to the techinical aspects of your photo - light/dark/glowing/overpowering to where you need to compensate in your settings to still get the best shot of your subject.

BigWebGuy - Sorry if your thread kind of got hijacked by this discussion. It does relate to your daughters pictures and the exposure of them with the bright windows behind though. She's a doll.:smooch

bwg

Stormdancing wrote:

I agree with you Shay, that photo of the cute grandbaby with cousin Joe in the background picking his nose is priceless.

All and all this has been interesting and informative for me and I hope others.
I think what I'm getting from this boils down to:

Be aware of your background - the makeup of it and how it relates to your picture as a whole. (Distracting, trees sticking out of heads, etc.) Composition.

Be aware of your background as it relates to the techinical aspects of your photo - light/dark/glowing/overpowering to where you need to compensate in your settings to still get the best shot of your subject.

BigWebGuy - Sorry if your thread kind of got hijacked by this discussion. It does relate to your daughters pictures and the exposure of them with the bright windows behind though. She's a doll.:smooch

nono, no apologies necessary. i'm learning here as much as anyone else. thanks guys!