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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

Great points! And I agree with you. The business side of this is very important. Had more people concentrated on this aspect, and phrased it more specifically and kindly as you have here, maybe the thread would not have gotten so venomous. BUT, I repeat, he did not ask for CC...
 
Last edited:
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

So have I - I have books with all these images in them. And the vast expanse of skin tone in each are closer to 18% or slightly under, meaning they are about a stop "under" conventional exposure of Caucasian skin.

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

Well ya tricked me!
:)
(and there is a difference between frankness and meanness, and from what I have seen by tricky you must mean diplomatic and respectful)
 
Full tonal range is one thing, placing the skin tones is another thing, average tonality is yet another thing.

You do kinda get stuff muddled up. Me, I try to let that stuff go. These are forum postings not graduate dissertations, after all, if I can see what you're driving at I try to let the exact words go. Not always, though.
 
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.

I seriously don't know. I know what you're referring to as stops, I understand the word latitude, but I am unfamiliar of the phrase stops of latitude.
 
"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:



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

So have I - I have books with all these images in them. And the vast expanse of skin tone in each are closer to 18% or slightly under, meaning they are about a stop "under" conventional exposure of Caucasian skin.

And they are great.

You did acknowledge that the version you found of the Churchill portrait was a bad reproduction. Still funny that you should grab that one. When I searched the internet for the same portrait this version popped up on the first page. You should go look at your books. I also found another Karsh portrait of Hitchcock. Where Karsh chose to place his subjects skin tones is a function of the film stock he chose, what if any filter he used and how he chose to light the photo. You're confused. Karsh often lit male subjects with high contrast light and incorporated deep strong shadows, BUT always in the context of a full-tone-range print with perfectly placed whites. There's a difference between effective lighting and a mistake.

Joe

View attachment 36070
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reading that bit about dingy pics making people think of not happy and not fun.... Has made me think..... That's about right.
TIME to redevelop the whole album I think...
 
I feel the the taker of the photos have been roundly scolded so I will not heap on any more.

My only comment is that properly exposed B&W photos have the entire gray scale in them. Full white, full blacks and every tone in between.
 
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.

I seriously don't know. I know what you're referring to as stops, I understand the word latitude, but I am unfamiliar of the phrase stops of latitude.

Wikipedia:
"Exposure latitude is the extent to which a light-sensitive material can be overexposed or underexposed and still achieve an acceptable result. Since the acceptability of the result is dependent on both personal aesthetics and artistic intentions, the measurement of exposure latitude is, by definition, somewhat subjective. However, the relative differences between mediums are generally agreed upon: reversal film tends to have very little latitude, color negative film has considerably more, and digital sensors slot between the two.

It is not to be confused with dynamic range, the range of light intensities a medium can capture simultaneously. A recording medium with greater dynamic range will be able to record more details in the dark and light areas of a picture. Latitude depends on dynamic range. If the same scene can be recorded using less than the full brightness range available to the medium, the exposure can be shifted along the range without losing information in the shadows or highlights. Greater exposure latitude allows one to compensate for errors in exposure while retaining quality.
Professional critique of digital cine cameras often centers on the extent to which their dynamic range, and exposure latitude by extension, falls short of that of negative film."

Dynamic range is the number of stops between loss of detail in the blacks and loss of detail in the whites. It is a theoretical absolute at a given exposure and development for a given stock (or, in digital terms, straight out of the camera with a standard exposure of an evenly lit gray card). Typical dynamic ranges run in the 13-15 stop range. Latitude is how far you can go in either direction and, as stated above, achieve "acceptable" results. The dynamic range of a filmstock stays the same if you push or pull a film (being a theoretical maximum), whereas its latitude changes (being a practical measure of its ability to capture light under a specific set of conditions (i.e. exposure, development, printing - or digitally with in camera effects and exposure)).

You can also refer to the dynamic range of a scene, as I understand the term: a dark scene (say, at a concert), or a bright sunny day will have less dynamic range than an overcast day (which will have the most steps (or stops) between black and white).

These are how I understand the terms and their differences - they are very closely related terms, and if I have muddled them a little, I hope someone will correct me and clarify.

Cheers,

Jbarrettash
 
"stops of latitude" is another case where the OP got a bit sloppy. One does not "capture" stops of latitude, as the OP suggests in the OP. Latitude is a measure of how forgiving the material is, roughly, and it is reasonably measured in stops.

What one captures is something else, and to be honest I cannot think of the word, or even if there IS a word. I think of it as "information" or "tones present in the scene" and I am pretty sure this is what the relevant sentence means in the original post.
 
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

So have I - I have books with all these images in them. And the vast expanse of skin tone in each are closer to 18% or slightly under, meaning they are about a stop "under" conventional exposure of Caucasian skin.

And they are great.

You did acknowledge that the version you found of the Churchill portrait was a bad reproduction. Still funny that you should grab that one. When I searched the internet for the same portrait this version popped up on the first page. You should go look at your books. I also found another Karsh portrait of Hitchcock. Where Karsh chose to place his subjects skin tones is a function of the film stock he chose, what if any filter he used and how he chose to light the photo. You're confused. Karsh often lit male subjects with high contrast light and incorporated deep strong shadows, BUT always in the context of a full-tone-range print with perfectly placed whites. There's a difference between effective lighting and a mistake.

Joe

View attachment 36070

I agree and disagree, but we may be quibbling terms: There is a difference between effective lighting and a mistake. I agree. BUT, there is a difference between effective lighting and ineffective lighting, the difference being a subjective question of taste.

And incidentally, the copy in my book is much closer to the one I posted than the one you found.
 
"stops of latitude" is another case where the OP got a bit sloppy. One does not "capture" stops of latitude, as the OP suggests in the OP. Latitude is a measure of how forgiving the material is, roughly, and it is reasonably measured in stops.

What one captures is something else, and to be honest I cannot think of the word, or even if there IS a word. I think of it as "information" or "tones present in the scene" and I am pretty sure this is what the relevant sentence means in the original post.

I think i answered this above. ^^

I wrote: "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". "

I think if my definitions above are correct, the sentence makes perfect sense, no?

Its ability to "capture as many stops as possible" in the real world is what defines its dynamic range. That's how the EI and characteristic curve are derived, according to my understanding. A stock is exposed at several EIs with a very high contrast scene (high contrast meaning very many stops between bright white and black, not high contrast in terms of very few steps between black and white - the term is often used to describe either of these scenarios), then its exposure is graphed against the densities on the film materials for each of the iterations, and the exposure that "captures" the most stops (i.e. has the greatest latitude under those conditions) between black and white is branded the native, or manufacturer's EI (ASA/ISO), and is expressed as a "dynamic range", i.e. 14 stops.

It is confusing. I think I've got it right, but am open to other opinions on the matter.
 
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.

First I would like to apologise if I came over as angry. That's my failure to communicate. Had I been angry (which is extremely unlikely and rather absurd) I would not have bothered to spend time replying - it's not like I have anything to gain by being angry or admonishing you. I was trying to point out that you had a reasonable main message, but it was cluttered up with irrelevant, technically shaky, distractions. I still don't know how anyone can call Karsh's pictures flat, even if you agree with the claim that the skin tones are technically underexposed (skin tones are very rarely 'correct' because the illumination level varies across the face - it's usually more of a deliberate lighting choice). I didn't intend to admonish, only to give examples of the irrelevant things that sprung into my head while trying to follow your argument. Your practical example seemed to be there, at least in part, to establish your experience but you blew it, for me at least, by not showing a good understanding of the subject.

You mis-spelled vectorscope two times so I wondered if it was a typo. For some of us the word 'vector' will always spark up the humour gremlin: "What's your vectro, Victro?" It is also an odd instrument to refer to when the discussion is about brightness rather than colour.

EI is used in still photography for speed ratings that vary from the ISO rating. I would have though that using the EI designation would give clarity to the distinction between the ISO speed rating and the speed rating the photographer chooses to use.
 
So have I - I have books with all these images in them. And the vast expanse of skin tone in each are closer to 18% or slightly under, meaning they are about a stop "under" conventional exposure of Caucasian skin.

And they are great.

You did acknowledge that the version you found of the Churchill portrait was a bad reproduction. Still funny that you should grab that one. When I searched the internet for the same portrait this version popped up on the first page. You should go look at your books. I also found another Karsh portrait of Hitchcock. Where Karsh chose to place his subjects skin tones is a function of the film stock he chose, what if any filter he used and how he chose to light the photo. You're confused. Karsh often lit male subjects with high contrast light and incorporated deep strong shadows, BUT always in the context of a full-tone-range print with perfectly placed whites. There's a difference between effective lighting and a mistake.

Joe

View attachment 36070

I agree and disagree, but we may be quibbling terms: There is a difference between effective lighting and a mistake. I agree. BUT, there is a difference between effective lighting and ineffective lighting, the difference being a subjective question of taste.

And incidentally, the copy in my book is much closer to the one I posted than the one you found.

As I first said, there's room in all the arts for personal expression or taste if you prefer. Toscanini kept pace with Beethoven, Celibidache ran him around but both interpretations are accepted masterpieces. The professional community is able to deal with the placement of limits for personal expression in their respective field. Karsh worked within those limits. If the limits are egregiously violated, as in an obvious mistake, the professional community can legitimately call it. Yes personal expression exists. So do standards.

You need to get a better book.

Joe
 
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.

First I would like to apologise if I came over as angry. That's my failure to communicate. Had I been angry (which is extremely unlikely and rather absurd) I would not have bothered to spend time replying - it's not like I have anything to gain by being angry or admonishing you. I was trying to point out that you had a reasonable main message, but it was cluttered up with irrelevant, technically shaky, distractions. I still don't know how anyone can call Karsh's pictures flat, even if you agree with the claim that the skin tones are technically underexposed (skin tones are very rarely 'correct' because the illumination level varies across the face - it's usually more of a deliberate lighting choice). I didn't intend to admonish, only to give examples of the irrelevant things that sprung into my head while trying to follow your argument. Your practical example seemed to be there, at least in part, to establish your experience but you blew it, for me at least, by not showing a good understanding of the subject.

You mis-spelled vectorscope two times so I wondered if it was a typo. For some of us the word 'vector' will always spark up the humour gremlin: "What's your vectro, Victro?" It is also an odd instrument to refer to when the discussion is about brightness rather than colour.

EI is used in still photography for speed ratings that vary from the ISO rating. I would have though that using the EI designation would give clarity to the distinction between the ISO speed rating and the speed rating the photographer chooses to use.

No worries. Hard to tell anger and irony and sarcasm on the internet. :)

To address some of your points, this is what I wrote:

"Some of Yousuf Karsh's more famous portraits would be considered flat and underexposed by many".

You'll note I didn't say they were. I was applying what I understand to be other's likely impressions based on their posts, and based on the notion that the skin tones are not the conventional 2/3 stop over neutral gray (on average, let's say).

And vecTRoscope was a typo. And maybe you're right, i should have written wave form monitor which these days often have the vectorscopes incorporated, but vectorscopes also give detail about brightness, albeit through the chroma channels (I think i got that right - I am not a technician, but one who tries to learn as much about these tools as i can so i don't handicap my creativity).

You're right about EI. I was dumbing it down and may have come across as dumb in the process. ;) I have corrected it where I thought appropriate.

And I am not sure I agree that i do not have (at least) a "good understanding of the subject". Or that there were "irrelevant" things in my argument, though I respect your opinion and will try and be clearer next time. And maybe not write long technical posts at midnight after a long day and after putting the kid to sleep. :)

And incidentally, my spellcheck says we are BOTH wrong about the spelling of vector/vectroscope. It should be either vector scope or vector-scope.
Just razzin' ya. :)

Thanks for the time. Appreciated.

Jbarrettash
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

Back
Top