# Is Less More?



## K9Kirk (Jan 23, 2020)

I fully understand that there's more detail with more light but are all pictured judged by the detail alone or can a picture be considered nice simply because it looks natural without a lot of detail or that it invokes a mood. I take a lot of pics with the subject in the shade and sometimes I feel compelled to increase the exposure in post editing to increase the detail but when I do I sometimes feel the pic then doesn't look natural because at the time the picture was taken the animal was not lit up as though it was in good enough light to show detail to the naked eye, it increases the color noise and blows out the background light too much and most of all, it changes the mood of the picture. 

How do others feel about light and detail?


----------



## weepete (Jan 24, 2020)

No, I don't judge things by detail alone or how evenly lit a scene is. Sometimes dramatic lighting can be used to great effect in photography using the connotations of light and dark as part of a visual language.

Compositionally we tend towards having the focal point as the brightest thing in the scene, as your eye is naturally drawn there. The difficulty with shooting with your main subject in shade against bright backdrops is that your eye is unconciously drawn away from your subject and you'd need a very strong composition to keep a balanced image. 

That being said, getting good light is part of the quest of being a photographer and if there's no reson for the subject to be underexposed I'm much more likley to treat that more harsly.


----------



## K9Kirk (Jan 24, 2020)

weepete said:


> No, I don't judge things by detail alone or how evenly lit a scene is. Sometimes dramatic lighting can be used to great effect in photography using the connotations of light and dark as part of a visual language.
> 
> Compositionally we tend towards having the focal point as the brightest thing in the scene, as your eye is naturally drawn there. The difficulty with shooting with your main subject in shade against bright backdrops is that your eye is unconciously drawn away from your subject and you'd need a very strong composition to keep a balanced image.
> 
> That being said, getting good light is part of the quest of being a photographer and if there's no reson for the subject to be underexposed I'm much more likley to treat that more harsly.



Well said and thanks a bunch!


----------



## adamhiram (Jan 24, 2020)

I think deciding how much shadow (and highlight) detail to show is one of the biggest decisions when processing an image with a wide dynamic range.   It's always tempting to try to bring back as much shadow as possible, which can easily end up looking overly processed and unnatural.  On the other hand, sometimes allowing shadow detail to go dark and be hidden can really enhance the picture, especially when there's no need to draw the viewer's attention to those details.  The latter scenario is always a challenge for me, especially when I know the detail is there and it would be really easy to pull up the shadows.  For any planned shoot, I often have a speedlight in my camera bag for fill so I don't need to choose between shadow or highlight details, and have more flexibility in post if I want to try something different without reshooting.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 24, 2020)

Every picture is different. Some scenes have a lot of shadow and other scenes are bright and Airy. It really depends. A cave photo is probably going to have a lot more Shadow than a beach scene.


----------



## compur (Jan 24, 2020)

Whatever achieves the desired result in the viewer.


----------



## PJM (Jan 25, 2020)

I agree with what's already been posted.  No one rule applies.  You have to decide what it is that you want your image to say and process accordingly.  It's always a challenge, at least for me, getting the balance the way I like it.


----------



## K9Kirk (Jan 25, 2020)

Thanks to all for the responses, you guys are awesome! I agree with everyone on everything that was said and I'll try to trust my instincts a little more now and not take any critique too seriously since it's mostly just a matter of personal opinion vs. professional opinion.


----------



## cgw (Feb 21, 2020)

Communicating or fitting in? What matters to you?


----------



## K9Kirk (Feb 21, 2020)

cgw said:


> Communicating or fitting in? What matters to you?



I just want to take good pictures and do good editing and the way I see it, if I do both I will fit in better among people that know photography and in turn the communication will likely improve because when you take mediocre pictures no one comments much, if at all and therefore, little or no communication.


----------



## cgw (Feb 23, 2020)

Just don't get trapped trying to make technically perfect images that are paralytically boring. Why so needy for others' opinions? Just asking...


----------



## K9Kirk (Feb 23, 2020)

cgw said:


> Just don't get trapped trying to make technically perfect images that are paralytically boring. Why so needy for others' opinions? Just asking...



"Why so needy for others' opinions?"

I was just asking. Nothing to be concerned about.


----------



## stapo49 (Feb 24, 2020)

I think the thing with photography is that it's not like mathematics where 2+2 always equals 4 ( perhaps not in the quantum world) but is very subjective. 
Different people will look at your image and tell you different things, like the water in a long exposure image is to smooth or not smooth enough, the image has to much clarity, not enough clarity etc.
All you can do is take the image, process it, throw it out there and see what happens. Some will like it some will not. 
You can of course take on what you think is a valid suggestion and remove the crane from the building lol.




Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk


----------



## K9Kirk (Feb 24, 2020)

stapo49 said:


> I think the thing with photography is that it's not like mathematics where 2+2 always equals 4 ( perhaps not in the quantum world) but is very subjective.
> Different people will look at your image and tell you different things, like the water in a long exposure image is to smooth or not smooth enough, the image has to much clarity, not enough clarity etc.
> All you can do is take the image, process it, throw it out there and see what happens. Some will like it some will not.
> You can of course take on what you think is a valid suggestion and remove the crane from the building lol.
> ...



Thanks, that's pretty sound advice and I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I did watch a video by Arthur Morris the other day and his suggestions are paying off. The next day after watching a particular video of his my percentage of 'good pictures' of birds in flight went up dramatically. I wish I could thank that man personally, it made me so happy. I'm sure most photographers can relate to that.


----------



## Soocom1 (Feb 24, 2020)

As I always say... 
eye of the beholder.


----------



## K9Kirk (Feb 24, 2020)

Soocom1 said:


> As I always say...
> eye of the beholder.



I'll take that as "beer holder."


----------



## K9Kirk (Feb 24, 2020)

I might also add that not all pictures are judged according to the quality of a picture but are in fact judged on what I call the "WOW" scale. E.G. if a person put up a picture of a sparrow that showed outstanding detail, color and everything else it might get a few likes but put up a picture of a large bird of prey in the same pose with the same quality or even less and people will be all over it with praise. Just an observation, not trying to change that.


----------

