Concerning the Exposure Debate... (i'm gonna get flamed!)

[enzodm]

As for 'correct exposure', that, too, is in the eye of the beholder. Note, too, that the authors' monitor may or may not be calibrated, as is or not the viewers' monitor, resulting in color shifts, lightness/darkness, etc.

'perfect exposure' is in the eye of the beholder. Correct exposure maybe not (and maybe there is more than one correct possibility: you have to be able to recognize and choose one).
Any mistake due to monitor issues is still a mistake: every time I miss exposure or balance for that -and is not rare-, I blame myself before telling it's visionary artstyle .

 

[NickStevens]

Yes. Presets will fix everything. Said no one ever.

Would their be any danger of you offering advice?
If you have something to say then say it....instead of taking the piss.

 

[rlemert]

Would their be any danger of you offering advice?
If you have something to say then say it....instead of taking the piss.

Well that's ****ing helpful yah ....

And this is helpful how????

 

[Helen B]

I think that if the original post was edited down to say that there may be something that could be described as a technically perfect exposure, but that departures from something that has been defined as a technically correct exposure may be deliberate, then there would be no reason to expect to be flamed.

You have added so much baggage to that simple notion that you seem to want to be flamed. Calling Karsh's pictures 'flat'? Oh come on. What was the real purpose of the 'under-rated by 2.5 stops' story? Why do you continually and repeatedly refer to 'ASA (ISO)'? Have you ever noticed that motion picture film has no ISO speed rating? Why don't you refer to EI when 'ASA (ISO)' is technically incorrect? What does a vectroscope show? Vectros? Have you heard of a vector? I could go on. None of these have any relevance to what appears to be your main message, but you did include this stuff and it does distract from your message.

 

[Mike_E]

Helen makes a good point as well.

We all spend so much time on the craft that the creative side of things is too often over-looked.

Simply saying that a photo is underexposed is neither helpful nor kind, describing what you feel is lacking gets you better results.





unless you just want to *****.

 

[12sndsgood]

so instead of saying I think its way underexposed its better to say i feel its way to dark...


I guess it really does come down to knowledge and intent. to me there is a big diffrence in someone knowing how to achieve proper exposure who pourposely underexposes to try a new look versus someone who has no idea how to get proper exposure but defends his pictures as some artisic masterpiece and exactly what he was going for.

 

[jbarrettash]

Sooo...look at these Jade's 18th & Gary's 21st Birthday Party and tell me if they are underexposed or visionary artistic style.

They're dim and not my style. But when it is pointed out to the photographer and he says it's intentional and that he is happy with the results and knows how to get a brighter exposure - and even deliberately toned them down in the edit, the only thing I can say is we have different taste. Look at Karsh's portraits of Einstein and Churchill, Adam's birch forest series or almost anything by Steiglitz. Dim and locon. Some even murky. But beautiful and expressive. You use "visionary artistic style" with derision - or am I reading it wrong?

Can't speak for Bitter but I'd say you're reading it right and you are utterly wrong.

Nobody could nail a perfect tone curve like J. Karsh and your description of his work is entirely wrong.

View attachment 36019

There's room in any of the arts for personal expression -- granted. There are also limits beyond which, when crossed, the personal expression claim no longer holds water. The precise position of those limits can be argued but when they are egregiously violated it's fair for the professional community to speak up and make the call. Context can help a lot with the call; a fine artist pushing the envelope and kicking down the door of staid convention and complacency while taking pub photos -- YES! The photos in question do egregiously violate those limits. They are badly underexposed. They were taken with flash and they're not even properly white balanced. How the bleep bleepin bleep can you get the white balance wrong using flash?!

Does bad exposure really exist? Yes. Visionary artistic style? No. Wrong? Yes.

Joe

"it's fair for the professional community to speak up and make the call."

Even if the question asked is about facebook, and no photos are posted, only a link to facebook so people can go and see what the OP's question is concerning? HE DIDN'T ASK FOR CC...

And, yes, that pic of churchill has a full tonal range. However, this was what I was referring to:

View attachment 36050View attachment 36051View attachment 36052

The first one is a bad transfer, but the original looks pretty much the same but the blacks are not so murky, though grey. And if you say there is a full tonal range here or that the skintones are the traditional 2/3 stop above 18%, then you sir are not only wrong, but disingenuous to boot. I am not trying to start a fight with this thread, only to give another perspective...

 

[thunderkyss]

It is, IMHO, entirely up to the photographer where to place this ASA(ISO) rating, according to what they wish to accomplish with the images. A stock using the manufacturer's rating is "safe" and will always produce the same results under the same conditions, maximizing the ability of the particular stock to capture as many stops of latitude as possible (though in practice this is rarely true...). I call this class of image "Kodak perfect".

Cheers,
Jbarrrettash

What does stops of latitude mean?

 

[amolitor]

jbarrettash, basically you're right and most of the sensible people on here would agree with you.

You did ramble a bit and throw a lot of terminology around (apparently) incorrectly, so now you're going to get beaten up over little things, because this is the internet. Unfortunately, by giving the bored a lot of irrelevant fodder to yell at you about, your actual point is going to be lost in the ongoing game of "Who can be snarkiest" which is what the Internet (the parts that aren't smut, anyways) is about.

 

[jbarrettash]

I think that if the original post was edited down to say that there may be something that could be described as a technically perfect exposure, but that departures from something that has been defined as a technically correct exposure may be deliberate, then there would be no reason to expect to be flamed.

You have added so much baggage to that simple notion that you seem to want to be flamed. Calling Karsh's pictures 'flat'? Oh come on. What was the real purpose of the 'under-rated by 2.5 stops' story? Why do you continually and repeatedly refer to 'ASA (ISO)'? Have you ever noticed that motion picture film has no ISO speed rating? Why don't you refer to EI when 'ASA (ISO)' is technically incorrect? What does a vectroscope show? Vectros? Have you heard of a vector? I could go on. None of these have any relevance to what appears to be your main message, but you did include this stuff and it does distract from your message.

Vectorscope. I stand corrected. I apologize for the spelling mistake. Not very kind to take the piss for a spelling mistake. I did not refer to EI because I thought more people would get the ASA(iso) reference, this being a photography forum where those terms are more commonly employed (ISO especially so due to digital imaging). The points are no less clear with the omission of the "technically" correct term.

I would appreciate if you would go on though, Helen, for I suspect you have more valid points to make than correcting my spelling and admonishing me for the employment of clear terminology, though "technically incorrect". I sincerely hope you do have more points, because frankly, your post was angry and disingenuous.

 

[jbarrettash]

It is, IMHO, entirely up to the photographer where to place this ASA(ISO) rating, according to what they wish to accomplish with the images. A stock using the manufacturer's rating is "safe" and will always produce the same results under the same conditions, maximizing the ability of the particular stock to capture as many stops of latitude as possible (though in practice this is rarely true...). I call this class of image "Kodak perfect".



Cheers,
Jbarrrettash

What does stops of latitude mean?

Is this a serious question or are you challenging the terminology? if the latter, what is the problem? if the former, say so and I will apologize and explain.

 

[jbarrettash]

jbarrettash, basically you're right and most of the sensible people on here would agree with you.

You did ramble a bit and throw a lot of terminology around (apparently) incorrectly, so now you're going to get beaten up over little things, because this is the internet. Unfortunately, by giving the bored a lot of irrelevant fodder to yell at you about, your actual point is going to be lost in the ongoing game of "Who can be snarkiest" which is what the Internet (the parts that aren't smut, anyways) is about.

True dat.

I explained myself in the above post. Sorry for the multiple posts, but I thought each deserved its own answer. I am a member of several other forums (not photography) and I am quite frankly appalled at the "who can be snarkiest" attitude here. I have much to contribute (and probably as much or more to learn), but if this is the style of this forum, I may not be around much longer. Too bad, you seem like a good guy and I have seen a few others here while browsing threads.

Are there no moderators here to lock posts when angry rants and tit for tats start appearing? (not referring so much to this thread, but to the one I linked in the OP)

 

[amolitor]

Oh, I'm not a good guy. I'm at least as nasty as these folks, I'm just a lot trickier about it.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Simply saying that a photo is underexposed is neither helpful nor kind,

Stating over/underexposure is simply describing a quality, just like stating that the horizon is tilted, and we don't often see people getting all butthurt over the latter, do we?
It's when one defends to the death, that something works, simply because they "think" it does, is where most people here have a problem.

Case in point...Nightclub photography is about about showing people having a great time. Dark, dingy, dim, flat, images showing green/yellow/grey people simply doesn't convey "fun". It's visual language. Those qualites express specific feelings, even if you pretend they don't. Nightclub photography is commercial photography. It's purpose is to draw people in. While there is some room for artistic style, the genre provides little creative leeway without destroying the intended message. The images should be saying "look what an awesome time we had" rather than "look how sickly we look".

I'v ehad people suggest some of my images are underexposed. The comment IS helpful. It's not meant to be hurtful, or kind. It reminds me to pay attention to how it's percieved. I am free to state my intent, and why I feel it works. It doesn't make me right though. If everybody says it doesn't work, I would definitely spend some time re-evaluating my choices. I wouldn't get my dander up and tell everyone they they are ALL wrong.

Case in point again, we are talking about a specific genre of commercial photography, with a limited message, NOT fine art photography. Nightclub photography is not something that is meant to provoke deep thought and challenge the viewer. No more so than this dim, dingy, flat style would work with boudiour, child, family, engagement, wedding, or infant photography. Geez! Who the hell would want baby pictures that make the child look sickly or dead???

If you wish to argue about intent, use, or merit of underexposure, use this as an example. It's a great example.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/black-white-gallery/315074-s-not-new-york.html
The knee jerk reaction is to say it's underexposed, until you think about it. Till you let the image sink in. The message in that image is not "superhappyfuntime."
But alas, this is not nightclub portraiture, is it?

 

[Ysarex]

They're dim and not my style. But when it is pointed out to the photographer and he says it's intentional and that he is happy with the results and knows how to get a brighter exposure - and even deliberately toned them down in the edit, the only thing I can say is we have different taste. Look at Karsh's portraits of Einstein and Churchill, Adam's birch forest series or almost anything by Steiglitz. Dim and locon. Some even murky. But beautiful and expressive. You use "visionary artistic style" with derision - or am I reading it wrong?

Can't speak for Bitter but I'd say you're reading it right and you are utterly wrong.

Nobody could nail a perfect tone curve like J. Karsh and your description of his work is entirely wrong.

View attachment 36019

There's room in any of the arts for personal expression -- granted. There are also limits beyond which, when crossed, the personal expression claim no longer holds water. The precise position of those limits can be argued but when they are egregiously violated it's fair for the professional community to speak up and make the call. Context can help a lot with the call; a fine artist pushing the envelope and kicking down the door of staid convention and complacency while taking pub photos -- YES! The photos in question do egregiously violate those limits. They are badly underexposed. They were taken with flash and they're not even properly white balanced. How the bleep bleepin bleep can you get the white balance wrong using flash?!

Does bad exposure really exist? Yes. Visionary artistic style? No. Wrong? Yes.

Joe

"it's fair for the professional community to speak up and make the call."

Even if the question asked is about facebook, and no photos are posted, only a link to facebook so people can go and see what the OP's question is concerning? HE DIDN'T ASK FOR CC...

And, yes, that pic of churchill has a full tonal range. However, this was what I was referring to:

View attachment 36050View attachment 36051View attachment 36052

The first one is a bad transfer, but the original looks pretty much the same but the blacks are not so murky, though grey. And if you say there is a full tonal range here or that the skintones are the traditional 2/3 stop above 18%, then you sir are not only wrong, but disingenuous to boot. I am not trying to start a fight with this thread, only to give another perspective...

I've seen good reproductions of each of those photos and there is a full tonal range in each one without any doubt whatsoever. I think you're having a problem telling the difference between what constitutes a good exposure and full tonal range print and the lighting effect employed. Karsh understood the difference.

Joe