Is this exposure considered blown out

[Kbarredo]

so i have seen many pics where light skin tone like this is very creamy and is hard to see detail. I always thought this was considered blown out. This is not my pic so I cant post it here. Is this considered proper exposure or is it blown out? I really like it and Im thinking of starting to slightly overexpose my pics.
people | Photography Studios of Monterey and Carmel

 

[Overread17 5]

Hmm its not overexposed, but if you are viewing it on a flatscreen that isn't high-end and calibrated it might look blown out. Try changing the angle that you're viewing the screen at to the point where you are looking direct at or looking up to the screen. Then you should see details appear on the face itself (showing that its very brightly lit but not overexposed).

Typically overexposure is when you've got only white data recorded in the shot, no details or features or anything. It's often not used because of the lack of data or detial or definition that would be captured. You could light a shot bright, but still retain the details and then adjust things in editing if you want to push things up a tad more; keep an eye on the histogram when editing so that you don't run the exposure block up to the far right hand side (overexposed).

 

[minooo]

I believe the opposite, that it is too dark in the shaddows, too much contrast. My oppinion.

 

[480sparky41 41]

To me, overexposed merely means the subject appears brighter in the print that it does on it's own. This would be an 'artistic' change.

Blown-out, however, has a hard definition...... no detail. Pure white. 255:255:255. FFFFFF. 0,0,100. And easy to spot with any decent pp software, just use the eyedropper.

I'd say the photo is a combination of slight overexposure (there's still details in the skin), and an aggressive S-curve (most of the blacks are pure).

 

[greybeard35 8]

Beautiful subject.............That looks like very flat lighting with the contrast really pumped.

 

[1000_Islander]

If one's objective is to accurately reproduce the subject then an image like that is not the result you are after. But there is no reason whatsoever to always follow the 'norm'. Some of the most successful commercial portraiture is very creative. In my studio I produce images running the full range depending upon what both the client and I would like to create and explore. Portraiture need not be a 'clinical' session. I have a buddy who has camera and studio gear to-die-for and his sessions are agonizing in search for precision, and many times the beautiful spontaneity is lost in the process.

 

[KmH]

To expand on 480sparky's comment - any color channel that is 250 to 255 is considered blown-out.

Raw files that have very bright highlights edited in ACR can often be edited to 'recover' the highlights. If only 1 color channel is 'blown' most of the hightlight can be recovered. If 2 channels are blown, only partial recovery can be accomplished. No recovery is possible if all 3 channels are blown-out.

Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS5

 

[cgipson1]

Really a high key treatment on the face of the subject... but nicely done. On my calibrated monitor, it is bright, but not blown out.