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

[amolitor]

There are so many things going on in the discussion of proper exposure that it's nearly impossible to have a conversation about it.

Are we talking about the original exposure on film, or the sensor, or whatever OR, are we talking about the way tones in the scene are mapped to tones in the print or whatever the final format is?

Two completely different discussions, and plenty of room for disagreement in both. You could even talk about the way tones and colors in the scene are mapped to tones and colors in some intermediate format, but I really don't see any point to THAT.

There are schools of though that try to justify fitting as much of the scene's tonal range onto the film/sensor as possible.
There are corresponding schools of thought that point out the interesting effects that can be obtained by not doing that.
There is a rebuttal from the first school pointing out that you can pretty much do those in post these days.
etc...


There are schools of thought that say your final output should always have a full range of tonal values, and place tones and colors from the original scene into the tones and colors of that final format in some "proper" way.
There are corresponding fools of of thought made up of thinking human beings. Err, I mean, people who point out that there might be other effects that are desirable.
There is the rebuttal from the first school pointing out that Ansel Adams didn't do it that way.
There is the counter-rebuttal from the second school pointing out that Ansel Adams was an ass.
etc...

 

[pgriz]

It they work for you, then that's fine. If the darkness prevents most viewers from appreciating them, then they don't succeed as images for the majority of viewers. For me, the reaction is more "huh?" than "wow!".

I do know that the images that I love to see (may or) may not appeal to the majority of viewers. So if I want that appeal, I have to focus more on what appeals to others, rather than what "I" want to see. And to appeal to the majority, there are conventions to follow.

 

[jbarrettash]

It they work for you, then that's fine. If the darkness prevents most viewers from appreciating them, then they don't succeed as images for the majority of viewers. For me, the reaction is more "huh?" than "wow!".

I do know that the images that I love to see (may or) may not appeal to the majority of viewers. So if I want that appeal, I have to focus more on what appeals to others, rather than what "I" want to see. And to appeal to the majority, there are conventions to follow.

Sure, and that's the business approach, which works for the most part, but I think many are too conservative because they don't give their audience enough credit. And appealing to the majority, in my world, is the equivalent of appealing to the lowest common denominator. And I do, regularly, to make a living. But all i can think is, imagine what they're missing...

 

[jbarrettash]

There are so many things going on in the discussion of proper exposure that it's nearly impossible to have a conversation about it.

Are we talking about the original exposure on film, or the sensor, or whatever OR, are we talking about the way tones in the scene are mapped to tones in the print or whatever the final format is?

Two completely different discussions, and plenty of room for disagreement in both. You could even talk about the way tones and colors in the scene are mapped to tones and colors in some intermediate format, but I really don't see any point to THAT.

There are schools of though that try to justify fitting as much of the scene's tonal range onto the film/sensor as possible.
There are corresponding schools of thought that point out the interesting effects that can be obtained by not doing that.
There is a rebuttal from the first school pointing out that you can pretty much do those in post these days.
etc...


There are schools of thought that say your final output should always have a full range of tonal values, and place tones and colors from the original scene into the tones and colors of that final format in some "proper" way.
There are corresponding fools of of thought made up of thinking human beings. Err, I mean, people who point out that there might be other effects that are desirable.
There is the rebuttal from the first school pointing out that Ansel Adams didn't do it that way.
There is the counter-rebuttal from the second school pointing out that Ansel Adams was an ass.
etc...

True dat, allove it.

But it's in meshing out the details together, I believe, that we can come to a greater understanding of what we REALLY mean, and intend. I like debate. Makes me show my strong suit - and reveal my weak suit. Hopefully I can strengthen my weak suit in being humble enough to learn from the wealth of knowledge here, in a friendly respectful atmosphere that is conducive to the exchange of ideas and, well, yeah - fair combat!

Oh - and the discussion thus far has been on original in-camera exposure, touching occasionally on post editing where appropriate. At least that has been my understanding.

 

[tirediron]

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...

I would have to agree. "Correct" or "proper" exposure is the exposure desired by the photographer to convey the feeling or message within the image that he or she intends, BUT, with the codicil that he or she understands exposure. Something we see all to often here are images which are under (or over) exposed, poorly composed, etc and when this is pointed out, the photographer cries, "Artistic license", when in fact the image is actually the produce of inadequate knowledge or skill. To paraphrase someone famous: "In order to break the rules, you must first understand them."

 

[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...

I would have to agree. "Correct" or "proper" exposure is the exposure desired by the photographer to convey the feeling or message within the image that he or she intends, BUT, with the codicil that he or she understands exposure. Something we see all to often here are images which are under (or over) exposed, poorly composed, etc and when this is pointed out, the photographer cries, "Artistic license", when in fact the image is actually the produce of inadequate knowledge or skill. To paraphrase someone famous: "In order to break the rules, you must first understand them."

I agree with all that, wholeheartedly. But when a photographer says he knows the rules, claims to have knowledge of lights, flash and exposure and cries "artistic licence", by the same token you must respectfully acknowledge that he has broken rules he understands, whether or not you like the results.

I did not see that happening in the other thread. I saw a lot of namecalling, sarcasm, facetiousness and disrespect with a smattering of useful advice. And I repeat: HE WAS NOT ASKING FOR CC. Rather he had a question about Facebook with regards to exhibiting his photographs. What is the point of a CC policy if people just criticize every photo they choose with utter disregard to the OP's wishes?

I started this thread not to drag that mess here, but to provide a legitimate space for the respectful discussion of exposure. With a few exceptions, I think that has been happening here.

...but i guess now I am guilty of dragging some of that mess here...

 

[tirediron]

...but i guess now I am guilty of dragging some of that mess here...

"Please wipe your feet before entering the thread!"

 

[skieur]

I would have to agree. "Correct" or "proper" exposure is the exposure desired by the photographer to convey the feeling or message within the image that he or she intends, BUT, with the codicil that he or she understands exposure. Something we see all to often here are images which are under (or over) exposed, poorly composed, etc and when this is pointed out, the photographer cries, "Artistic license", when in fact the image is actually the produce of inadequate knowledge or skill. To paraphrase someone famous: "In order to break the rules, you must first understand them."

If the viewer sees it as underexposure than the "exposure desired by the photographer" is irrelevant. The viewer is visually distracted by noise, an image with no contrast, punch, impact etc.
If the viewer is distracted by the incorrect exposure, then no "feeling or message within the image" will be communicated.
The image FAILS

The intention of the photographer is not relevant. The image must stand on its own. If the viewer sees it as an underexposed and therefore poor image, then that is what it is.

skieur

 

[pgriz]

The "lowest common denominator" has been educated by ceaseless bombardment by various media to "expect" certain things and to see them as "normal". There are therefore unspoken rules of what "belongs". Some of us go to other places of mass indoctorination (called, schools, libraries, museums, galleries) where we are exposed to expects who declare this "brilliant" and that "uninspiring", and we learn to associate some of those opinions with certain visual styles. These form a second set of rules which may or may not overlap with the first set. Deviations from either set of rules is seen as "fresh" or "misguided" or just plain yucky. At one point, polyester was fresh, as was selective coloring. Various appearances and effects go in, and then out of fashion, driven partly by the commercial need to sell something, and by the human need to be seen as hip and trendy.

There are probably thousands of unemployed art graduates who had brilliant insights and were geniuses in their artwork - but they didn't convince enough people that their vision was in fact genius, and therefore, were worthy of study and adulation. Because until you get at least a few people really excited about your rule breaking vision, all you are doing is breaking the accepted norms. When enough people agree with you that you have a brilliant new take on visual expression, then a new art form emerges. Maybe. But it takes a lot of persuading, influencing, and general exposing before the world (or at least a part of it) is ready to hail a new genius.

 

[jbarrettash]

I would have to agree. "Correct" or "proper" exposure is the exposure desired by the photographer to convey the feeling or message within the image that he or she intends, BUT, with the codicil that he or she understands exposure. Something we see all to often here are images which are under (or over) exposed, poorly composed, etc and when this is pointed out, the photographer cries, "Artistic license", when in fact the image is actually the produce of inadequate knowledge or skill. To paraphrase someone famous: "In order to break the rules, you must first understand them."

If the viewer sees it as underexposure than the "exposure desired by the photographer" is irrelevant. The viewer is visually distracted by noise, an image with no contrast, punch, impact etc.
If the viewer is distracted by the incorrect exposure, then no "feeling or message within the image" will be communicated.
The image FAILS

The intention of the photographer is not relevant. The image must stand on its own. If the viewer sees it as an underexposed and therefore poor image, then that is what it is.

skieur

Interesting. So if I say an image is underexposed, it is. If the photographer disagrees, it's irrelevant.

So if anyone, anywhere, at any time says even only once that an image is underexposed, then it is underexposed? This seems to be what you are saying, but surely this is not what you mean.

I will say that I believe a photographer's intentions are important, but not paramount. If the exposure is deliberate, I believe, then it is not "underexposed", but rather the film/digital media has been "under-rated" (see OP). But if the deliberate exposure is not effective to one or many or all, it is, in differing degrees, a failed image. This leaves the subjective with the subjective and the objective with the objective: objectively, there are let's say 7 stops out of a possible 14 represented in this image, and the main subject has slid down the scale producing a thinnish image with little density; subjectively we can say we believe it is effective or not, beautiful or ugly or even - fails in its intentions. Only then are we not muddling objective fact with subjective opinion.

Saying an image is "underexposed" is to me of necessity a subjective judgment, given that it is always pejorative, inferring a mistake when the effect may very well be deliberate.

 

[jbarrettash]

...but i guess now I am guilty of dragging some of that mess here...

"Please wipe your feet before entering the thread!"

you made me smile. Thanks

 

[cgipson1]

Visionary artistic style

Huh... I was going to go for the "Harsh shadow, on-camera speedlight style".

How about if you have nothing sensible to say keep mouth shut style?

Nick.. no need to be rude! Those shots look exactly like John said!

 

[cgipson1]

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 am coming into this thread late.... been out of town. But I can say most Preset's only make things worse.. especially for images that are less then perfectly exposed to start with... or shot oddly....

 

[cgipson1]

I would have to agree. "Correct" or "proper" exposure is the exposure desired by the photographer to convey the feeling or message within the image that he or she intends, BUT, with the codicil that he or she understands exposure. Something we see all to often here are images which are under (or over) exposed, poorly composed, etc and when this is pointed out, the photographer cries, "Artistic license", when in fact the image is actually the produce of inadequate knowledge or skill. To paraphrase someone famous: "In order to break the rules, you must first understand them."

If the viewer sees it as underexposure than the "exposure desired by the photographer" is irrelevant. The viewer is visually distracted by noise, an image with no contrast, punch, impact etc.
If the viewer is distracted by the incorrect exposure, then no "feeling or message within the image" will be communicated.
The image FAILS

The intention of the photographer is not relevant. The image must stand on its own. If the viewer sees it as an underexposed and therefore poor image, then that is what it is.

skieur

Interesting. So if I say an image is underexposed, it is. If the photographer disagrees, it's irrelevant.

So if anyone, anywhere, at any time says even only once that an image is underexposed, then it is underexposed? This seems to be what you are saying, but surely this is not what you mean.

I will say that I believe a photographer's intentions are important, but not paramount. If the exposure is deliberate, I believe, then it is not "underexposed", but rather the film/digital media has been "under-rated" (see OP). But if the deliberate exposure is not effective to one or many or all, it is, in differing degrees, a failed image. This leaves the subjective with the subjective and the objective with the objective: objectively, there are let's say 7 stops out of a possible 14 represented in this image, and the main subject has slid down the scale producing a thinnish image with little density; subjectively we can say we believe it is effective or not, beautiful or ugly or even - fails in its intentions. Only then are we not muddling objective fact with subjective opinion.

Saying an image is "underexposed" is to me of necessity a subjective judgment, given that it is always pejorative, inferring a mistake when the effect may very well be deliberate.

I would rely on the Histogram in this instance... if the exposure is WAY to the LEFT, than yes.. it is underexposed. Whether or not the photographer did it on purpose does not change that fact.... even if the underexposure does have some sort of artistic merit.

 

[jbarrettash]

If the viewer sees it as underexposure than the "exposure desired by the photographer" is irrelevant. The viewer is visually distracted by noise, an image with no contrast, punch, impact etc.
If the viewer is distracted by the incorrect exposure, then no "feeling or message within the image" will be communicated.
The image FAILS

The intention of the photographer is not relevant. The image must stand on its own. If the viewer sees it as an underexposed and therefore poor image, then that is what it is.

skieur

Interesting. So if I say an image is underexposed, it is. If the photographer disagrees, it's irrelevant.

So if anyone, anywhere, at any time says even only once that an image is underexposed, then it is underexposed? This seems to be what you are saying, but surely this is not what you mean.

I will say that I believe a photographer's intentions are important, but not paramount. If the exposure is deliberate, I believe, then it is not "underexposed", but rather the film/digital media has been "under-rated" (see OP). But if the deliberate exposure is not effective to one or many or all, it is, in differing degrees, a failed image. This leaves the subjective with the subjective and the objective with the objective: objectively, there are let's say 7 stops out of a possible 14 represented in this image, and the main subject has slid down the scale producing a thinnish image with little density; subjectively we can say we believe it is effective or not, beautiful or ugly or even - fails in its intentions. Only then are we not muddling objective fact with subjective opinion.

Saying an image is "underexposed" is to me of necessity a subjective judgment, given that it is always pejorative, inferring a mistake when the effect may very well be deliberate.

I would rely on the Histogram in this instance... if the exposure is WAY to the LEFT, than yes.. it is underexposed. Whether or not the photographer did it on purpose does not change that fact.... even if the underexposure does have some sort of artistic merit.

I disagree with this on many levels. The most basic being that a histogram does not give you information about your subject, but of the distribution of pixels over an entire image. A small, adequately - or even over - exposed subject against a very dark featureless background would radically skew your histogram but would not provide you with the information you seek - whether the image is appropriately exposed or effective as an image.

You'll have to read the rest of the thread from the beginning for the other reasons I disagree.