Under Exposed
Apr 6, 2017 11:19:19 #
Apr 6, 2017 11:22:37 #
kenny green wrote:
Hi there, trying out creating a under exposed low light exposure.
It definitely creates a lot of extra post work for you.
Apr 6, 2017 11:31:59 #
kenny green wrote:
Hi there, trying out creating a under exposed low light exposure.
Although, maybe that is the exact mood, feeling you really wanted to express, remember, the image created, is from the one who snaps the shutter, that is the person who the image must satisfy the most.
Apr 6, 2017 11:49:09 #
Apr 6, 2017 12:05:53 #
There are two senses of underexposure that come to mind. First, is that a normal scene looks less than normal--all the shades of illumination should be visible and they seem to copy the scene itself in relative brightness. Second, is that the parts of the picture meant to be highlights have the texture desired, or the parts meant to be shadows have the texture desired, or the parts meant to be midrange have the texture desired. It is the second sense that I would discuss.
Exposure can be selective if the artistic purpose benefits. For instance, in sunsets, it is rare that one would want all the elements to be "normally" exposed--the subject is usually the sky and the balance of contrast with the earth, which is typically underexposed in "sense one." Anyway, what is the correct exposure (or color) of the sky? Also, a photojournalist might use flash to capture a person in the news in a dark surround; here the exposure of the subject is given first place by the exposure, and the surround is given second place, perhaps by design. Natural light might also fall on the subject in a desirable way, regardless of the exposure of the surround--Rembrandt lighting, Garbo lighting, etc.
Your example is nice as I see it, but a print on paper might be very different--much better, or much worse. I rather prefer, in general, that artistic photographs show all the zones of reality from deep, rich black to pure white (there are of course exceptional compositions), but the "subject" should be mostly around middle gray (in b/w terms). On my monitor, I can't see how this would print, especially if you print the old way with an enlarger. Monitors are fine for midrange exposures, but are not so subtle at the margins (and never have really great blacks). Ideally, the savvy viewer should be able to tell that the selective exposure is by design, and part of the art itself, if you expect the viewer to appreciate it.
What is not wanted is for the viewer to see the intended subject, but not see it as lit in the intended way--as in a sunset where the sky is washed out, or the photojournalist shot where the person of interest is too dark or too light, or a photo of an arc welder at work, where only the light of the torch is visible. It is quite possible your example means to silhouette the parts that are dark, but of course the degree and selection of parts is your choice--and who likes it is their choice. When we choose our style, we also choose our audience.
Exposure can be selective if the artistic purpose benefits. For instance, in sunsets, it is rare that one would want all the elements to be "normally" exposed--the subject is usually the sky and the balance of contrast with the earth, which is typically underexposed in "sense one." Anyway, what is the correct exposure (or color) of the sky? Also, a photojournalist might use flash to capture a person in the news in a dark surround; here the exposure of the subject is given first place by the exposure, and the surround is given second place, perhaps by design. Natural light might also fall on the subject in a desirable way, regardless of the exposure of the surround--Rembrandt lighting, Garbo lighting, etc.
Your example is nice as I see it, but a print on paper might be very different--much better, or much worse. I rather prefer, in general, that artistic photographs show all the zones of reality from deep, rich black to pure white (there are of course exceptional compositions), but the "subject" should be mostly around middle gray (in b/w terms). On my monitor, I can't see how this would print, especially if you print the old way with an enlarger. Monitors are fine for midrange exposures, but are not so subtle at the margins (and never have really great blacks). Ideally, the savvy viewer should be able to tell that the selective exposure is by design, and part of the art itself, if you expect the viewer to appreciate it.
What is not wanted is for the viewer to see the intended subject, but not see it as lit in the intended way--as in a sunset where the sky is washed out, or the photojournalist shot where the person of interest is too dark or too light, or a photo of an arc welder at work, where only the light of the torch is visible. It is quite possible your example means to silhouette the parts that are dark, but of course the degree and selection of parts is your choice--and who likes it is their choice. When we choose our style, we also choose our audience.
kenny green wrote:
Hi there, trying out creating a under exposed low light exposure.
Apr 6, 2017 12:07:01 #
Apr 6, 2017 12:12:41 #
p.s.
I am fascinated by the way old movies photograph night scenes. In old westerns, you see riders at night--with shadows clearly from noonday sun. There were numerous ways to shoot night scenes--filters, underexposure, or even very careful spots of light.
I saw a modern movie shot outside late at night, so the streets were cleared--but made day by gigantic banks of floodlights. Sure enough, in the movie it looked just like daylight.
I am fascinated by the way old movies photograph night scenes. In old westerns, you see riders at night--with shadows clearly from noonday sun. There were numerous ways to shoot night scenes--filters, underexposure, or even very careful spots of light.
I saw a modern movie shot outside late at night, so the streets were cleared--but made day by gigantic banks of floodlights. Sure enough, in the movie it looked just like daylight.
Apr 6, 2017 12:38:38 #
I now have a 3 stop ND plus C-PL polarizer, great advice, cant wait to reshoot and capture with these instead of doing it in post.
Apr 7, 2017 10:09:04 #
Apr 7, 2017 10:52:05 #
first off I find your image composition very compelling. I see huge potential in it. For my tastes it may be just a bit under exposed and lacking in contrast, things which can easily be improved in post processing. Increasing the exposure slightly and selectively in various areas of the photo will add drama and really make this great composition pop.
kenny green wrote:
Hi there, trying out creating a under exposed low light exposure.
Apr 7, 2017 11:07:32 #
I really like it! That said, if this were mine, I would be inclined to crop some of that dark foreground. That sky, the pier and the reflections are quite interesting,
maybe just open up the shadows just a little bit in Lightroom. It's a nice dark, moody image, although I wish we could have seen a larger image.
maybe just open up the shadows just a little bit in Lightroom. It's a nice dark, moody image, although I wish we could have seen a larger image.
Apr 7, 2017 11:08:36 #
Apr 7, 2017 11:34:56 #
Kenny, you did quite well in accomplishing your goal. Regardless of the illumination of the original scene, you created a mystical image. Nicely done.
--Bob
--Bob
kenny green wrote:
Hi there, trying out creating a under exposed low light exposure.
Apr 7, 2017 12:18:17 #
I soon discovered that. Learning that it is more important to have a accurate capture from the camera then spend unnecessary time in post. Very valid point. Thanks
Apr 7, 2017 12:19:08 #
Bozsik wrote:
It definitely creates a lot of extra post work for you.
I soon discovered that. Learning that it is more important to have a accurate capture from the camera then spend unnecessary time in post. Very valid point. Thanks
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.