underexposed b&w

[paigew]

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]

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]

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

 

[paigew]

although the inside of the ear is pretty dark...

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

 

[AlanE]

LOL

 

[BlackSheep]

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

 

[paigew]

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

 

[BlackSheep]

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]

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]

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)

 

[paigew]

original:

 

[slackercruster]

look nice!

 

[paigew]

thanks

 

[revenater]

I think # 3 I the winner also. I did not really notice the ear until I read the post.

 

[480sparky]

They're not 'underexposed' after the B&W conversion.... they just lack contrast.

Original frame histogram:

B&W conversion histogram:

You've got a nice dynamic range in the original, but you're lacking it in the conversion.