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

[cgipson1]

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 a an image.

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

I know why you disagree... and we will have to "Agree to Disagree!"

We hear this type of thing often from those trying to justify why they shot / shoot the way they did / do! Good luck with it!

 

[amolitor]

It's always heartwarming to point out that people are talking past one another, and to have them ignore you and continue to do so.

Well done!

 

[jbarrettash]

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 a an image.

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

I know why you disagree... and we will have to "Agree to Disagree!"

We hear this type of thing often from those trying to justify why they shot / shoot the way they did / do! Good luck with it!

Fair enough! But I was trying to back up a generalized claim (which is yes, the fallback of many charlatans and technically deficient/lazy/inept) with a bit of substance. What I am suggesting is not all permissive, just a reaction to the knee-jerking about exposure...


Thanks for taking the time.

PS - I can be just as much a snob as the next guy about quality of image - a bad "well exposed" image is just as bad as a bad "underexposed" image!

 

[jbarrettash]

It's always heartwarming to point out that people are talking past one another, and to have them ignore you and continue to do so.

Well done!

??? Is this directed at me? Was I talking past someone? I apologize, if so, but who? or was your comment directed at someone else?

 

[cgipson1]

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 a an image.

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

I know why you disagree... and we will have to "Agree to Disagree!"

We hear this type of thing often from those trying to justify why they shot / shoot the way they did / do! Good luck with it!

Fair enough! But I was trying to back up a generalized claim (which is yes, the fallback of many charlatans and technically deficient/lazy/inept) with a bit of substance. What I am suggesting is not all permissive, just a reaction to the knee-jerking about exposure...

And thanks for the luck, but i don't really need that much of it anymore (though we can all benefit from a little!).

Thanks for taking the time.

PS - I can be just as much a snob as the next guy about quality of image - a bad "well exposed" image is just as bad as a bad "underexposed" image!

In some ways... but at least the exposure is "RIGHT" on one of those two images you mentioned! Since a top grade image is actually an image made of many different parts (exposure, composition, background, framing, lighting, luck, skill, knowledge, gear, etc.....), the more things you get "RIGHT", the more chance you have of actually achieving what you want.

Now, the exposure, etc.. you want, may not be a correct exposure! But if it works in conjunction with everything else to produce a good image... then that particular "exposure" can be a "correct" exposure without being a "technically correct exposure! But Exposure is one of those things.. that being close to "technically correct" is usually optimal.

 

[thunderkyss]

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.

Is it possible for an image to be beautiful, bold, powerful, or transcendent yet not "properly" exposed?

 

[SCraig]

I know it may seem dark to some but that's the look I was going for, dark and moody.

 

[cgipson1]

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.

Is it possible for an image to be beautiful, bold, powerful, or transcendent yet not "properly" exposed?

Anything is possible.... if all the other factors in an image (except exposure) make it a great shot... then yes. But having at least a reasonable exposure will typically make any shot better. Severe underexposure increases noise, decreases sharpness, contrast and color saturation, and is usually accidental, not intentional. (Unless one is trying for increased noise, and poor color and sharpness). Exposure is one of the PRIMARY things that make a shot good, sharp, colorful, contrasty, whatever. Underexposure can be used to create a powerful image by someone that knows how to use it correctly... but the images the OP posted were hurt by the underexposure, not helped.

 

[cgipson1]

I know it may seem dark to some but that's the look I was going for, dark and moody.

Very powerful... transcendent!

 

[o hey tyler]

I know it may seem dark to some but that's the look I was going for, dark and moody.

Wow! Majestic!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Did you ever play the video game "Majestic" in 2000? It was a game that was real time, and mixed into real life by actually having game characters call you on the phone... And freak you the **** out!

 

[pic_chick]

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

truer words I have not heard in a long while your one of my fav posters to read you bad boy you

 

[jbarrettash]

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.

Is it possible for an image to be beautiful, bold, powerful, or transcendent yet not "properly" exposed?

Anything is possible.... if all the other factors in an image (except exposure) make it a great shot... then yes. But having at least a reasonable exposure will typically make any shot better. Severe underexposure increases noise, decreases sharpness, contrast and color saturation, and is usually accidental, not intentional. (Unless one is trying for increased noise, and poor color and sharpness). Exposure is one of the PRIMARY things that make a shot good, sharp, colorful, contrasty, whatever. Underexposure can be used to create a powerful image by someone that knows how to use it correctly... but the images the OP posted were hurt by the underexposure, not helped.

I disagree. Your statement is predicated on the notion that all images should be sharp, noiseless, contrasty and with saturated colours, and one that isn't, though it may be good, would of necessity be improved by adding more light. With all due respect, and noting I am a minority here, I find that notion as absurd as saying all painting should be pictorial, realistic, colourful and with invisible brushstrokes. Which of course, has been said ad nauseum throughout the history of painting, until less than 200 years or so ago. Even then and up to now, there are still those championing that position.

And the images I posted were hurt by underexposure? You are entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but without, in my opinion, the atmosphere added by taking advantage of the camera's inadequacies and idiosyncrasies to render a low light version of them replete with dancing colour-specked noise, the shots would have been relatively well composed images of trees in a forest. Nothing special. So you may not like the images, but are you being totally honest when you say you believe they would have been better with more light? And don't worry, say what you like about them - they were posted to demonstrate a point and are the bottom barrel from that series. But still effective and evocative, I believe - but not to everyone, and that is more than fine.

 

[o hey tyler]

Did you ever play the video game "Majestic" in 2000? It was a game that was real time, and mixed into real life by actually having game characters call you on the phone... And freak you the **** out!

No, but that sounds odd and creepy on a multitude of levels.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Did you ever play the video game "Majestic" in 2000? It was a game that was real time, and mixed into real life by actually having game characters call you on the phone... And freak you the **** out!

No, but that sounds odd and creepy on a multitude of levels.

It was actually really pretty good. You also had to spend time in an instant messenger, but you never knew if you were chatting with a real person, or a game character. They set it up so you would chat with other players a level below you, to help guide them.

They shut the game down when 9/11 happened. I don't think a game like this will ever come to fruition again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_(video_game)