Does this look under exposed to you??

[FilmaTroy]

f8.0
1/180
iso 100

 

[KenC]

Well, I wish I couldn't see that dude's underwear, but otherwise the exposure seems OK. Their faces and shirts are properly exposed and the lack of detail in the jeans doesn't bother me. If you had let in a little more ambient light, there would have been more detail in the shadows and the people would have been separated from the background a little better, but then the lights overhead would have been more distracting.

 

[FilmaTroy]

ok i just wanted to get a few opinions because somebody said that it was underexposed, and i thought he was crazy

 

[bigtwinky]

looks ok.. did that person have a calibrated monitor?

 

[FilmaTroy]

i dont even know, to be honest i dont know him. the band put some the shots up and this is what he wrote "need studio lights. if they cant be present. use car lights. not trying to offend the photographer who took them. but yea. you need much better lighting. too dark."

i guess he thinks he knows something about photography becuase he just started attending the art institute of Charlotte for photography.

 

[photocist]

The background is underexposed, and the lighting is flat as the earth 2 thousand years ago...

 

[bigtwinky]

That guy's comments are different than "its underexposed". Exposure has to do with the main subject being properly light, which in this case they seem to be.

The guy's comments are about the picture being dark...as in everything else around the subject, and he is totally right. That is really not flattering to have so much dark around, makes it look like it was taken with a point and shoot camera.

 

[skieur]

The basic rule for people pictures is that NO part of the person should blend into the background. Separation of the hair, clothes and other body parts of the person from the background is expected by the viewer.

skieur

 

[mwcfarms]

The basic rule for people pictures is that NO part of the person should blend into the background. Separation of the hair, clothes and other body parts of the person from the background is expected by the viewer.

skieur

+1 and that was something I had to work on as well.

 

[themedicine]

I'm still working towards that rule. I've been trying to work through that for a while! But the first posters are correct, the subject seems ok, and I think I can spot some sort of backlight, but its not coming over the guys' shoulders. Maybe I'm imagining it. But yea, just lengthen your shutter speed. Some ambient is bound to start to come through!

 

[skieur]

Actually, no they are not correct. Very uneven lighting as in this photo indicates that either the flash was incorrectly set and/or there was very little ambient light and the photographer did not compensate for these factors.

skieur