underexposed b&w

paigew · Apr 13, 2012

I took these today for a lighting assignment. I'd love some c&c on the b/w conversion

shot at: iso 400; f3.2; 1/200

1

2

3

jackiex_x · Apr 13, 2012

i like #1 & #3, not so keen on #2, it looks to overexposed for my liking, the darker shots make the child look cuter IMO

AlanE · Apr 13, 2012

For what it's worth I think 3 is a winner, although the inside of the ear is pretty dark...

paigew · Apr 13, 2012

AlanE said:
although the inside of the ear is pretty dark...

awww crap, now that you pointed it out its all I can see!

AlanE · Apr 13, 2012

BlackSheep · Apr 13, 2012

Wait, was the actual assignment to shoot an underexposed image?
(from your thread title)

paigew · Apr 13, 2012

BlackSheep said:
Wait, was the actual assignment to shoot an underexposed image?
(from your thread title)

no, the 'assignment' was "directional lighting". But the way I edited it seems underexposed, no? Maybe just really dark? Maybe I don't know how to describe it correctly :lol:

BlackSheep · Apr 13, 2012

Well, to me they do look underexposed (& from that, too dark & grey).
But FWIW I think that it fits the assignment criteria - you have directional light hitting her face (best one for that is #2).

ETA - how much PP did you do?

paigew · Apr 13, 2012

BlackSheep said:
Well, to me they do look underexposed (& from that, too dark & grey).
But FWIW I think that it fits the assignment criteria - you have directional light hitting her face (best one for that is #2).

thanks blacksheep. They are better exposed in the original but I lowered the exposure so his face wouldn't be blown out. I was going for a more 'artistic' look. So, you don't think my pp looks good then?

BlackSheep · Apr 13, 2012

I don't think it looks bad.
I was acutally just curious about how different the final version was from the unprocessed original, so as to get a better idea of whether your images started out underexposed or not.
(FYI I don't shoot kids or other portraits, so my feedback is limited)