"What's underneath" - please critique

[JESWAW]

What about that histogram says underexposed to you?

Eh, im confused

 

[Alpha]

The histogram shows the distribution of density in the shot, from dark (shadow) on the left to light (highlight) on the right.

 

[JESWAW]

The histogram shows the distribution of density in the shot, from dark (shadow) on the left to light (highlight) on the right.

Is this good or bad?

 

[Alpha]

Well it's telling you a few things. Most generally, it's telling you that most of your density is falling in the middle of the tone-range (that big spike in the middle). From left to middle, it's mostly flat, and not too low, which is telling you that there's a moderate and even density of tones ranging from pure black to the midtones. From center to right, the lower height is telling you that there's less density in the highlights than in the shadows (or more specifically, anywhere else in the photo). That doesn't necessarily mean that it's overexposed. The fact that the graph extends all the way over to the right signifies that although your highlights aren't dense, the range of values from mid-tone to pure white is broad. The gentle curvilinear slope of the line from center to right is saying that your highlights are gradually decreasing in density as they approach pure white.

I'll try to clarify a few things, in the order in which I explained them above. If you had a big spike on the left hand side, that would be telling you that there was a ton of information in the shadows, or darkest parts of the image. In that case, unless the height of the shadow area (on the y-axis) was consistent with the rest of the values, that might indicate that the shot was underexposed. Conversely, if it was very low or zero, that would tell you there was very little detail in the darkest parts of the image. More specifically, it would be telling you that there were few parts of the image that were approaching pure black. This might indicate underexposure. Similarly, if the bulk of the histogram was concentrated at the right hand side, that would tell you that the density of the highlight areas was very high and there were few areas approaching pure white. This again might indicate underexposure. Conversely, if there was very little or no data to the right of center, that would indicate that there was almost no density in the highlights, i.e. overxposure. It gets a little trickier in more complex situations, where the histogram does not stretch all the way from left to right, but rather has gaps (usually at the ends). When the graph does not stretch from end to end, it signifies therefore that the exposure range is narrow (i.e. that the area the graph occupies is the only area in which there is information). The width of the histogram is effectively telling you something about the contrast of the image as well. If the graph doesn't cover the whole x-axis span, that tends to mean that the contrast is low. If you drag the sliders at either end towards the center in that case, you're essentially narrowing the range of values between pure black and pure white, thus raising the contrast.

Hope that helps.

 

[The_Traveler]

Well it's telling you a few things. Most generally, it's telling you that most of your density is falling in the middle of the tone-range (that big spike in the middle). From left to middle, it's mostly flat, and not too low, which is telling you that there's a moderate and even density of tones ranging from pure black to the midtones. From center to right, the lower height is telling you that there's less density in the highlights than in the shadows (or more specifically, anywhere else in the photo). That doesn't necessarily mean that it's overexposed. The fact that the graph extends all the way over to the right signifies that although your highlights aren't dense, the range of values from mid-tone to pure white is broad. The gentle curvilinear slope of the line from center to right is saying that your highlights are gradually decreasing in density as they approach pure white.

I'll try to clarify a few things, in the order in which I explained them above. If you had a big spike on the left hand side, that would be telling you that there was a ton of information in the shadows, or darkest parts of the image. In that case, unless the height of the shadow area (on the y-axis) was consistent with the rest of the values, that might indicate that the shot was underexposed. Conversely, if it was very low or zero, that would tell you there was very little detail in the darkest parts of the image. More specifically, it would be telling you that there were few parts of the image that were approaching pure black. This might indicate underexposure. Similarly, if the bulk of the histogram was concentrated at the right hand side, that would tell you that the density of the highlight areas was very high and there were few areas approaching pure white. This again might indicate underexposure. Conversely, if there was very little or no data to the right of center, that would indicate that there was almost no density in the highlights, i.e. overxposure. It gets a little trickier in more complex situations, where the histogram does not stretch all the way from left to right, but rather has gaps (usually at the ends). When the graph does not stretch from end to end, it signifies therefore that the exposure range is narrow (i.e. that the area the graph occupies is the only area in which there is information). The width of the histogram is effectively telling you something about the contrast of the image as well. If the graph doesn't cover the whole x-axis span, that tends to mean that the contrast is low. If you drag the sliders at either end towards the center in that case, you're essentially narrowing the range of values between pure black and pure white, thus raising the contrast.

Hope that helps.

I think that's more words in this post than Max has written in all his prior posts cumulatively.

In regards the original picture, I don't think it has any real interest compositionally. You may be able to 'improve' color and straighten things with PS but, IMO, you'd be better off spending your time with an image that has more potential.

 

[JESWAW]

I think that's more words in this post than Max has written in all his prior posts cumulatively.
.

Wow...I think my mind was hurting after following all that stuff...

THE TRAVELER- Yes, its a boring subject....But to one mans trash, another trasure....I kinda float both ways...I like it to a certian point...then i dont like it

 

[The_Traveler]

But to one mans trash, another trasure....I kinda float both ways...I like it to a certian point...then i dont like it

What is it about this that you like?