A Few Recent Client Headshots (C&C Appreciated)

[Letterbox]

Is this what I can expect every thread to turn into as a TPF member?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

YES!​

 

[Ballistics]

Is this what I can expect every thread to turn into as a TPF member?

Arguments over technicalities, compositions, rigid critiques, severe disagreements. This is what you should HOPE every thread turns into. I wish my C&C threads looked like this.

You can look at it like one big pissing match...

OR, you can look at it like I do: One big learning experience.
People here who are certain about something (including myself)
have their egos checked and their pride forced down their throat,
only to be taught valuable lessons about photography.

 

[ANDS!]

Like I said, #3 looks overexposed.

No you said:

Rely on your eyes, because the highlights are overexposed.

Which is where we got into this conversation about. . .

You've already gone to say that because photoshop doesn't have them at 255, they aren't blown. Hotspots do not have to be @ 255 to be perceived as blown.

I, and the great multitudes of the Googleverse, disagree with you. For the great majority, a blown highlight is a bright spot in an image which has lost its detail. By that definition the only real "blown highlight" is the tip of the guys nose; hardly what I would classify as "blown highlights gone wild - " or that the overall image itself is overexposed.

Is this what I can expect every thread to turn into as a TPF member?

Yes. Or perhaps only the ones where the great hand of Photography-Know-How comes down and (poorly I might add) chastises you for the error of your ways. . .

 

[Ballistics]

Like I said, #3 looks overexposed.

No you said:

Rely on your eyes, because the highlights are overexposed.

Which is where we got into this conversation about. . .

You've already gone to say that because photoshop doesn't have them at 255, they aren't blown. Hotspots do not have to be @ 255 to be perceived as blown.

I, and the great multitudes of the Googleverse, disagree with you. For the great majority, a blown highlight is a bright spot in an image which has lost its detail. By that definition the only real "blown highlight" is the tip of the guys nose; hardly what I would classify as "blown highlights gone wild - " or that the overall image itself is overexposed.

Semantics. The highlights DO look overexposed. As for the term blown - I said that they do not have to be 255 to be PERCEIVED as blown. In otherwords, there can still be recoverable detail, but if it just looks like a white spot, which most of the highlights do, it can be perceived as blown. In his left cheek, the tip of his nose, and in between his eyebrows are all too hot.

 

[Ernicus]

I like turtles!

No you don't.

Shut up.

but...but...

I really do

 

[ANDS!]

Semantics.

Ohhhhhhh. . .ok.


The area around his left cheek and between his eyes may be a bit hot. Far from blown, and certainly I don't perceive it as blown since there is still quite clear detail in both areas.


Yes the tip of the noce got away from LB - however exposure wise, it's not taking anything away from the photo and is certainly far from the Blown Highlight Armageddon that was mentioned on the first page.

 

[Ballistics]

Semantics.

Ohhhhhhh. . .ok.


The area around his left cheek and between his eyes may be a bit hot. Far from blown, and certainly I don't perceive it as blown since there is still quite clear detail in both areas.


Yes the tip of the noce got away from LB - however exposure wise, it's not taking anything away from the photo and is certainly far from the Blown Highlight Armageddon that was mentioned on the first page.

So you agree with me that they are overexposed.

 

[o hey tyler]

Go on.

I don't think that there are "perceived blown" areas. At least not on my screen. I think that there are calibrated monitors and uncalibrated monitors. ;-)

I would say that they're a tad overexposed, but no areas are blown. I compared via my editing station and my phone.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Is this what I can expect every thread to turn into as a TPF member?

What exactly did you expect when you ask for C&C, and then argue with the people who were generous enough to give you some of their time to reply with thoughtful critique?

Option 1: Carefully consider the C&C you receive, discuss and ask for clarity if necessary, then decide which you want to synthesize.
Option 2: Make excuses, argue and complain.

If you want to get better, it's an easy choice.

 

[Ballistics]

Go on.

I don't think that there are "perceived blown" areas. At least not on my screen. I think that there are calibrated monitors and uncalibrated monitors. ;-)

I would say that they're a tad overexposed, but no areas are blown. I compared via my editing station and my phone.

They are very hot on my screen. I've calibrated my monitor as best as I could without any third party software and have been extremely satisfied with prints. Having said that, if the term "blown" has no wiggle room, then I'll just stick with very hot.

 

[Letterbox]

Is this what I can expect every thread to turn into as a TPF member?

What exactly did you expect when you ask for C&C, and then argue with the people who were generous enough to give you some of their time to reply with thoughtful critique?

Option 1: Carefully consider the C&C you receive, discuss and ask for clarity if necessary, then decide which you want to synthesize.
Option 2: Make excuses, argue and complain.

If you want to get better, it's an easy choice.

James, get real. This thread has turned into people arguing about whether "blown out" is defined as 255 or if there is "perceived blown," and several other permutations of similarly minuscule disagreements. Keep in mind, I'm not one of those people. This is *not* how anyone gets better.

 

[o hey tyler]

They are very hot on my screen. I've calibrated my monitor as best as I could without any third party software and have been extremely satisfied with prints. Having said that, if the term "blown" has no wiggle room, then I'll just stick with very hot.

I agree with the term "very hot" which is a definite noticeable effect of overpowered flashes or wide aperture to overexposed the image. It's how I've even described some of my flashed photographs that I've had to reject with my girlfriend.

 

[Ballistics]

This is *not* how anyone gets better.

Cry about it?

This is human interaction, some personalities are analytically and technically (no matter how minuscule) driven. The thread still has it's value, along with it's side bars.

This IS how people get better.

This is the second thread where a person with single digit posts has complained about the forum as if they pay a membership fee.

 

[cgipson1]

Is this what I can expect every thread to turn into as a TPF member?

Believe it or not, we are offering advice! And reasonable advice, based on experience. Your lighting is very harsh... If you soften it up, you will have much more attractive shots.. no matter what you call them.