# Concerning the Exposure Debate... (i'm gonna get flamed!)



## jbarrettash (Feb 13, 2013)

I hope this is the right place for this - if not feel free to move it. 

This post is largely in response to this thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...page-before-being-able-view-photo-albums.html , but the original thread got derailed in so many different directions I thought I would pick up one of the main ideas that surfaced in a thread of its own. I am pretty new here, though not new to forums nor photography, so I know to fully expect to be flamed for this post. 

The notion of under and overexposure is always a hot topic among photographers. What is underexposed and overexposed? Is there really a consensus on it? Some of Yousuf Karsh's more famous portraits would be considered flat and underexposed by many, whereas the trend for "overexposure" to hide imperfections in glamour photography has reached new highs in the last decade or two. I am a hobbyist photographer with 25 yrs experience and a professional cinematographer and quite a while ago i devised a useful system for myself that may strike a chord with some of you - or enrage others.  For those less technically oriented, skip the next few paragraphs if you like and head straight for the STORY below.

First, let me address "proper" exposure in film terms: a film stock can be said to be "properly" exposed when at a given ASA (ISO) a photographed 18% grey card will print/be projected to 18% refelection/transmisson and preserve its native characteristic curve (a graph of its tonal response from knee to toe). The "given" ASA (ISO) is defaulted to the manufacturer's rating, but by testing a stock at different ASA (ISO), different characteristic curves emerge: softer or more contrasty, if the print is printed "up" or "down" to preserve the 18% on the card. 

It is, IMHO, entirely up to the photographer where to place this ASA(ISO) rating, according to what they wish to accomplish with the images. A stock using the manufacturer's rating is "safe" and will always produce the same results under the same conditions, maximizing the ability of the particular stock to capture as many stops of latitude as possible (though in practice this is rarely true...). I call this class of image "Kodak perfect". 

And many consider that this approach to exposure is to what all "good" photography aspires, or should aspire. BUT, it is, for me, simply a recommendation at best, and a point of departure most of the time. Often I will want to slide down the curve a little, or climb a jump up to achieve a look. This is not new: it's basically a looser approach to Ansel Adam's Zone system. Anyone who thinks Mr. Adams defined his system simply to stick with manufacturer's ratings and expose "Kodak Perfect" images needs to reread his books - notably the chapters on "Visualization" - and look at some of his softer darker images that would, by "Kodak Perfect" standards be considered "underexposed".

And once you start down this slippery slope , true creative freedom starts: use a stock to create a softer image by establishing your own lower EI (ASA (ISO)), then expose some images a couple of stops down the scale into what most would call "underexposure". Sometimes, amazing images are produced this way. 

Now for terms: i think it is up to the photographer to decide what is to be termed under- or overexposed, for the photographer is the one who decides the initial exposure. If it is accidentally dark or simply darker than aimed for, for whatever reason, then the photographer may admit a mistake and say he "underexposed" the image by technical error or lack of experience or understanding of the photographic process. 

I prefer the terms over and underrated for purposefully bright or darker images respectively, because they are useful terms for understanding intent. And, as noted above, I reserve the terms under and overexposure for unintentional error or a failed execution of a final pre-"visualised" image.

Now for the STORY:

A few years back I was the cinematographer on a forty minute dramatic film. I spoke with the director about a look for his slow moving, pensive film and I thought i had a good idea of what he wanted. We tested about a half dozen filmstocks - several kodak and several fuji as well. I am a big fan of the kodak stocks for their ruggedness AND their flexibility, but it came as a surprise that my visualisation was much more successful on one particular fuji stock. The stock in question, for the test, was under-rated by 2.5 stops and printed up 1 stop (so the images finally printed were, according to maufacturer's rating, "underexposed" by 1.5 stops.) It was beautiful - painterly if not quite pastel, with an agreeable noise/grain across the image (and yes, I am one of those that think graininess is an effective creative tool). The director loved it too, so we shot the whole film that way and the producers and the crew loved the dailies and congratulated me on some great, unique work. I was ecstatic - nothing like nailing it, right?

Then I went back to New York where I had been living for a couple of years. The director scheduled the grading (like photo editing) on a day i could not make it back to Montreal, so i sent him some notes and had a phone call with the colour timer/grader. She seemed on board with what I had in mind. A few days went by and the director called me, half way between rage and tears - "they ruined my film, our film!" he scream-sobbed over the phone. Apparently, despite my discussion, the colour timer decided to ignore my wishes and time the film up and add contrast so that it looked good on her vectorscope and to her "kodak perfect" sensibilities. Gone was the soft patina and any interest the images had for the film we tried to make. She even cleaned up the minimal noise she found offensive, so all our work and testing were thrown out the window. 

I gave him the name of the owner of the post production facility and told him to call him, tell him the timer refused to heed his wishes and to book a new session with a new colour timer on a day I could be there. We went back in, timed the film the way we wanted (35mm print and video copies) and left with a smile on our faces. The next day, when the director returned to pay, they would not let the material go without his signing a piece of paper absolving them of responsibility for their work! They claimed the film, timed the way it was as per our look and our specifications, was below the norm and was undistributable...

The film went on to many accolades and won the highest prize in quebec that year for a short, as well as garnering a few cinematography awards and very favourable mentions in reviews. And was distributed on rotation for the better part of a year by one of the top Quebecois cable channels!

The point of the story? Sometimes you just have to saw against the grain the get the wood the way you want it. In photography and cinematography, there are people who revere one type of image above all else (in this day and age, generally very crisp, contrasty, noiseless ones that look good on histograms and vectorscopes). I am not saying these images are bad - on the contrary, they can be great but are nevertheless only one flavour among many, and to limit oneself thus is, well, limiting. 

While most of this discussion has centered around film and film terms, the same ideas can just as readily be applied to digital cinematography and photography.

Incidentally, the photos linked to on faceBook in the link above could definitely be improved upon, but as far as I am concerned if the photographer says that the look he achieved was intentional, then it is fairly out of line to tell him they are "underexposed". Ineffective the way they are exposed is perhaps a valid criticism, but even better than that is to simply say they don't touch or do anything for you personally. Telling him he doesn't know how to use a flash after he has written he used one and darkened them in editing deliberately is also insulting. You may not like his images, but the bottom line is there was intent behind them and a look satisfying to the photographer's pre-visualization was achieved - so the rest, like it or not, is personal taste. I do realize it was in a business subforum, so perhaps the criticism was geared to helping him create more salable images, but very few of the posts seemed to address this. And, more pertinently, his question had absolutely nothing of an invitation to criticize his images or technique. 


Well, that's my rant... any thoughts? flames? 

Cheers,
Jbarrrettash


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 13, 2013)

Tl;dr


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 13, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Tl;dr



I know. I'd probably do the same. I had a lot to say. 

Read the story bit at least. Or not.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 13, 2013)

Sooo...look at these Jade's 18th & Gary's 21st Birthday Party  and tell me if they are underexposed or visionary artistic style.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 13, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Sooo...look at these Jade's 18th & Gary's 21st Birthday Party  and tell me if they are underexposed or visionary artistic style.



Visionary artistic style 

BUT that said I'm still learning my way around lightroom and I think my problem is I tinker too much.....Im just in the process of retinkering the whole album. 

I NEED TO find or make my own preset for these types of images then just adjust each photo just slightly.  
NOT found a good preset as yet.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 13, 2013)

:roll:


----------



## tirediron (Feb 13, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Sooo...look at these Jade's 18th & Gary's 21st Birthday Party  and tell me if they are underexposed or visionary artistic style.
> ...


Huh... I was going to go for the "Harsh shadow, on-camera speedlight style".


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 13, 2013)

tirediron said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



How about if you have nothing sensible to say keep mouth shut style?


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 13, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Sooo...look at these Jade's 18th & Gary's 21st Birthday Party  and tell me if they are underexposed or visionary artistic style.




They're dim and not my style. But when it is pointed out to the  photographer and he says it's intentional and that he is happy with the  results and knows how to get a brighter exposure - and even deliberately  toned them down in the edit, the only thing I can say is we have  different taste. Look at Karsh's portraits of Einstein and Churchill,  Adam's birch forest series or almost anything by Steiglitz. Dim and  locon. Some even murky. But beautiful and expressive. You use "visionary  artistic style" with derision - or am I reading it wrong?


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 13, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Sooo...look at these Jade's 18th & Gary's 21st Birthday Party  and tell me if they are underexposed or visionary artistic style.
> ...


Lightroom isn't the problem.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 13, 2013)

Yes. Presets will fix everything. Said no one ever.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 13, 2013)

Sw1tchFX said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



edit: a moderator edited the inflammatory remark

Really? That's your response? wow, any more like you here and I am going to find another forum...

I started this thread to leave all that crap in the other derailed thread and have a cogent discussion about exposure and approach. Can we get back on track?


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Sooo...look at these Jade's 18th & Gary's 21st Birthday Party  and tell me if they are underexposed or visionary artistic style.
> ...



Can't speak for Bitter but I'd say you're reading it right and you are utterly wrong.

Nobody could nail a perfect tone curve like J. Karsh and your description of his work is entirely wrong.

View attachment 36019

There's room in any of the arts for personal expression -- granted. There are also limits beyond which, when crossed, the personal expression claim no longer holds water. The precise position of those limits can be argued but when they are egregiously violated it's fair for the professional community to speak up and make the call. Context can help a lot with the call; a fine artist pushing the envelope and kicking down the door of staid convention and complacency while taking pub photos -- YES! The photos in question do egregiously violate those limits. They are badly underexposed. They were taken with flash and they're not even properly white balanced. How the bleep bleepin bleep can you get the white balance wrong using flash?!

Does bad exposure really exist? Yes. Visionary artistic style? No. Wrong? Yes.

Joe


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 14, 2013)

^this

I was going to ask what Karsh portraits you were looking at... Because he seems to get the exposure pretty spot on.


----------



## bratkinson (Feb 14, 2013)

Art is in the eye of the beholder.  What one might consider a 'masterpiece', I may consider it trash...especially 'modernistic' styles.  But that's me.

As for 'correct exposure', that, too, is in the eye of the beholder.  Note, too, that the authors' monitor may or may not be calibrated, as is or not the viewers' monitor, resulting in color shifts, lightness/darkness, etc.  

Bottom line, I don't really care what someone else thinks of my pictures, over/under exposure.  I shoot and post-process to suit my needs/requirements,  which may or may not be viewed by others.  Most of whom probably couldn't figure out a Kodak Instamatic camera.


----------



## enzodm (Feb 14, 2013)

bratkinson said:


> As for 'correct exposure', that, too, is in the eye of the beholder.  Note, too, that the authors' monitor may or may not be calibrated, as is or not the viewers' monitor, resulting in color shifts, lightness/darkness, etc.



'perfect exposure' is in the eye of the beholder. Correct exposure maybe not (and maybe there is more than one correct possibility: you have to be able to recognize and choose one). 
Any mistake due to monitor issues is still a mistake: every time I miss exposure or balance for that -and is not rare-, I blame myself before telling it's visionary artstyle  .


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 14, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Yes. Presets will fix everything. Said no one ever.



Would their be any danger of you offering advice? 
If you have something to say then say it....instead of taking the piss.


----------



## rlemert (Feb 14, 2013)

> Would their be any danger of you offering advice?
> If you have something to say then say it....instead of taking the piss.





> Well that's ****ing helpful yah  ....



And this is helpful how????


----------



## Helen B (Feb 14, 2013)

I think that if the original post was edited down to say that there may be something that could be described as a technically perfect exposure, but that departures from something that has been defined as a technically correct exposure may be deliberate, then there would be no reason to expect to be flamed.

You have added so much baggage to that simple notion that you seem to want to be flamed. Calling Karsh's pictures 'flat'? Oh come on. What was the real purpose of the 'under-rated by 2.5 stops' story? Why do you continually and repeatedly refer to 'ASA (ISO)'? Have you ever noticed that motion picture film has no ISO speed rating? Why don't you refer to EI when 'ASA (ISO)' is technically incorrect? What does a vectroscope show? Vectros? Have you heard of a vector? I could go on. None of these have any relevance to what appears to be your main message, but you did include this stuff and it does distract from your message.


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 14, 2013)

Helen makes a good point as well.

We all spend so much time on the craft that the creative side of things is too often over-looked.

Simply saying that a photo is underexposed is neither helpful nor kind, describing what you feel is lacking gets you better results.





unless you just want to *****.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Feb 14, 2013)

so instead of saying I think its way underexposed its better to say i feel its way to dark...


I guess it really does come down to knowledge and intent. to me there is a big diffrence in someone knowing how to achieve proper exposure who pourposely underexposes to try a new look versus someone who has no idea how to get proper exposure but defends his pictures as some artisic masterpiece and exactly what he was going for.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



"it's fair for the professional community to speak up and make the call."

Even if the question asked is about facebook, and no photos are posted, only a link to facebook so people can go and see what the OP's question is concerning? HE DIDN'T ASK FOR CC...

And, yes, that pic of churchill has a full tonal range. However, this was what I was referring to:

View attachment 36050View attachment 36051View attachment 36052

The first one is a bad transfer, but the original looks pretty much the same but the blacks are not so murky, though grey. And if you say there is a full tonal range here or that the skintones are the traditional 2/3 stop above 18%, then you sir are not only wrong, but disingenuous to boot. I am not trying to start a fight with this thread, only to give another perspective...


----------



## thunderkyss (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> It is, IMHO, entirely up to the photographer where to place this  ASA(ISO) rating, according to what they wish to accomplish with the  images. A stock using the manufacturer's rating is "safe" and will  always produce the same results under the same conditions, maximizing  the ability of the particular stock to *capture as many stops of latitude  as possible* (though in practice this is rarely true...). I call this  class of image "Kodak perfect".
> 
> Cheers,
> Jbarrrettash



What does stops of latitude mean?


----------



## amolitor (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash, basically you're right and most of the sensible people on here would agree with you.

You did ramble a bit and throw a lot of terminology around (apparently) incorrectly, so now you're going to get beaten up over little things, because this is the internet. Unfortunately, by giving the bored a lot of irrelevant fodder to yell at you about, your actual point is going to be lost in the ongoing game of "Who can be snarkiest" which is what the Internet (the parts that aren't smut, anyways) is about.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

Helen B said:


> I think that if the original post was edited down to say that there may be something that could be described as a technically perfect exposure, but that departures from something that has been defined as a technically correct exposure may be deliberate, then there would be no reason to expect to be flamed.
> 
> You have added so much baggage to that simple notion that you seem to want to be flamed. Calling Karsh's pictures 'flat'? Oh come on. What was the real purpose of the 'under-rated by 2.5 stops' story? Why do you continually and repeatedly refer to 'ASA (ISO)'? Have you ever noticed that motion picture film has no ISO speed rating? Why don't you refer to EI when 'ASA (ISO)' is technically incorrect? What does a vectroscope show? Vectros? Have you heard of a vector? I could go on. None of these have any relevance to what appears to be your main message, but you did include this stuff and it does distract from your message.



Vectorscope. I stand corrected. I apologize for the spelling mistake. Not very kind to take the piss for a spelling mistake. I did not refer to EI because I thought more people would get the ASA(iso) reference, this being a photography forum where those terms are more commonly employed (ISO especially so due to digital imaging). The points are no less clear with the omission of the "technically" correct term.

I would appreciate if you would go on though, Helen, for I suspect you have more valid points to make than correcting my spelling and admonishing me for the employment of clear terminology, though "technically incorrect". I sincerely hope you do have more points, because frankly, your post was angry and disingenuous.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

thunderkyss said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > It is, IMHO, entirely up to the photographer where to place this  ASA(ISO) rating, according to what they wish to accomplish with the  images. A stock using the manufacturer's rating is "safe" and will  always produce the same results under the same conditions, maximizing  the ability of the particular stock to *capture as many stops of latitude  as possible* (though in practice this is rarely true...). I call this  class of image "Kodak perfect".
> ...


Is this a serious question or are you challenging the terminology? if  the latter, what is the problem? if the former, say so and I will  apologize and explain.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

amolitor said:


> jbarrettash, basically you're right and most of the sensible people on here would agree with you.
> 
> You did ramble a bit and throw a lot of terminology around (apparently) incorrectly, so now you're going to get beaten up over little things, because this is the internet. Unfortunately, by giving the bored a lot of irrelevant fodder to yell at you about, your actual point is going to be lost in the ongoing game of "Who can be snarkiest" which is what the Internet (the parts that aren't smut, anyways) is about.



True dat. 

I explained myself in the above post. Sorry for the multiple posts, but I thought each deserved its own answer. I am a member of several other forums (not photography) and I am quite frankly appalled at the "who can be snarkiest" attitude here. I have much to contribute (and probably as much or more to learn), but if this is the style of this forum, I may not be around much longer. Too bad, you seem like a good guy and I have seen a few others here while browsing threads.

Are there no moderators here to lock posts when angry rants and tit for tats start appearing? (not referring so much to this thread, but to the one I linked in the OP)


----------



## amolitor (Feb 14, 2013)

Oh, I'm not a good guy. I'm at least as nasty as these folks, I'm just a lot trickier about it.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 14, 2013)

Mike_E said:


> Simply saying that a photo is underexposed is neither helpful nor kind,



Stating over/underexposure is simply describing a quality, just like stating that the horizon is tilted, and we don't often see people getting all butthurt over the latter, do we?
It's when one defends to the death, that something works, simply because they "think" it does, is where most people here have a problem.

Case in point...Nightclub photography is about about showing people having a great time. Dark, dingy, dim, flat, images showing green/yellow/grey people simply doesn't convey "fun". It's visual language. Those qualites express specific feelings, even if you pretend they don't. Nightclub photography is commercial photography. It's purpose is to draw people in. While there is some room for artistic style, the genre provides little creative leeway without destroying the intended message. The images should be saying "look what an awesome time we had" rather than "look how sickly we look".

I'v ehad people suggest some of my images are underexposed. The comment IS helpful. It's not meant to be hurtful, or kind.  It reminds me to pay attention to how it's percieved. I am free to state my intent, and why I feel it works. It doesn't make me right though. If everybody says it doesn't work, I would definitely spend some time re-evaluating my choices. I wouldn't get my dander up and tell everyone they they are ALL wrong.

Case in point again, we are talking about a specific genre of commercial photography, with a limited message, NOT fine art photography. Nightclub photography is not something that is meant to provoke deep thought and challenge the viewer. No more so than this dim, dingy, flat style would work with boudiour, child, family, engagement, wedding, or infant photography. Geez! Who the hell would want baby pictures that make the child look sickly or dead???

If you wish to argue about intent, use, or merit of underexposure, use this as an example. It's a great example. 
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/black-white-gallery/315074-s-not-new-york.html
The knee jerk reaction is to say it's underexposed, until you think about it. Till you let the image sink in. The message in that image is not "superhappyfuntime." 
 But alas, this is not nightclub portraiture, is it?


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > jbarrettash said:
> ...



I've seen good reproductions of each of those photos and there is a full tonal range in each one without any doubt whatsoever. I think you're having a problem telling the difference between what constitutes a good exposure and full tonal range print and the lighting effect employed. Karsh understood the difference.

Joe


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> > Simply saying that a photo is underexposed is neither helpful nor kind,
> ...



Great points! And I agree with you. The business side of this is very important. Had more people concentrated on this aspect, and phrased it more specifically and kindly as you have here, maybe the thread would not have gotten so venomous. BUT, I repeat, he did not ask for CC...


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



So have I  - I have books with all these images in them. And the vast expanse of skin tone in each are closer to 18% or slightly under, meaning they are about a stop "under" conventional exposure of Caucasian skin.

And they are great.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Oh, I'm not a good guy. I'm at least as nasty as these folks, I'm just a lot trickier about it.



Well ya tricked me!

(and there is a difference between frankness and meanness, and from what I have seen by tricky you must mean diplomatic and respectful)


----------



## amolitor (Feb 14, 2013)

Full tonal range is one thing, placing the skin tones is another thing, average tonality is yet another thing.

You do kinda get stuff muddled up. Me, I try to let that stuff go. These are forum postings not graduate dissertations, after all, if I can see what you're driving at I try to let the exact words go. Not always, though.


----------



## thunderkyss (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> thunderkyss said:
> 
> 
> > What does stops of latitude mean?
> ...



I seriously don't know. I know what you're referring to as stops, I understand the word latitude, but I am unfamiliar of the phrase stops of latitude.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > jbarrettash said:
> ...



You did acknowledge that the version you found of the Churchill portrait was a bad reproduction. Still funny that you should grab that one. When I searched the internet for the same portrait this version popped up on the first page. You should go look at your books. I also found another Karsh portrait of Hitchcock. Where Karsh chose to place his subjects skin tones is a function of the film stock he chose, what if any filter he used and how he chose to light the photo. You're confused. Karsh often lit male subjects with high contrast light and incorporated deep strong shadows, BUT always in the context of a full-tone-range print with perfectly placed whites. There's a difference between effective lighting and a mistake.

Joe

View attachment 36070


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 14, 2013)

Reading that bit about dingy pics making people think of not happy and not fun.... Has made me think..... That's about right. 
TIME to redevelop the whole album I think...


----------



## runnah (Feb 14, 2013)

I feel the the taker of the photos have been roundly scolded so I will not heap on any more.

My only comment is that properly exposed B&W photos have the entire gray scale in them. Full white, full blacks and every tone in between.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

thunderkyss said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > thunderkyss said:
> ...



Wikipedia:
*"Exposure latitude* is the extent to which a light-sensitive  material can be overexposed or underexposed and still achieve an  acceptable result. Since the acceptability of the result is dependent on  both personal aesthetics and artistic intentions, the measurement of  exposure latitude is, by definition, somewhat subjective. However, the  relative differences between mediums are generally agreed upon: reversal film tends to have very little latitude, color negative film has considerably more, and digital sensors slot between the two.

 It is not to be confused with dynamic range,  the range of light intensities a medium can capture simultaneously. A  recording medium with greater dynamic range will be able to record more  details in the dark and light areas of a picture. Latitude depends on  dynamic range. If the same scene can be recorded using less than the  full brightness range available to the medium, the exposure can be  shifted along the range without losing information in the shadows or  highlights. Greater exposure latitude allows one to compensate for  errors in exposure while retaining quality.
 Professional critique of digital cine cameras often centers on the  extent to which their dynamic range, and exposure latitude by extension,  falls short of that of negative film."

Dynamic range is the number of stops between loss of detail in the blacks and loss of detail in the whites. It is a theoretical absolute at a given exposure and development for a given stock (or, in digital terms, straight out of the camera with a standard exposure of an evenly lit gray card). Typical dynamic ranges run in the 13-15 stop range. Latitude is how far you can go in either direction and, as stated above, achieve "acceptable" results. The dynamic range of a filmstock stays the same if you push or pull a film (being a theoretical maximum), whereas its latitude changes (being a practical measure of its ability to capture light under a specific set of conditions (i.e. exposure, development, printing - or digitally with in camera effects and exposure)).

You can also refer to the dynamic range of a scene, as I understand the term: a dark scene (say, at a concert), or a bright sunny day will have less dynamic range than an overcast day (which will have the most steps (or stops) between black and white).

These are how I understand the terms and their differences - they are very closely related terms, and if I have muddled them a little, I hope someone will correct me and clarify.

Cheers,

Jbarrettash


----------



## amolitor (Feb 14, 2013)

"stops of latitude" is another case where the OP got a bit sloppy. One does not "capture" stops of latitude, as the OP suggests in the OP. Latitude is a measure of how forgiving the material is, roughly, and it is reasonably measured in stops.

What one captures is something else, and to be honest I cannot think of the word, or even if there IS a word. I think of it as "information" or "tones present in the scene" and I am pretty sure this is what the relevant sentence means in the original post.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



I agree and disagree, but we may be quibbling terms: There is a  difference between effective lighting and a mistake. I agree. BUT, there  is a difference between effective lighting and ineffective lighting,  the difference being a subjective question of taste.

And incidentally, the copy in my book is much closer to the one I posted than the one you found.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

amolitor said:


> "stops of latitude" is another case where the OP got a bit sloppy. One does not "capture" stops of latitude, as the OP suggests in the OP. Latitude is a measure of how forgiving the material is, roughly, and it is reasonably measured in stops.
> 
> What one captures is something else, and to be honest I cannot think of the word, or even if there IS a word. I think of it as "information" or "tones present in the scene" and I am pretty sure this is what the relevant sentence means in the original post.



I think i answered this above. ^^

I wrote: "A stock using the manufacturer's rating is "safe" and will always  produce the same results under the same conditions, maximizing the  ability of the particular stock to capture as many stops of latitude as  possible (though in practice this is rarely true...). I call this class  of image "Kodak perfect". "

I think if my definitions above are correct, the sentence makes perfect sense, no?

Its ability to "capture as many stops as possible" in the real world is what defines its dynamic range. That's how the EI and characteristic curve are derived, according to my understanding. A stock is exposed at several EIs with a very high contrast scene (high contrast meaning very many stops between bright white and black, not high contrast in terms of very few steps between black and white - the term is often used to describe either of these scenarios), then its exposure is graphed against the densities on the film materials for each of the iterations, and the exposure that "captures" the most stops (i.e. has the greatest latitude under those conditions) between black and white is branded the native, or manufacturer's EI (ASA/ISO), and is expressed as a "dynamic range", i.e. 14 stops.

It is confusing. I think I've got it right, but am open to other opinions on the matter.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > I think that if the original post was edited down to say that there may be something that could be described as a technically perfect exposure, but that departures from something that has been defined as a technically correct exposure may be deliberate, then there would be no reason to expect to be flamed.
> ...



First I would like to apologise if I came over as angry. That's _my_ failure to communicate. Had I been angry (which is extremely unlikely and rather absurd) I would not have bothered to spend time replying - it's not like I have anything to gain by being angry or admonishing you. I was trying to point out that you had a reasonable main message, but it was cluttered up with irrelevant, technically shaky, distractions. I still don't know how anyone can call Karsh's pictures _flat_, even if you agree with the claim that the skin tones are technically underexposed (skin tones are very rarely 'correct' because the illumination level varies across the face - it's usually more of a deliberate lighting choice). I didn't intend to admonish, only to give examples of the irrelevant things that sprung into my head while trying to follow your argument. Your practical example seemed to be there, at least in part, to establish your experience but you blew it, for me at least, by not showing a good understanding of the subject. 

You mis-spelled vectorscope two times so I wondered if it was a typo. For some of us the word 'vector' will always spark up the humour gremlin: "What's your vectro, Victro?" It is also an odd instrument to refer to when the discussion is about brightness rather than colour. 

EI is used in still photography for speed ratings that vary from the ISO rating. I would have though that using the EI designation would give clarity to the distinction between the ISO speed rating and the speed rating the photographer chooses to use.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > jbarrettash said:
> ...



As I first said, there's room in all the arts for personal expression or taste if you prefer. Toscanini kept pace with Beethoven, Celibidache ran him around but both interpretations are accepted masterpieces. The professional community is able to deal with the placement of limits for personal expression in their respective field. Karsh worked within those limits. If the limits are egregiously violated, as in an obvious mistake, the professional community can legitimately call it. Yes personal expression exists. So do standards.

You need to get a better book.

Joe


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

Helen B said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > Helen B said:
> ...



No worries. Hard to tell anger and irony and sarcasm on the internet. 

To address some of your points, this is what I wrote:

"Some of Yousuf Karsh's more famous portraits would be considered flat and underexposed by many".

You'll note I didn't say they were. I was applying what I understand to be other's likely impressions based on their posts, and based on the notion that the skin tones are not the conventional 2/3 stop over neutral gray (on average, let's say). 

And vecTRoscope was a typo. And maybe you're right, i should have written wave form monitor which these days often have the vectorscopes incorporated, but vectorscopes also give detail about brightness, albeit through the chroma channels (I think i got that right - I am not a technician, but one who tries to learn as much about these tools as i can so i don't handicap my creativity).

You're right about EI. I was dumbing it down and may have come across as dumb in the process.  I have corrected it where I thought appropriate. 

And I am not sure I agree that i do not have (at least) a "good understanding of the subject".   Or that there were "irrelevant" things in my argument, though I respect your opinion and will try and be clearer next time. And maybe not write long technical posts at midnight after a long day and after putting the kid to sleep. 

And incidentally, my spellcheck says we are BOTH wrong about the spelling of vector/vectroscope. It should be  either vector scope or vector-scope.
Just razzin' ya. 

Thanks for the time. Appreciated.

Jbarrettash


----------



## Tee (Feb 14, 2013)

I get this feeling that when someone says it's underexposed the receiving person thinks that means they have to go blow out the image.  Not at all.  You can create dark, moody, low key images that are properly exposed.  In fact, the OP proves my point with the images posted.  

I think that's the issue that the member in the other thread is not understanding.


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 14, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> > Simply saying that a photo is underexposed is neither helpful nor kind,
> ...



Sorry, bad usage on my part.  By unhelpful I meant why the exposure didn't work for the image and by unkind I meant being less than generous with advice.

I do tend to ramble a bit.


----------



## thunderkyss (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> thunderkyss said:
> 
> 
> > jbarrettash said:
> ...



I'm still being serious, because this is a different phrase. I am completely knew here & just trying to get my feet grounded in this conversation. 

So, when you said, "stops of latitude" did you mean "exposure latitude" if so, this conversation is making more sense to me. If not, then I'll have to think about it for a while.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

runnah said:


> I feel the the taker of the photos have been roundly scolded so I will not heap on any more.
> 
> My only comment is that properly exposed B&W photos have the entire gray scale in them. Full white, full blacks and every tone in between.



I could not disagree more. Most do, but there are some beautiful B&W  images out there that have no whites at all. Others that have  deliberately greyish blacks. Some that have both. I think, though vague  and subjective as it is, I would say a B&W image (or colour image  for that matter) should have an appropriate distribution of tones. No  less, no more.


----------



## skieur (Feb 14, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Sooo...look at these Jade's 18th & Gary's 21st Birthday Party and tell me if they are underexposed or visionary artistic style.



Underexposed, overexposed and unevenly exposed.


----------



## skieur (Feb 14, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Sooo...look at these Jade's 18th & Gary's 21st Birthday Party and tell me if they are underexposed or visionary artistic style.
> ...



I would definitely NOT say that flash use on automatic qualifies as "visionary artistic style".


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

Tee said:


> I get this feeling that when someone says it's underexposed the receiving person thinks that means they have to go blow out the image.  Not at all.  You can create dark, moody, low key images that are properly exposed.  In fact, the OP proves my point with the images posted.



I could not agree more. But proper exposure is subjective. And varies by subject and by photographer. A "properly" exposed glam shot may reveal many flaws in the face, so the skin tones are "overexposed" by 1, 2 or even (i have seen this) 7-8 stops. And some would say, "hey wait a minute, that is bad photography - the skin tones are white and clipped". I would disagree with this if the exposure difference were intended by the photographer.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

thunderkyss said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > thunderkyss said:
> ...



Sort of, but not exactly. Its exposure latitude is measured in stops = stops of latitude. Glad to clarify, but not really sure why others take issue with the term...


----------



## amolitor (Feb 14, 2013)

Ugh, I hate myself.

Latitude is a property of the film stock (well, ok, stock plus processing).

You don't "capture" latitude. Latitude just is. What you capture is something else. The something else, and latitude, are both measured in stops. Lots of things are measured in stops, though.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 14, 2013)

runnah said:


> I feel the the taker of the photos have been roundly scolded so I will not heap on any more.
> 
> My only comment is that properly exposed B&W photos have the entire gray scale in them. Full white, full blacks and every tone in between.



All be it wrongly..... 

But go ahead and say what you feel, nobody else has exercised any form of holding back so why start now.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Ugh, I hate myself.
> 
> Latitude is a property of the film stock (well, ok, stock plus processing).
> 
> You don't "capture" latitude. Latitude just is. What you capture is  something else. The something else, and latitude, are both measured in  stops. Lots of things are measured in stops, though.



Don't hate. it's a waste of energy you could be using to love. Or to snap beautiful images. 

I  agree to a degree. You don't capture latitude, you capture light  (measured in stops). But capturing light that expresses the latitude of  the stock could be referred coherently to as "stops of latitude", no?  You were the first to admit there is no "real" term for this, and I have  been using this term for years as a viable alternative to unwieldy  phrases like "tones present in the scene", "the something else" or by incorrectly employing "dynamic range".

Keep in mind the word "stop" refers to a piece of equipment placed in front of a lens to prevent light from making it to the film plane/sensor. It has become the de facto pocket term for measuring log jumps in light in photography, but is merely a metaphor and not technically "correct".

And if you hate yourself because of me, I'm really not goading you or anyone. I am here to learn (and hopefully pass on some knowledge) also. I enjoy being challenged, I really do! 

It's when things sink to name-calling and sarcasm that I wonder why anyone bothers to respond. I am new here and seem to be ruffling some feathers myself. For the record, that was not nor is my intention. Let's have fun with this, no? And be respectful and constructive (like Amolitor  )


----------



## runnah (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I feel the the taker of the photos have been roundly scolded so I will not heap on any more.
> ...




Then I would say it is not properly exposed and is more of an artistic choice than technical.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

runnah said:


> Then I would say it is not properly exposed and is more of an artistic choice than technical.



Then wouldn't it be properly exposed? For its artistic purpose? The technical side of things is merely a set of obstacles to work around or within to achieve a desired expression of a scene. But maybe you disagree. I just take issue with the notion of "correct" images, and by extension, "correct", or "proper" exposure.

David Lynch is famous in part for his employment of murky images with greyish "milky" blacks. He calls it "darkness's next door neighbour". Murky images that ride the curve's lower extremities can be spooky and mysterious. Or not, in the wrong hands...


----------



## pgriz (Feb 14, 2013)

To me, talking about "exposure" is like saying 1/30 sec shutter speed is superior to all others.  It's a tool in the service of visual expression.

If the resulting image affects the viewer in the way the photographer intended, then it's successful.  It can also be successful if it affects a viewer, even if it affects them differently than what the photographer intended.  If the viewer(s) looking at the image can't relate, then it's not successful.  How many stops of latitude, or whether the white is truly 255,255,255, etc. is useful to the craftsmen, but not (necessarily) the viewer.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

I feel maybe I should add some examples of stuff I have shot (at the risk of giving fodder for those opposed   )

These are all pretty extreme examples, shot with an iphone 3g that does strange things with chroma and grain at low light (that other iphones do not). They are grainy with colour speckled noise, have no highlights and murky blacks, and most are softish - and I love them! It's great to shoot lo-fi sometimes and my photography spans the gamut (i hope...!) from slick conventionally lit and exposed images to stuff like this that will likely evoke a "YUCK!!" response from many. 

I think these images are evocative. To each his own. And I have much better ones, but won't post 'em here.

Like 'em or loathe 'em, here they are (and feel free to CC 'em - but you may need to view them on a calibrated monitor to really get the effect, if not they may just be TOO dim):


----------



## amolitor (Feb 14, 2013)

There are so many things going on in the discussion of proper exposure that it's nearly impossible to have a conversation about it.

Are we talking about the original exposure on film, or the sensor, or whatever OR, are we talking about the way tones in the scene are mapped to tones in the print or whatever the final format is?

Two completely different discussions, and plenty of room for disagreement in both. You could even talk about the way tones and colors in the scene are mapped to tones and colors in some intermediate format, but I really don't see any point to THAT.

There are schools of though that try to justify fitting as much of the scene's tonal range onto the film/sensor as possible.
There are corresponding schools of thought that point out the interesting effects that can be obtained by not doing that.
There is a rebuttal from the first school pointing out that you can pretty much do those in post these days.
etc...


There are schools of thought that say your final output should always have a full range of tonal values, and place tones and colors from the original scene into the tones and colors of that final format in some "proper" way.
There are corresponding fools of of thought made up of thinking human beings. Err, I mean, people who point out that there might be other effects that are desirable.
There is the rebuttal from the first school pointing out that Ansel Adams didn't do it that way.
There is the counter-rebuttal from the second school pointing out that Ansel Adams was an ass.
etc...


----------



## pgriz (Feb 14, 2013)

It they work for you, then that's fine.  If the darkness prevents most viewers from appreciating them, then they don't succeed as images for the majority of viewers.  For me, the reaction is more "huh?" than "wow!".  

I do know that the images that I love to see (may or) may not appeal to the majority of viewers.  So if I want that appeal, I have to focus more on what appeals to others, rather than what "I" want to see.  And to appeal to the majority, there are conventions to follow.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

pgriz said:


> It they work for you, then that's fine.  If the darkness prevents most viewers from appreciating them, then they don't succeed as images for the majority of viewers.  For me, the reaction is more "huh?" than "wow!".
> 
> I do know that the images that I love to see (may or) may not appeal to the majority of viewers.  So if I want that appeal, I have to focus more on what appeals to others, rather than what "I" want to see.  And to appeal to the majority, there are conventions to follow.



Sure, and that's the business approach, which works for the most part, but I think many are too conservative because they don't give their audience enough credit. And appealing to the majority, in my world, is the equivalent of appealing to the lowest common denominator. And I do, regularly, to make a living. But all i can think is, imagine what they're missing...


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

amolitor said:


> There are so many things going on in the discussion of proper exposure that it's nearly impossible to have a conversation about it.
> 
> Are we talking about the original exposure on film, or the sensor, or whatever OR, are we talking about the way tones in the scene are mapped to tones in the print or whatever the final format is?
> 
> ...



True dat, allove it.

But it's in meshing out the details together, I believe, that we can  come to a greater understanding of what we REALLY mean, and intend. I  like debate. Makes me show my strong suit - and reveal my weak suit.  Hopefully I can strengthen my weak suit in being humble enough to learn  from the wealth of knowledge here, in a friendly respectful atmosphere  that is conducive to the exchange of ideas and, well, yeah - fair  combat!

Oh - and the discussion thus far has been on original in-camera  exposure, touching occasionally on post editing where appropriate. At  least that has been my understanding.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Then I would say it is not properly exposed and is more of an artistic choice than technical.
> ...


I would have to agree.  "Correct" or "proper" exposure is the exposure desired by the photographer to convey the feeling or message within the image that he or she intends, BUT, with the codicil that he or she understands exposure.  Something we see all to often here are images which are under (or over) exposed, poorly composed, etc and when this is pointed out, the photographer cries, "Artistic license", when in fact the image is actually the produce of inadequate knowledge or skill.  To paraphrase someone famous: "In order to break the rules, you must first understand them."


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

tirediron said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



I agree with all that, wholeheartedly. But when a photographer says he knows the rules, claims to have knowledge of lights, flash and exposure and cries "artistic licence", by the same token you must respectfully acknowledge that he has broken rules he understands, whether or not you like the results.

I did not see that happening in the other thread. I saw a lot of namecalling, sarcasm, facetiousness and disrespect with a smattering of useful advice. And I repeat: HE WAS NOT ASKING FOR CC. Rather he had a question about Facebook with regards to exhibiting his photographs. What is the point of a CC policy if people just criticize every photo they choose with utter disregard to the OP's wishes?

I started this thread not to drag that mess here, but to provide a legitimate space for the respectful discussion of exposure. With a few exceptions, I think that has been happening here.

...but i guess now I am guilty of dragging some of that mess here...


----------



## tirediron (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> ...but i guess now I am guilty of dragging some of that mess here...


"Please wipe your feet before entering the thread!"


----------



## skieur (Feb 14, 2013)

tirediron said:


> I would have to agree. "Correct" or "proper" exposure is the exposure desired by the photographer to convey the feeling or message within the image that he or she intends, BUT, with the codicil that he or she understands exposure. Something we see all to often here are images which are under (or over) exposed, poorly composed, etc and when this is pointed out, the photographer cries, "Artistic license", when in fact the image is actually the produce of inadequate knowledge or skill. To paraphrase someone famous: "In order to break the rules, you must first understand them."



If the viewer sees it as underexposure than the "exposure desired by the photographer" is irrelevant.  The viewer is visually distracted by noise, an image with no contrast, punch, impact etc.
If the viewer is distracted by the incorrect exposure, then no "feeling or message within the image" will be communicated.
The image FAILS

The intention of the photographer is not relevant.  The image must stand on its own.  If the viewer sees it as an underexposed and therefore poor image, then that is what it is.

skieur


----------



## pgriz (Feb 14, 2013)

The "lowest common denominator" has been educated by ceaseless bombardment by various media to "expect" certain things and to see them as "normal".  There are therefore unspoken rules of what "belongs".  Some of us go to other places of mass indoctorination (called, schools, libraries, museums, galleries) where we are exposed to expects who declare this "brilliant" and that "uninspiring", and we learn to associate some of those opinions with certain visual styles.  These form a second set of rules which may or may not overlap with the first set.  Deviations from either set of rules is seen as "fresh" or "misguided" or just plain yucky.  At one point, polyester was fresh, as was selective coloring.  Various appearances and effects go in, and then out of fashion, driven partly by the commercial need to sell something, and by the human need to be seen as hip and trendy.  

There are probably thousands of unemployed art graduates who had brilliant insights and were geniuses in their artwork - but they didn't convince enough people that their vision was in fact genius, and therefore, were worthy of study and adulation.  Because until you get at least a few people really excited about your rule breaking vision, all you are doing is breaking the accepted norms.  When enough people agree with you that you have a brilliant new take on visual expression, then a new art form emerges.  Maybe.  But it takes a lot of persuading, influencing, and general exposing before the world (or at least a part of it) is ready to hail a new genius.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

skieur said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > I would have to agree. "Correct" or "proper" exposure is the exposure desired by the photographer to convey the feeling or message within the image that he or she intends, BUT, with the codicil that he or she understands exposure. Something we see all to often here are images which are under (or over) exposed, poorly composed, etc and when this is pointed out, the photographer cries, "Artistic license", when in fact the image is actually the produce of inadequate knowledge or skill. To paraphrase someone famous: "In order to break the rules, you must first understand them."
> ...



Interesting. So if I say an image is underexposed, it is. If the photographer disagrees, it's irrelevant. 

So if anyone, anywhere, at any time says even only once that an image is underexposed, then it is underexposed? This seems to be what you are saying, but surely this is not what you mean.

I will say that I believe a photographer's intentions are important, but not paramount. If the exposure is deliberate, I believe, then it is not "underexposed", but rather the film/digital media has been "under-rated" (see OP). But if the deliberate exposure is not effective to one or many or all, it is, in differing degrees, a failed image. This leaves the subjective with the subjective and the objective with the objective: objectively, there are let's say 7 stops out of a possible 14 represented in this image, and the main subject has slid down the scale producing a thinnish image with little density; subjectively we can say we believe it is effective or not, beautiful or ugly or even - fails in its intentions. Only then are we not muddling objective fact with subjective opinion.

Saying an image is "underexposed" is to me of necessity a subjective judgment, given that it is always pejorative, inferring a mistake when the effect may very well be deliberate.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

tirediron said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > ...but i guess now I am guilty of dragging some of that mess here...
> ...



you made me smile. Thanks


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > NickStevens said:
> ...



Nick.. no need to be rude! Those shots look exactly like John said!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Sooo...look at these Jade's 18th & Gary's 21st Birthday Party  and tell me if they are underexposed or visionary artistic style.
> ...



I am coming into this thread late.... been out of town. But I can say most Preset's only make things worse.. especially for images that are less then perfectly exposed to start with... or shot oddly....


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



I would rely on the Histogram in this instance... if the exposure is WAY to the LEFT, than yes.. it is underexposed. Whether or not the photographer did it on purpose does not change that fact.... even if the underexposure does have some sort of artistic merit.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



I disagree with this on many levels. The most basic being that a histogram does not give you information about your subject, but of the distribution of pixels over an entire image. A small, adequately - or even over - exposed subject against a very dark featureless background would radically skew your histogram but would not provide you with the information you seek - whether the image is appropriately exposed or effective as an image.

You'll have to read the rest of the thread from the beginning for the other reasons I disagree.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > jbarrettash said:
> ...



I know why you disagree... and we will have to "Agree to Disagree!" 

We hear this type of thing often from those trying to justify why they shot / shoot the way they did / do! Good luck with it!


----------



## amolitor (Feb 14, 2013)

It's always heartwarming to point out that people are talking past one another, and to have them ignore you and continue to do so.

Well done!


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Fair enough! But I was trying to back up a generalized claim (which is yes, the fallback of many charlatans and technically deficient/lazy/inept) with a bit of substance. What I am suggesting is not all permissive, just a reaction to the knee-jerking about exposure...


Thanks for taking the time.

PS - I can be just as much a snob as the next guy about quality of image - a bad "well exposed" image is just as bad as a bad "underexposed" image!


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

amolitor said:


> It's always heartwarming to point out that people are talking past one another, and to have them ignore you and continue to do so.
> 
> Well done!



??? Is this directed at me? Was I talking past someone? I apologize, if so, but who? or was your comment directed at someone else?


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > jbarrettash said:
> ...



In some ways... but at least the exposure is "RIGHT" on one of those two images you mentioned! Since a top grade image is actually an image made of many different parts (exposure, composition, background, framing, lighting, luck, skill, knowledge, gear, etc.....), the more things you get "RIGHT", the more chance you have of actually achieving what you want. 

Now, the exposure, etc..  you want, may not be a correct exposure! But if it works in conjunction with everything else to produce a good image... then that particular "exposure" can be a "correct" exposure without being a "technically correct exposure! But Exposure is one of those things.. that being close to "technically correct" is usually optimal.


----------



## thunderkyss (Feb 14, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > I feel the the taker of the photos have been roundly scolded so I will not heap on any more.
> ...



Is it possible for an image to be beautiful, bold, powerful, or transcendent yet not "properly" exposed?


----------



## SCraig (Feb 14, 2013)

I know it may seem dark to some but that's the look I was going for, dark and moody.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2013)

thunderkyss said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Anything is possible.... if all the other factors in an image (except exposure) make it a great shot... then yes. But having at least a reasonable exposure will typically make any shot better. Severe underexposure increases noise, decreases sharpness, contrast and color saturation, and is usually accidental, not intentional. (Unless one is trying for increased noise, and poor color and sharpness). Exposure is one of the PRIMARY things that make a shot good, sharp, colorful, contrasty, whatever. Underexposure can be used to create a powerful image by someone that knows how to use it correctly... but the images the OP posted were hurt by the underexposure, not helped.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 14, 2013)

SCraig said:


> I know it may seem dark to some but that's the look I was going for, dark and moody.



Very powerful... transcendent!


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 14, 2013)

SCraig said:


> I know it may seem dark to some but that's the look I was going for, dark and moody.



Wow! Majestic!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 14, 2013)

Did you ever play the video game "Majestic" in 2000? It was a game that was real time, and mixed into real life by actually having game characters call you on the phone... And freak you the **** out!


----------



## pic_chick (Feb 14, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Oh, I'm not a good guy. I'm at least as nasty as these folks, I'm just a lot trickier about it.



truer words I have not heard in a long while your one of my fav posters to read you bad boy you


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 14, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> thunderkyss said:
> 
> 
> > jbarrettash said:
> ...



I disagree. Your statement is predicated on the notion that all images should be sharp, noiseless, contrasty and with saturated colours, and one that isn't, though it may be good, would of necessity be improved by adding more light. With all due respect, and noting I am a minority here, I find that notion as absurd as saying all painting should be pictorial, realistic, colourful and with invisible brushstrokes. Which of course, has been said ad nauseum throughout the history of painting, until less than 200 years or so ago. Even then and up to now, there are still those championing that position.

And the images I posted were hurt by underexposure? You are entitled to your opinion and I respect it, but without, in my opinion, the atmosphere added by taking advantage of the camera's inadequacies and idiosyncrasies to render a low light version of them replete with dancing colour-specked noise, the shots would have been relatively well composed images of trees in a forest. Nothing special. So you may not like the images, but are you being totally honest when you say you believe they would have been better with more light? And don't worry, say what you like about them - they were posted to demonstrate a point and are the bottom barrel from that series. But still effective and evocative, I believe - but not to everyone, and that is more than fine.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 14, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Did you ever play the video game "Majestic" in 2000? It was a game that was real time, and mixed into real life by actually having game characters call you on the phone... And freak you the **** out!



No, but that sounds odd and creepy on a multitude of levels.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 14, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > Did you ever play the video game "Majestic" in 2000? It was a game that was real time, and mixed into real life by actually having game characters call you on the phone... And freak you the **** out!
> ...



It was actually really pretty good. You also had to spend time in an instant messenger, but you never knew if you were chatting with a real person, or a game character. They set it up so you would chat with other players a level below you, to help guide them.

They shut the game down when 9/11 happened. I don't think a game like this will ever come to fruition again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_(video_game)


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 15, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> It was actually really pretty good. You also had to spend time in an instant messenger, but you never knew if you were chatting with a real person, or a game character. They set it up so you would chat with other players a level below you, to help guide them.
> 
> They shut the game down when 9/11 happened. I don't think a game like this will ever come to fruition again.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_(video_game)



But dude, it came with Internet explorer on the disc! How could you support that?


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 15, 2013)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> But dude, it came with Internet explorer on the disc! How could you support that?



But actually it does sound kinda cool, and no it probably won't happen again. Although with the prominence of unlimited texting... You've got me thinking.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 15, 2013)

There's a difference between under exposing in the camera and printing the image dark.

In The Camera

Film which is exposed per the manufacturer recommendation (if any) will get the most tonal information on the film with the most accurate color rendering and the least noise. Speaking very roughly. Adjusting exposure and processing will do several things: change the characteristic curve, change the color rendering, change the degree of grain. More or less. Film "fails" in subtle and complex ways which may achieve a desirable result.

Digital sensors "fail" in three ways: throw information off the bottom, throw information off the top, introduce ugly looking digital noise. The artistic possibilities are rather thinner.

With digital, the analog of film push/pull processing to to expose correctly and adjust the characteristic curve in post, and remap colors around as desired. If what you want is a bunch of plaid noise and/or blocked up shadows or highlights, by all means exposé badly in camera. You will NOT be adjusting characteristic curves, you will typically NOT be having any desirable effects in color rendering, you will NOT be adjusting film grain appearance. It's digital noise and blocked up crud all day long.


In The Print

This is completely separate from in the camera. Yes, a dark and moody look is a thing, so is a blown out skies, the histogram can look like whatever you want it to, it's art. It's also got very little to do with the original exposure. With film there is a connection, to a greater or lesser degree. With digital the connection is, or at any rate can be, much more tenuous.


In Conclusion

&#8203;When someone makes a point about in camera exposure, some remark about the print does not constitute a rebuttal, and vice versa. There are at least two separate topics here and as far as I can tell nobody knows it.

Also, film and digital act differently. They're remarkably similar when you're staying inside the manufacturer specs, but they diverge with great rapidity once you start over or under driving the system. The "failure" modes are light years apart.


----------



## ralphh (Feb 15, 2013)

The only reason I aim for "correct" exposure when shooting is so that I have as much data to work from as possible in post.  After that I don't care.  If my vision is for something bright and I underexpose I get a lot of noise by the time I've pulled it all up in post which sucks.  If I'm going for something dark if I've burt it out to white then I can't pull it down to grey without large areas of uniform grey, which also sucks.

I always shoot RAW and I always adjust exposure in post, even it's just a tiny tweak.  You *cannot *get expoure perfectly to your liking (unless you just don't care) in camera except by luck - there just isn't a mechanism for it.  So for me there sort of is a "correct" exposure, but it's a band where I can get what I want in post without noticeably degrating my image.  A stop either way doesn't matter.  Two stops I can probably cope with.  More than that and it's delete time.


Seems to me the reason why this is argued over so much is threefold;

1) Some people are genuinely trying to make art, not capture life as it is.  You wouldn't call a painting under or over expososed just because the artist used a lot of paint that was above or below 18% grey, and you wouldn't say it had poor tonal range just because there were was no pure white or pure black paint in it either.  Maybe someone taking photos that suit thier artistic style makes something good in your eyes, maybe not, but if they're happy then all is well.

2) Some people just want to capture reality as acuately as possible to the way _they _saw it with their eyes (also a perfectly valid aim while taking photos) but don't understand / don't like what people are doing when they're doing #1, and cry under/over exposure because they can't look past the technical

3) Some poeple are just incompentent and claim #1 when trying for #2 and fail.  Often under/over exposure is mentioned because it's kinder and / or easier to say "They're underexposed" than "Everything about your photo it sucks.  I can't begin to explain how to get from here to good."


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> There's a difference between under exposing in the camera and printing the image dark.
> 
> In The Camera
> 
> ...



This was more or less my point... get the "Negative" or digital image the maximum amount of "information" it can hold (So it doesn't limit what you can do with it)... and then print it however you want..


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2013)

ralphh said:


> *The only reason I aim for "correct" exposure when shooting is so that I have as much data to work from as possible in post.  *After that I don't care.  If my vision is for something bright and I underexpose I get a lot of noise by the time I've pulled it all up in post which sucks.  If I'm going for something dark if I've burt it out to white then I can't pull it down to grey without large areas of uniform grey, which also sucks.
> 
> I always shoot RAW and I always adjust exposure in post, even it's just a tiny tweak.  You *cannot *get exposure perfectly to your liking (unless you just don't care) in camera except by luck - there just isn't a mechanism for it.  So for me there sort of is a "correct" exposure, but it's a band where I can get what I want in post without noticeably degrating my image.  A stop either way doesn't matter.  Two stops I can probably cope with.  More than that and it's delete time.
> 
> ...



Nailed it!


----------



## ralphh (Feb 15, 2013)

^^^ Thanks!


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2013)

OP... did you know that by properly exposing the image, you will get better color and saturation in the background (lights ect) and make the photos look much more colorful? If you want the people to look like zombies, that is up to you... but you can do that in post also. As an example... I took one of your photos from your "Facebook Like" thread.... and upped the exposure, contrast, and saturation a little.. to try and make it look like it had been properly exposed in the first place...


Your original is on top.... my Edit on Bottom! So really.. which one do you prefer? Which one makes the people look better? Which one has more color? Which one is more "ALIVE"?



I would also STRONGLY suggest calibrating your monitor.... (and hopefully it is a decent monitor, not a laptop display)


----------



## thunderkyss (Feb 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> In Conclusion
> 
> &#8203;When someone makes a point about in camera exposure, some remark about the print does not constitute a rebuttal, and vice versa. There are at least two separate topics here and as far as I can tell nobody knows it.
> 
> Also, film and digital act differently. They're remarkably similar when you're staying inside the manufacturer specs, but they diverge with great rapidity once you start over or under driving the system. The "failure" modes are light years apart.



I think you make some good points. A lot of the discussion here, most likely wouldn't exist if we all understood there are two processes. Capturing the image, then reproducing it. I think, a lot of the "get it right in the camera" discussion is much the same. People want to go from capturing the image to printing it in the same time it takes to click the shutter.


----------



## thunderkyss (Feb 15, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> OP... did you know that by properly exposing the image, you will get better color and saturation in the background (lights ect) and make the photos look much more colorful? If you want the people to look like zombies, that is up to you... but you can do that in post also. As an example... I took one of your photos from your "Facebook Like" thread.... and upped the exposure, contrast, and saturation a little.. to try and make it look like it had been properly exposed in the first place...
> 
> 
> Your original is on top.... my Edit on Bottom! So really.. which one do you prefer? Which one makes the people look better? Which one has more color? Which one is more "ALIVE"?
> ...



Wow, I had no idea that those were the OP's photos. In light of that, the guys absolutely slamming them... that's just not right. 

As far as the exposure vs art discussion, I don't see how those pictures could be construed as art. Even still, the exposure either works or it don't. Not all art is good art. If the public doesn't appreciate your art, tough cookies. That's just the way it is. You have to decide as an artist, if you're producing your art to satisfy the public or yourself. If you're misunderstood..... so what.

As a professional, you're going to have a hard time getting people to pay you what you "think you're worth" if you insist on your art and not what the customer wants.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 15, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> OP... did you know that by properly exposing the image, you will get better color and saturation in the background (lights ect) and make the photos look much more colorful? If you want the people to look like zombies, that is up to you... but you can do that in post also. As an example... I took one of your photos from your "Facebook Like" thread.... and upped the exposure, contrast, and saturation a little.. to try and make it look like it had been properly exposed in the first place...
> 
> 
> Your original is on top.... my Edit on Bottom! So really.. which one do you prefer? Which one makes the people look better? Which one has more color? Which one is more "ALIVE"?
> ...



Ummm... those aren't my photos! 

You meant the OP from the link in my OP. Just to be clear.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> There's a difference between under exposing in the camera and printing the image dark.
> 
> In The Camera
> 
> ...



You may have been writing about those things and others may have, but I have been referring strictly to in-camera exposure (well, yes, and how it affects the final image after editing). 

Editing/grading is a powerful tool, but I think too many in this day and age use it as a crutch. On almost every shoot I am on as a cinematographer these days someone says of a difficulty framing, lighting, exposure or pretty much any thing else photographic: "Don't worry, we'll fix it in post". Or of a look striven for in camera I often get - "oh, don't worry, we'll do that in post"...

The fact of the matter is you can't always do it "in post". Or at least do it the same. I'll give you an example.

I shot a TV series and the first 1/2 hour of the first episode was a flashback to the time the character spent in a jail in Venezuela. I had an idea that I pitched to the director, who loved it: handheld, warmish, very contrasty and SUPERgrainy. The producers weren't so sure. We were set to shoot with the Sony F900 cine-alta (the most expensive camera at the time), but I asked the producers to let me test 6 different cameras. At first they said, "Oh, don't worry, we'll get the look you want in post." I cringed then convinced them to pay for the tests and decide after. (I told them I might be able to save them some money  "Doing it in post" at $750/hr is costly!)

So I tested 6 cameras in bright sun at 18db (noise/grain usually used to boost the camera by adding signal to the native image to artificially brighten it - something people generally only do in extreme low light. 18db is the most "noisy" you can go on most cameras). The producers were astounded with the results: each camera's images looked radically different - the f900, their camera of choice, rendered a very ugly image, though perhaps useful in another context: green hued with a noise profile that looked like a billion pixels puking at once!

The other cameras rendered images that were very different though not ugly. The producers pointed at one image and said - we love it, that's the one! It was the camera I secretly wanted to use (the panasonic sdx 900) and would cost them about $600 less per day to shoot with over 75 days of shooting. I had saved them 45 grand and 5-10 hours at 750/hr in post. And got what I wanted. And got them hooked - when I work with them now the first thing they ask me is "what camera should we rent you." I won an award for that show - and they sent the first episode with that footage in as their sample for consideration.

The images from the sdx 900 were degraded radically, but had a beautiful "grain structure" that was kind of like B&W film like because the specks were all black - the other cameras' noise looked like coloured specks and were nowhere near as appealing. I find it a shame these days that EVERYTHING is done in post, because before, film stocks were chosen not just for their sensitivity to light, but for their characteristic curves and the different ways they each reacted to pushing, pulling, "over" and "under" exposing and pretty much everything else photographic. The camera was basically just a box that held the lens and the film, so your look depended on choices you made before shooting and were enhanced or underlined after. These days, in TV and cinema more often than not, a camera is foisted on you because of availability or budget or both. So you are limited as to what you can choose to do in camera, and, to boot, everyone has jumped on this (ironically expensive!) bandwagon of doing everything in post. 

In still photography, editing is generally done by the photographer with his own computer, so the price is not a factor. But one thing I lament about digital is that often a person can only afford one camera, or 2 if they are lucky (but even then often the same brand with the same (or similar) sensor.). Because the sensor and the analog to digital converter are the equivalent of a filmstock, it means, to a degree, one is limited to the strengths and weaknesses and idiosyncrasies of one camera and only one single point of departure to get creative. (And I fully realize there are many other ways of getting creative in photography, but to me, this is one powerful tool removed from the arsenal).

So yes, film and digital are very different. But in the case of underexposure, or boosting with gain, or using high ISOs, there is still much that can be gleaned of interest from various sensors, and to say that the goal in digital photography is ALWAYS to get the most information possible is limiting yourself in the same way that shooting everything on a filmstock and ALWAYS following the manufacturer's EI does.

"In The Print

This is completely separate from in the camera. Yes, a dark and moody  look is a thing, so is a blown out skies, the histogram can look like  whatever you want it to, it's art. It's also got very little to do with  the original exposure. With film there is a connection, to a greater or  lesser degree. With digital the connection is, or at any rate can be,  much more tenuous."

I disagree. The digital connection to the print is much closer than you permit, given what I wrote above. You can still have a wonky looking in camera histogram that will make beautiful images (if one is crafty) that will be completely different from doing it in a post histogram, much the way that underrating a filmstock and printing up is completely different from lowering the contrast with a knob in post. And these in-camera "processed" images will look very different from one camera to another as well. It's just that photographers, as noted above, don't always have access to different brands of cameras with different sensors. Which I think has mitigated the transition away from in-camera toward post editing.

The "failure modes" of film and digital are "light years" apart,  I concur - but difference does not imply inferiority. Maybe digital is inferior in this respect (I tend to think so) - but not to the degree you believe.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 15, 2013)

Honestly, your tedious stories seem to be a lot more about how awesome you are than about exposure.

What you seem to have said is, excuse my paraphrase:

  On a recent project  tested a bunch of cameras set to overexpose by about 3 stops, and found that they produced quite different results, one of which we felt was pretty nice and
  well suited to the project, and also I am amazingly awesome.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Honestly, your tedious stories seem to be a lot more about how awesome you are than about exposure.
> 
> What you seem to have said is, excuse my paraphrase:
> 
> ...



Sorry you feel that way. Maybe as a newbie here I am overcompensating to try and be taken seriously. You're undoubtedly right. I guess I should just let the posts speak for themselves instead of flaunting my credentials.

I'll keep a cap on that and thanks for pointing it out. But the story was illustrative, no?

(and, incidentally, boosting the gain is not overexposing)


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 15, 2013)

jbarrettash said:
			
		

> But the story was illustrative, no?



Truth be told I got a few sentences in and developed a headache from all the horn tooting. That, and it didn't really seem to relate to much in the thread.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 15, 2013)

Underexposing? I'm not a video guy, so I dunno which way the dBs go.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Underexposing? I'm not a video guy, so I dunno which way the dBs go.



Gain (3db, 6db, 9db...) is an electronic amplification of the signal that adds  voltage and raises the noise floor and hence lifts the entire signal. It's more like pushing than anything else.

edit: errors corrected


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 15, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I apologize again then. But it does relate to the thread, I believe. 

And geez, i really have to watch that then - there was that much "horn tooting"? I guess i am more insecure coming in as a newbie than I thought. I'll read it again and I promise to stick more to the point next time. I'd really like guys like you to be able to make it through my posts. (sincerely)


Edit: was reading back a few pages... a video game called "Majestic" pertains to the thread... how? 
I don't mind criticism and I have already apologized, but c'mon...


----------



## ratssass (Feb 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Oh, I'm not a good guy. I'm at least as nasty as these folks, I'm just a lot trickier about it.


 

"Honestly, your tedious stories seem to be a lot more about how awesome you are than about exposure.

What you seem to have said is, excuse my paraphrase:

  On a recent project  tested a bunch of cameras set to overexpose by  about 3 stops, and found that they produced quite different results, one  of which we felt was pretty nice and
  well suited to the project, and also I am amazingly awesome."

   .....can't say he didn't warn you


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 15, 2013)

ratssass said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I'm not a good guy. I'm at least as nasty as these folks, I'm just a lot trickier about it.
> ...





He did, but I don't consider that nasty, because he's right! (though he was wrong in the paraphrase   )

... but, yeah, maybe "tedious" tips the scales a little...


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 15, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > OP... did you know that by properly exposing the image, you will get better color and saturation in the background (lights ect) and make the photos look much more colorful? If you want the people to look like zombies, that is up to you... but you can do that in post also. As an example... I took one of your photos from your "Facebook Like" thread.... and upped the exposure, contrast, and saturation a little.. to try and make it look like it had been properly exposed in the first place...
> ...



Oops... but the point still stands


----------



## dmunsie (Feb 15, 2013)

"The notion of under and overexposure is always a hot topic among photographers. What is underexposed and overexposed? Is there really a consensus on it?"

One thing I've quickly come to grips with about photography is, you can expose your photos to be mechanically accurate or you can expose based on your personal interpretation of the scene. I tend to try to get the in camera results exposed mechanically accurate and then tweak the exposure as needed in post processing. I love reading all the debates on the forum about exposure, saturation, noise, etc, etc. There really is no right or wrong in photography...if YOU like the end result....that's the most important thing and is what ultimately defines you as a photographer. You put 10 photographers in the same room and have them each photograph the same object, I would hope you would get 10 different results.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 15, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Underexposing? I'm not a video guy, so I dunno which way the dBs go.
> ...



No, it's the other way round, as one would expect.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 15, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> [
> 
> Edit: was reading back a few pages... a video game called "Majestic" pertains to the thread... how?
> I don't mind criticism and I have already apologized, but c'mon...



Tangents happen. Get over it.


----------



## skieur (Feb 15, 2013)

MMM, the OP certainly has an interesting style!


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 15, 2013)

Helen B said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



Other way around, in what respect? And your tone... "as one would expect", wow... this site, i dunno... 

Why so bitter, Helen? i mean, I am here to learn also, and there may be gaps in my understanding, so educate me. I'm open. But leave the bitterness at the door please. i don't deserve it and I think you know that.

And i'll post these to back up my understanding of the terms used. I am open to correction, and criticism, but not to ire and vitriol.

from this site The truth about video gain and how to use it properly - Production Apprentice



"Gain is an electronic amplification of the video signal. This means that the signal is boosted electronically, adding more voltage to the pixels on your imager (CCD or CMOS) causing them to get amplify their intensity and therefore brighten your image.  This voltage increase is measured in decibels (dB) and is calculated using this equation:
Gain (in dB) = 20 x LOG(Voltage Out / Voltage In)
Now, I&#8217;ll be honest here &#8211; I&#8217;ve been doing this professionally since 1997 and I have never used this equation, so don&#8217;t freak out just yet.  Allow me, or rather Bob Diaz, to put it into layman&#8217;s terms.
A +6dB Gain is equal to a 2x increase in the signal. A +12dB Gain is equal to 2 x 2 or 4x increase in the signal. A +18dB is a 2 x 2 x 2 or 8x increase in the signal. When we express Gain as dB, every +6dB increase represents another doubling the signal. Another way to think of it as F Stops.
+6dB = Adds 1 F Stop of light
+12dB = Adds 2 F Stops of light
+18dB = Adds 3 F Stops of light"

and this, from this site What Are dB, Noise Floor & Dynamic Range? : Noise & Vibration Measurement Blog

"Noise floor

Any practical measurement will be subject to some form of noise or unwanted signal. In acoustics this may be background noise or in electronics there are often things like thermal noise, radiated noise or any other interfering signals. In a data acquisition measurement system the system itself will actually add noise to the signals it is measuring. The general rule of thumb is: the more electronics in the system the more noise imposed by the system.

In data acquisition and signal processing the noise floor is a measure of the summation of all the noise sources and unwanted signals generated within the entire data acquisition and signal processing system.

The noise floor limits the smallest measurement that can be taken with certainty since any measured amplitude cannot on average be less than the noise floor.

In summary, the noise floor is the level of background noise in a signal, or the level of noise introduced by the system, below which the signal that&#8217;s being captured cannot be isolated from the noise."


So what have I gotten so backwards to merit your (2nd?) angry post?


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 15, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Again, wow. ummm... I was accused of not sticking to the topic. So I noted the accuser had strayed very far from the topic. And I think if you think about it, a conversation about a video game in a thread about exposure is not a tangent, but a change of topic entirely. And I would not have said anything about it (it doesn't bother me at all), but for the accusation that I could not myself stay on topic. Reasonable, no? Nothing really to get over.

There have been some very nice respectful posts here. I may have been vaunting my insecurities in a thread or two, but I apologized. Twice. 

What are you all up in flames about? Why so angry? I'll gladly stop posting, if you like. I have been nothing but cordial and have been met with condescension and ego. Who has something to get over? if it's me, please elaborate. If i am incorrect, correct me. i am as open as they get with respect to that. But leave the attitude. It only brings down the quality of this site.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 15, 2013)

dmunsie said:


> "The notion of under and overexposure is always a hot topic among photographers. What is underexposed and overexposed? Is there really a consensus on it?"
> 
> One thing I've quickly come to grips with about photography is, you can expose your photos to be mechanically accurate or you can expose based on your personal interpretation of the scene. I tend to try to get the in camera results exposed mechanically accurate and then tweak the exposure as needed in post processing. I love reading all the debates on the forum about exposure, saturation, noise, etc, etc. There really is no right or wrong in photography...if YOU like the end result....that's the most important thing and is what ultimately defines you as a photographer. You put 10 photographers in the same room and have them each photograph the same object, I would hope you would get 10 different results.



Exactly. Well said and thank you.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 15, 2013)

People like turtles.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 15, 2013)

skieur said:


> MMM, the OP certainly has an interesting style!



Maybe i am being paranoid, but is everyone here this snarky and sarcastic? I apologize if you were being serious, but I really doubt it...


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 15, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> People like turtles.



Yes they do. But some don't. Nice counter


----------



## ralphh (Feb 16, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > MMM, the OP certainly has an interesting style!
> ...



Yeah, pretty much.  People either get used it to, leave, or get snarky and sarcastic and pick on the new guy in their turn too...


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 16, 2013)

ralphh said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



A shame. I bet there are a lot of smart, knowledgeable people here. Kind of a waste no? Well, I may be in the "leave" category. Not offended, just have better things to do and better folks to learn from...


----------



## ralphh (Feb 16, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> ralphh said:
> 
> 
> > jbarrettash said:
> ...



See, now you're getting it :lmao:


----------



## ralphh (Feb 16, 2013)

On a side note, I quite enjoyed the story in your first post....

But I really can't agree that it'd be worth owning multiple different digital camera for different looks - I've owned nikons, canons and olympuses, and the RAW files all look pretty similar in terms of colour reproduction tbh.  

As for being all for getting it right in camera and not in post.  Well that can be a one-way street, which is why most people do it the other way around.  If I want my image super grainy, I _could_ shoot it at ISO 6400, but then if I change my mind later, i'm stuck.  It's a *destructive way of shooting, and it's guesswork* - I can't accurately judge it on the back of the camera and the same amount of grain may not work equally well for every shot.

If I shoot it at ISO 100, I can add grain just the way I want it, at the strength I want it (or not) later.

I shoot to maximize my options later, not minimize them.

Having said that, I wouldn't shoot with the light all wrong assuming i could "fix it in post" because you can't, but you seem to be talking about getting quite specialized looks straight out of camera, which seems like a bad idea to me.  

It's perhaps a little different in film - you _do_ want a whole scene to look the same, but if I'm spending an hour or two with a model, I probably want to get a few different looks, not all with the same 'interesting' straight out of camera effect.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 16, 2013)

ralphh said:


> On a side note, I quite enjoyed the story in your first post....
> 
> But I really can't agree that it'd be worth owning multiple different digital camera for different looks - I've owned nikons, canons and olympuses, and the RAW files all look pretty similar in terms of colour reproduction tbh.
> 
> ...



You enjoyed the story - thanks for saying so!

And I agree it's not worth the expense to own several cameras - that was, for different reasons, part of my point. The straight out of camera histogram-friendly exposed shots will look relatively similar - it's when you start pushing the cameras to their limits that the differences are more apparent. And while you CAN add grain in post, the point of the second story was that grain, or noise, is not the same from camera to camera, and in adding it in post the advantage, as you stated, is safety - the disadvantage is being stuck with the same basic artificially generated grain from shot to shot. Personally, I like putting the camera "through the wringer" to see what comes out the other side. And don't get me wrong, the vast majority of stuff I do is clean, full histogram mass audience friendly stuff. Maybe that's why I like to push things, when I can.


----------



## ralphh (Feb 16, 2013)

Still don't agree - it depends on your software - with basic photoshop elements, yeah, but film simulation software has endlessly adjustable grains, with different textures, lump sizes, balance between shadow, midtone and highlight amounts, and all sorts.

I agree it can be fun to push the camera, but I'm too much of a control freak - it'd never be _exactly_ as I wanted.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 16, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> > jbarrettash said:
> ...



You have answered your own question about what you got wrong. The reason I wrote 'as one would expect' is that one would expect that -3 dB of gain would lower the signal, not raise it. Is that not what you would expect? You answered a question about what negative gain meant, and got it the wrong way round. Shouldn't that be corrected? I have let most of your technical errors pass without remark. Life is too short.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 16, 2013)

OP, I got you pegged as some kind of assistant who's been in the room a lot when other people did the stuff you're telling tales about. Just a theory, but it explains a lot. If it's true, it don't make you a bad person, everyone tends to inflate their roles a bit on the internets. It also doesn't make you wrong.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 16, 2013)

Helen B said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > Helen B said:
> ...





Helen B said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > Helen B said:
> ...



I owe you an apology then. I wrongly thought that "as you'd expect" was a commentary directed toward me. And I was sloppy - I have no idea why I wrote minus in front of those numbers. A stupid mistake, but the theoretical explanation (once what I can only call a stupid typo is corrected - yes that i made several times  ) is still correct. And please continue pointing out my technical errors. I am surprised you believe there are that many. You seem quite knowledgeable, but I think you are exaggerating. Maybe because my post accused you of anger - but you can see how in context what you wrote could be misconstrued.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 16, 2013)

amolitor said:


> OP, I got you pegged as some kind of assistant who's been in the room a lot when other people did the stuff you're telling tales about. Just a theory, but it explains a lot. If it's true, it don't make you a bad person, everyone tends to inflate their roles a bit on the internets. It also doesn't make you wrong.



No, Amolitor, I am neither a bad person, nor a liar. :roll:


----------



## pgriz (Feb 16, 2013)

Ok, jbarretash, why are you here?


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 16, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Ok, jbarretash, why are you here?



To learn and share. I seem to be a minority. Why do you ask? I have stated this in a few posts. But I am on the verge of leaving...


----------



## pgriz (Feb 16, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, jbarretash, why are you here?
> ...



I ask because we all are here to learn and share.  And we do.  I have shared some of my images, got feedback, saw other inspiring images, tried to replicate them, learned a lot doing this...  I also enjoy reading the factual knowledge that many posters display, and the links they put up to give those of us who are interested, further information on the topic(s).  I enjoy seeing the work (and progressive skill) of some people who started a few years ago, and have shown their progression over the years - that is both inspiring and intimidating at how good some of them have become.  The people who leave, leave for three reasons:  1)  their self-image is not affirmed by the members, 2)  their skill level has risen to such a level that they rarely get meaningful critiques, or 3)  they are not willing to put in the work needed in a group setting to exchange information.

Those who BS get called out.  Those whose opinion of themselves is not supported by their work, get shot down.  And as in any group, sometimes good people get into arguements that neither should have gotten into.  Happens.

I can't tell you whether you should or should not stick around.  But I can tell you that this place can give a lot of good learning advice, as long as you know how to play with the characters that are here.  If you want to share, by all means, put your stuff up and let us see your work.  After looking at it, we may decide you really do know your stuff, or we may decide you're a poseur.  And if you wish to learn, there are simple ways of making that happen - state what you're trying to do, show an example of where you are, tell us what you'd like help with.  You'll get a spectrum of responses, and some of them will actually be good ones.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 16, 2013)

pgriz said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > pgriz said:
> ...



Thank you for that. I have  thick enough skin, but after a while and enough insults, insinuations and accusations of lying, you kinda start saying "what's the point?". Which is maybe the 4th reason people leave? This would be a far better place were it friendlier, no?

Those who BS should get called out, but I hope you aren't lumping me in that lot. I have made a few clerical and technical errors here, corrected them and even apologized humbly, but have been met with derision, condescension and, I guess, loathing... (though it's hard to tell exact tone from a string of words on a screen.). I assure you I am competent, knowledgeable, passionate, curious, hionest and ready to learn more, but no one is obligated to believe me. I started this thread because I thought it an interesting topic for debate, but also because I saw a new guy getting flamed and thought I'd redirect the attention toward myself. Looks like I got what I asked for! 

I came here because I don't have that much experience printing on a professional inkjet printer, am trying to solidify a better workflow now that I finally (after wanting one for years!) bought an epson 3880. All i can tell you is that I do have a lot to contribute myself, but appreciate having errors pointed out so I may correct them, but I will not be the guy to stick around and heap sarcasm on newbies once my turn is up. That is childish.


----------



## pgriz (Feb 16, 2013)

Well, then ask who has an epson 3880, and how they use it.  

As for "friendlier", I'm a member of various forums (some photography, but a bunch of others as well), and the degree of civility seems to be related to the aggressiveness of moderation.  Some are loose, some are tight.  You have to make your own mind up about what level you're comfortable with.  This forum is about the middle, not too tight, not too loose.  And each forum has its own cast of "regulars" that give the forum its personality.  If you like "most", and abhor a few, there's always the "ignore" button to prevent you from seeing them.


----------



## amolitor (Feb 16, 2013)

Is this thread going anyplace?


----------



## ratssass (Feb 16, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> People like turtles.



....i like turtles.


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 16, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Is this thread going anyplace?



YEP... I heard a "FLUSH" sound several pages ago... lol!


----------



## skieur (Feb 17, 2013)

jbarrettash said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > MMM, the OP certainly has an interesting style!
> ...



I was being serious.  I may not agree with you but I am quite impressed by the nature of your responses.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 17, 2013)

I'm fairly new to the board and saw this thread the other day; I skimmed on to what was the end at the time (and to what seems to be the end for now) and haven't read every single post. I thought the original post had at least some thought put into it, but it seems there have been some posts throughout that came across in a way I wouldn't appreciate having someone talk to me.

I imagine this board has its share of nice people and some interesting conversations but the impression I've gotten so far is that either the board might not be inadequately monitored or the standard is such that it's acceptable for comments to be posted that come across in what seems to be an inconsiderate way. I certainly don't understand in particular treating new board members in a less than respectful way.

As for the topic, I'm a longtime film photographer so that would have affected how I learned photography skills, but I don't see a purpose for under or overexposing photos. If you want to create a particular look with a photo I would think getting a well focused, well framed and composed image, and a good exposure, would give you a better starting point. There are times when I've gotten a photo that for whatever reason wasn't as well exposed as I would have liked, but there was something about it that gave me a reason to do more adjusting than usual to make the image better (or sometimes even usable). I'm not sure that there's necessarily a correct exposure as much as what I'd consider a proper exposure, one that gives you the amount of light necessary to produce a good quality photograph.

Sharon


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Feb 17, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > NickStevens said:
> ...



Psssst... new guy...

Those forum members that have "Site Moderator" under their names... yeah, they're volunteers that give of their valuable time and energy for the betterment of the community. They're certainly not infallible, but your rudeness is way out of line. Show a bit more respect next time, eh?


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 17, 2013)

skieur said:


> jbarrettash said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



Well, thank you then. Nothing wrong with disagreeing - it's often the best way to learn.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 17, 2013)

vintagesnaps said:


> I'm fairly new to the board and saw this thread the other day; I skimmed on to what was the end at the time (and to what seems to be the end for now) and haven't read every single post. I thought the original post had at least some thought put into it, but it seems there have been some posts throughout that came across in a way I wouldn't appreciate having someone talk to me.
> 
> I imagine this board has its share of nice people and some interesting conversations but the impression I've gotten so far is that either the board might not be inadequately monitored or the standard is such that it's acceptable for comments to be posted that come across in what seems to be an inconsiderate way. I certainly don't understand in particular treating new board members in a less than respectful way.
> 
> ...



Thanks, couldn't have said it better myself (the first bit  ). I may keep an eye on this thread, but I am pretty much done with this site and its welcome wagon... too bad, some respectful people seem to be coming out of the woodworks.


----------



## jbarrettash (Feb 17, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



If this was directed at me (the OP), doublecheck the names. 

I have gone out of my way to be civil and avoid childish accusations, but have been the target of a few. Now, anyone care to get back to the subject, or has this been duly derailed, diverted and flushed?


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 17, 2013)

jamesbjenkins said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Not really interested in what fancy title they have..... Not an excuse to pass a rude comment...... 
UNLESS you believe that a "site moderator" can say what they like to everyone?


----------



## tirediron (Feb 18, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > NickStevens said:
> ...


Mr. Stevens:  You are absolutely right that moderators have no special privilege regarding comments that they can make, and if you have an issue with a comment I've made, common courtesy would dictate that you discuss it with me.  Second what is it that you feel is rude about that comment?  Does it not adquately describe the style of photography used to execute the images referred to; indeed one that is currently very common to images from clubs, and similar.

With respect to the issue of moderation, I maintain a very distinct line between my moderating persona and my regular member persona.  When posting as a moderator, my text will always be *bold-face, red type*.  When posting in regular old default black font, I am posting as a member.  If you have any issues with my actions, comments or moderation please address them to the site administrators, to whom all members of the TPF Moderating Team are responsible.


----------



## pgriz (Feb 18, 2013)

Not to get into a pissing contest, but tirediron's comment appeared to me to be factual after I had a look at your site.  Sometimes the truth isn't pretty.  But if your intent is to get better, then listening to the comments made by experienced photographers would probably be the way to go.  Nice comments from people lacking much experience and knowledge, won't help you as much as hard comments from those who do this kind of stuff routinely.  It's your business, and your photography so do whatever makes sense to you.  But there is much here that can be of value to you IF you know how to tap into that knowlege.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 18, 2013)

I found the comment a bit rude and not very helpful at all. 

As it goes I'm happy with those images and don't think they deserved the harsh Critisizm they received. 
Sure they are not perfect but they are not a million miles away from what I'm trying to do. 
So I now turn up the FEC to -1 and get to within 5-10 feet of the subject. 
End result is the background I want showing the lighting but with a slightly higher exposure on the actual subject.

So I have taken on board the criticism and taken steps to make things a little better. 
Im also being a lot more harsh with my own Critisizm and not uploading every photo from a shoot.... I did a wedding disco at the weekend and took just over 500 images, 104 have already been blitzed at the first cull for one reason or another (mostly an odd facial expression, no smile, subject looks away, arm of another dancer making an appearance in the frame etc) 
Im expecting to be able to cull another 100 at least... Not because they are bad images just coz they are not outstanding, so nobody needs to see them at all. 

I DON'T agree with the comments that said the background was distracting from the subject, it's obvious the intended subject and the lighting adds to the overall atmosphere of the photo. 

I GUESS it's just a marmite thing, I've had many positive comments about my club photography from the people in the photos AND and offer of employment from a nightclub who want me as their official promotional tog. 

So overall I'm pretty happy with the results


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 18, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> I found the comment a bit rude and not very helpful at all.
> 
> As it goes I'm happy with those images and don't think they deserved the harsh Critisizm they received.
> Sure they are not perfect but they are not a million miles away from what I'm trying to do.
> ...



And what does the average "clubber" and "Nightclub" know about photography? If you post on a clubbing / nightclub site / facebook... yea, they will say your shots are good... They don't know any better! 

Many TPF'rs have a lot of knowledge about photography and professional shooting... that is why you are here,right... to learn from those knowledgeable people? Or were you expecting us to gush over your images? 

You sound like you are "invested" in your photos... and don't deal well with with any honest feedback. If you want nothing but praise, stick to Facebook... but you won't improve... what does inaccurate, unknowledgable praise teach you?

Good luck!


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 18, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> I found the comment a bit rude and not very helpful at all.
> 
> As it goes I'm happy with those images and don't think they deserved the harsh Critisizm they received.
> Sure they are not perfect but they are not a million miles away from what I'm trying to do.
> ...



Oh, the people in the photos gave you positive comments? I wasn't aware that you were taking photos of people that knew anything about photography. 

You can get positive comments from all sorts of people in the world, but generally those in the same field of expertise hold a heavier weight. There are a lot of people who think that Facebook likes dictate the success of an image. I changed my profile photo the other day and got 20 likes! Zomg it must be a good photo! 

Truth be told, it's nothing special. Just a photo of my girlfriend and I. Heck, I didn't even take the photo.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 18, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > I found the comment a bit rude and not very helpful at all.
> ...



The average nightclub or clubber probably know very little about photography, but they know what THEY like, so does it really matter? 

I HAVE taken the criticism and learnt from it too, so next time will be even better.


----------



## ratssass (Feb 18, 2013)




----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 18, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> The average nightclub or clubber probably know very little about photography, but they know what THEY like, so does it really matter?



The average radio listener probably thinks that nickelback creates amazing music. Which sure, to them it sounds amazing because they like hearing the same song reused over and over again. They "like it." But to the people that actually LISTEN to music, they can hear the rehashed garbage that they put out. 

Same thing goes for photography. Some people like really awful photographs, for whatever reason. Photos that wouldn't survive critique without being demolished.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 18, 2013)

Oh I see so my photos are really aweful now are they?


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 18, 2013)

NickStevens said:


> Oh I see so my photos are really aweful now are they?



I wasn't talking specifically about your photos, no. You just happened to take it that way.


----------



## KmH (Feb 18, 2013)

No doubt, there is no accounting for the broad range of taste the general public has.

Generally speaking, on a photography forum most photography is held to a fairly high standard.

But, each person still decides on an individual basis what constitutes a good, a mediocre, or a poor photograph.

So yes, some people will find your photos aweful, some will find them mediocre, and some will think they are brilliant.


----------



## NickStevens (Feb 18, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> NickStevens said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I see so my photos are really aweful now are they?
> ...



Your right about the radio listeners, I often think some of the music I play is complete crap when I'm DJing, but if the crowd like it then it's all good. It's not about what I like or what other DJs like, it's about the audience. 

Does the same not apply in the case of photos? 

Im no longer defending my images as such, theirs not much point. 

BUT what I have done is taken in the comments and used them positively to do better next time. 

Wasn't that the whole point of the critique?


----------



## terri (Feb 18, 2013)

I think we can call this one done.   My eyes glazed over by page 8.   

All points, sub-points, snide comments, mini-fights, breakups, make-ups, horn-tooting, calling out said horn-tooting, and of course - going wildly off topic, seems to have all been accomplished here.   

fini!


----------

