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

[Tee]

I get this feeling that when someone says it's underexposed the receiving person thinks that means they have to go blow out the image. Not at all. You can create dark, moody, low key images that are properly exposed. In fact, the OP proves my point with the images posted.

I think that's the issue that the member in the other thread is not understanding.

 

[Mike_E]

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.

Sorry, bad usage on my part. By unhelpful I meant why the exposure didn't work for the image and by unkind I meant being less than generous with advice.

I do tend to ramble a bit.

 

[thunderkyss]

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.

I'm still being serious, because this is a different phrase. I am completely knew here & just trying to get my feet grounded in this conversation.

So, when you said, "stops of latitude" did you mean "exposure latitude" if so, this conversation is making more sense to me. If not, then I'll have to think about it for a while.

 

[jbarrettash]

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.

I could not disagree more. Most do, but there are some beautiful B&W images out there that have no whites at all. Others that have deliberately greyish blacks. Some that have both. I think, though vague and subjective as it is, I would say a B&W image (or colour image for that matter) should have an appropriate distribution of tones. No less, no more.

 

[skieur]

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

Underexposed, overexposed and unevenly exposed.

 

[skieur]

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

Visionary artistic style

BUT that said I'm still learning my way around lightroom and I think my problem is I tinker too much.....Im just in the process of retinkering the whole album.

I NEED TO find or make my own preset for these types of images then just adjust each photo just slightly.
NOT found a good preset as yet.

I would definitely NOT say that flash use on automatic qualifies as "visionary artistic style".

 

[jbarrettash]

I get this feeling that when someone says it's underexposed the receiving person thinks that means they have to go blow out the image. Not at all. You can create dark, moody, low key images that are properly exposed. In fact, the OP proves my point with the images posted.

I could not agree more. But proper exposure is subjective. And varies by subject and by photographer. A "properly" exposed glam shot may reveal many flaws in the face, so the skin tones are "overexposed" by 1, 2 or even (i have seen this) 7-8 stops. And some would say, "hey wait a minute, that is bad photography - the skin tones are white and clipped". I would disagree with this if the exposure difference were intended by the photographer.

 

[jbarrettash]

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.

I'm still being serious, because this is a different phrase. I am completely knew here & just trying to get my feet grounded in this conversation.

So, when you said, "stops of latitude" did you mean "exposure latitude" if so, this conversation is making more sense to me. If not, then I'll have to think about it for a while.

Sort of, but not exactly. Its exposure latitude is measured in stops = stops of latitude. Glad to clarify, but not really sure why others take issue with the term...

 

[amolitor]

Ugh, I hate myself.

Latitude is a property of the film stock (well, ok, stock plus processing).

You don't "capture" latitude. Latitude just is. What you capture is something else. The something else, and latitude, are both measured in stops. Lots of things are measured in stops, though.

 

[NickStevens]

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.

All be it wrongly.....

But go ahead and say what you feel, nobody else has exercised any form of holding back so why start now.

 

[jbarrettash]

Ugh, I hate myself.

Latitude is a property of the film stock (well, ok, stock plus processing).

You don't "capture" latitude. Latitude just is. What you capture is something else. The something else, and latitude, are both measured in stops. Lots of things are measured in stops, though.

Don't hate. it's a waste of energy you could be using to love. Or to snap beautiful images.

I agree to a degree. You don't capture latitude, you capture light (measured in stops). But capturing light that expresses the latitude of the stock could be referred coherently to as "stops of latitude", no? You were the first to admit there is no "real" term for this, and I have been using this term for years as a viable alternative to unwieldy phrases like "tones present in the scene", "the something else" or by incorrectly employing "dynamic range".

Keep in mind the word "stop" refers to a piece of equipment placed in front of a lens to prevent light from making it to the film plane/sensor. It has become the de facto pocket term for measuring log jumps in light in photography, but is merely a metaphor and not technically "correct".

And if you hate yourself because of me, I'm really not goading you or anyone. I am here to learn (and hopefully pass on some knowledge) also. I enjoy being challenged, I really do!

It's when things sink to name-calling and sarcasm that I wonder why anyone bothers to respond. I am new here and seem to be ruffling some feathers myself. For the record, that was not nor is my intention. Let's have fun with this, no? And be respectful and constructive (like Amolitor )

 

[runnah]

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.

I could not disagree more. Most do, but there are some beautiful B&W images out there that have no whites at all. Others that have deliberately greyish blacks. Some that have both. I think, though vague and subjective as it is, I would say a B&W image (or colour image for that matter) should have an appropriate distribution of tones. No less, no more.

Then I would say it is not properly exposed and is more of an artistic choice than technical.

 

[jbarrettash]

Then I would say it is not properly exposed and is more of an artistic choice than technical.

Then wouldn't it be properly exposed? For its artistic purpose? The technical side of things is merely a set of obstacles to work around or within to achieve a desired expression of a scene. But maybe you disagree. I just take issue with the notion of "correct" images, and by extension, "correct", or "proper" exposure.

David Lynch is famous in part for his employment of murky images with greyish "milky" blacks. He calls it "darkness's next door neighbour". Murky images that ride the curve's lower extremities can be spooky and mysterious. Or not, in the wrong hands...

 

[pgriz]

To me, talking about "exposure" is like saying 1/30 sec shutter speed is superior to all others. It's a tool in the service of visual expression.

If the resulting image affects the viewer in the way the photographer intended, then it's successful. It can also be successful if it affects a viewer, even if it affects them differently than what the photographer intended. If the viewer(s) looking at the image can't relate, then it's not successful. How many stops of latitude, or whether the white is truly 255,255,255, etc. is useful to the craftsmen, but not (necessarily) the viewer.

 

[jbarrettash]

I feel maybe I should add some examples of stuff I have shot (at the risk of giving fodder for those opposed )

These are all pretty extreme examples, shot with an iphone 3g that does strange things with chroma and grain at low light (that other iphones do not). They are grainy with colour speckled noise, have no highlights and murky blacks, and most are softish - and I love them! It's great to shoot lo-fi sometimes and my photography spans the gamut (i hope...!) from slick conventionally lit and exposed images to stuff like this that will likely evoke a "YUCK!!" response from many.

I think these images are evocative. To each his own. And I have much better ones, but won't post 'em here.

Like 'em or loathe 'em, here they are (and feel free to CC 'em - but you may need to view them on a calibrated monitor to really get the effect, if not they may just be TOO dim):