Over-Exposed

[paigew]

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 We could guess at how long such a style would remain popular until it became stale and outdated.

The issue is, it's not necessarily a style. It's a way of shooting. It's not like these photographers are going out and only taking shots of people with blown out skies so they fit their portfolio. It's just they choose to use natural light when shooting and therefore have to make a decision on what to expose for. You can have any editing style (bold, matte, light and airy) and still have blown sky.

I am proficient at using flash and use it very often for studio work, but when it comes to shooting outdoors I will very rarely bring it out. I connect better with my subjects when using natural light and honestly I enjoy taking the photos more when I can be inspired by using the light in different ways.

These images are not over exposed. The subject is perfectly exposed.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[paigew]

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.

Lol! Yeah I know I was sort of being a sarcastic [emoji1787]. I just feel like the original image looks so much better than the over exposed crap the preset did. This is one of those light and airy trends being mentioned in the thread. Not so much the legit photogs that are linked in the op.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Soocom1]

There are ways to do the "Light and Airy" shots that have depth.
IMO though not bad, and in fact I am a bit jealous of some of the original photos on their web page, they do have a slight "flat" feel to them.

Again, they are making the money on it, so more power to them.

But remember that I am an old filmer, vs the newer digi only crowd that are exploring the rule breaking with modern digital. So I have a tendency to follow the older film rules.

 

[Braineack]

Photographers care way too much about fake blue skies.

His reception shots are pretty bad...

 

[paigew]

Photographers care way too much about fake blue skies.

His reception shots are pretty bad...

Didn't see the reception shots. But omg yes to the fake skies. I'd rather see a grey or blown sky over a fake sky that looks the same in every photo, any day! #justsaynotofakeskies

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

#JustSayNoToFakeskies...LOL!

 

[DanOstergren]

Yeah, they're over exposed, but they look good. Photography is a subjective art form; try not to let the "rules" of technical perfection trap you in a box. Over or under exposed isn't always bad. Colors that aren't accurate aren't always bad. As well, as professional photographers, we aren't working to make other photographers happy so they can say "WOW that's such a proper exposure!", we're working for consumers who view our art without the bias that stuck-up photographers who are stuck in their tiny little rule boxes have.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I agree with Dan, though I think that the point is often missed.

Very often we will not see beyond or question our base assumptions, what we feel is the key to a good image. Very often a technical understanding will lead to a technical image simply because our core assumptions are based on what we understand and can do, i.e. we can create a technically good image.

It is a big disadvantage to progressing *artistically* if you never let go of that but instead apply that technical proficiency to all the images you produce. It becomes a sort of OCD where we have to record technical detail in every part of the image. Which of course we can edit out, and thus we justify our *need* always to adhere to technical excellence over artistic interpretation with the self serving statement that, "I can always edit information I have but never edit information I don't..."

A lot of how we view and interpret photographs comes from our experience of viewing photos. A blur is not how we ever see anything, but we've learnt to associate it with movement mainly because of the *limitations* of film photography and not because it intrinsically *means* movement or is in any way the *visual reality* of movement captured. That would be silly, blurred images are abstract representations that we happen to interpret...

Visual language is subjective and evolves with our experience, it is not controlled by the logic of how a camera works and so it is a mistake to make it subservient to that. We must not always base our exposure on how a camera records maximum detail but on how the result evokes maximum response from the viewer.

99 times out of 100 you will be exposing to capture maximum detail. But not because you must capture the *visual reality* of a subject in absolute clarity and maximum detail and IQ as dictated by how a camera works, but simply because it produces the most meaningful result. The important lesson is that once you have learnt how to control exposure and keep it within the technical capabilities of your medium then you are no longer a slave to it. Once you can do it you need to free yourself of the notion that you *have* to do it.

Under/over exposure alters recorded colour and changes how we see, perceive and respond to images. It can produce different emotive responses than an exposure designed to utilise the camera to it's best. I don't want to see how good the camera is, I want to see how inventive the photographer can be.

So once you can control the technology let go of the technical understanding, stop evaluating images by what you understand, or how you understand a camera to work. Cameras don't respond to images...

There is no absolute visual reality that a camera captures, there is only a representational 2D image of limited size and brightness. It can only ever be representational so let go of the idea that the image is contained in the visual reality of the subject and how you capture it because it isn't, it's contained in how you represent the subject within a small 2D rectangle of limited brightness and colour...