Over-Exposed

[Fujidave]

I think it is just their own style, we all have a style I think that we may do some will like it and some might not. Just having a look on the link and I actually like the images, at the moment I`m going through my own style of keeping some vocalist/band shots at an angle ( Dutch Angle ) as I think it can make an image better.

 

[Derrel]

Dutch tilt making a still photo better… You might want to reconsider that… In the eyes of many, that is a cinema trick, or a newbie move… I get what you're saying but it's like selective color… While it appeals to a certain segment of the population, many people do not feel that Dutch tilt is that valid a form of expression… Of course you are free to make your own decisions, but I'm just here to tell you that dutch tilt is looked upon with a certain degree of shall
we say underappreciation…

 

[smoke665]

Well, think about it for a minute, who mostly influences the decision on the photographer on a wedding. Is it the bride or the groom??? The bride wants that light, airy look, while the groom might lean more toward the dark and gloomy. LOL All kidding aside it does remain a more popular look for the genre, and for certain applications I prefer the approach.

"The course I am taking they teach to expose for the skin, and not to worry about the background." One thing people forget about portraits, is that the person is the biggest priority, the environment is nice, but I guarantee that bride considers herself the most important element of the composition. Skin color in general can vary substantially in it's reflectivity, necessitating EV adjustments that may or may not equal the environment. So which one do you want exposed properly, the bride's face or the background? IE for a fair skinned person you might have to add +1-1.5 EV to your meter reading to get a properly exposed face with creamy skin, half that for a medium skin tone, and 0 or maybe even - on extremely dark skin. Having a face to the bright side helps to cure a lot of blemishes and tonal variations. That's not to say you can't have an acceptable exposure across the image, by taking the appropriate steps to narrow the DR of the scene, you can show as much or little as your vision demands.

 

[Derrel]

Smoke pretty much nailed it. There is a reason for the light, bright, airy look… In fact more than one reason!

 

[Fujidave]

Dutch tilt making a still photo better… You might want to reconsider that… In the eyes of many, that is a cinema trick, or a newbie move… I get what you're saying but it's like selective color… While it appeals to a certain segment of the population, many people do not feel that Dutch tilt is that valid a form of expression… Of course you are free to make your own decisions, but I'm just here to tell you that dutch tilt is looked upon with a certain degree of shall
we say underappreciation…

I don`t actually do it to all my images, just a couple every now and then on some jazz shots in B&W.

 

[Soocom1]

Pintrist.


Go look at the various wedding and engagement posts, and look at what prevails.

Social media.

 

[paigew]

I do not think these images are over exposed. They look perfectly expose to me, with perfectly exposed skin and perfect skin tones/wb. While this photographer does have a lighter/airy style, that is not why the background is blown. The sky is blown because the photography chose to expose it that way in order to get the look of the skin/ overall exposure. Yes they could have used flash, but there are many successful photographers that shoot this way (me included).

In my opinion, the sky can be blown and it does not take away from the image. I have printed many photos with the sky blown and it prints great. Think about it, if you are staring at a person who has their back to the sun...the sky is freaking "blown out". It's the way our own eyes see, so to me, I don't have an issue bringing that into my images. I tend to use an exposure and wb that I see in real life for my images and I'm not sure there is anything "wrong" with this. It's my style, my art, and I like it that way.

Something to consider is knowing the rules (blown sky = bad) and know when to break them.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[tirediron]

Like a lot of trends, it's really an 'Emperor's New Clothes' scenario. People "like" something, be it clothing, or photographic style because they think they're supposed to, or because they're told it's good.

 

[smoke665]

Like a lot of trends, it's really an 'Emperor's New Clothes' scenario. People "like" something, be it clothing, or photographic style because they think they're supposed to, or because they're told it's good.

I know your work and value your opinions, so let me ask you a question. Disregard styles, trends, etc., you have a bride who has some skin blemishes, maybe some tonal variations, in an environmental shot, would you:

• Expose the face to the light side, at the expense of the background.?(Assuming you can't move or otherwise balance the DR).
• Expose for a better overall exposure, and clean up the blemishes post?

 

[Soocom1]

OK.. Lets keep one thing in mind.
If you have sample photos and the couple wants that style, your hired.
If they dont, your not.


Its really for the couple anyway, not our choice really.

 

[tirediron]

Like a lot of trends, it's really an 'Emperor's New Clothes' scenario. People "like" something, be it clothing, or photographic style because they think they're supposed to, or because they're told it's good.

I know your work and value your opinions, so let me ask you a question. Disregard styles, trends, etc., you have a bride who has some skin blemishes, maybe some tonal variations, in an environmental shot, would you:

• Expose the face to the light side, at the expense of the background.?(Assuming you can't move or otherwise balance the DR).
• Expose for a better overall exposure, and clean up the blemishes post?

Thanks Man - I appreciate that!

I would go for what I feel is the best overall exposure and clean up as necessary in post. I suspect this goes back to my formative training; the early 1980s when trends were a lot less trendy because the options were more limited. You could do a lot in the darkroom, but almost everything started with a well-exposed negative. I understand that the "light & airy" look is popular, but for the most part, I feel it's poorly executed and like a lot of people who claim they shoot high key, it's really just over exposed. Some can do it really well, but they're (IMO) the exception.

 

[paigew]

This post reminds me of a Facebook add I saw recently. This is over exposed (shot on right). I have no idea why anyone would pay to buy a preset that makes their images look worse but...

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Designer]

In all my years of chasing the photography hobby, I can think of only one time I ever tilted the camera when making a photo. There was a reason I did so, and I still like the photograph that I made that way. It was definitely not some arbitrary tilt just for the health of it, but I needed to get something in the frame that would not fit otherwise.

Same for washed-out overly-bright whites and sky. There could be a valid reason for it, depending on the circumstances. Keeping such a "look" simply to create a signature style is shallow at best. We could guess at how long such a style would remain popular until it became stale and outdated.

 

[smoke665]

@tirediron I asked because I had this come up recently, I also went with the latter, but after spending hours post on clean up, I really started to question my decision. I would agree with you on overexposing and calling it High Key.

 

[Designer]

I have no idea why anyone would pay to buy a preset that makes their images look worse but...

If somebody consistently makes photos like the one on the left, and they do not have an editing software that can fix it, or if they don't want to take the time to learn, then they might buy the preset to save a few shots they flubbed up.

Or they can simply learn to meter for the main subject.