(Slightly) dark or bright

[aam1234]

Noticed that I tend to like photos that are ever so slightly on the dark side of exposure, nothing major just a tiny bit. It seems it brings a better color saturation and give the photos a bit of a character.

What about you? (slightly) dark, bright, or normal/proper.

[jfrancho]

Depends on the actual picture. Probably more often, I'm with you and prefer slightly dark.

[aam1234]

Hi John, it seems we have the same taste.

Just to clarify, I'm referring to the choices made during Raw conversion (or tweaking the jpegs), as controlling small amounts of exposure during photo taking is very difficult I would assume.


Edit: Btw John, if you ask me I think the elephant photo in the other thread could use a little darkening, especially in the front part. That's just my opinion of course.

[jfrancho]

I understand exactly what you mean. Sometimes I wonder if it isn't "darker" but more like less shadow details. Really moody pictures are often devoid of those details. Some really "bright" pictures seem to have too much information. Regarding the elephant, I think for a nice print it will have to be darkened, though I wasn't going for a dark image when I created it.

[aam1234]

Re: elephant photo... I meant that some details were lost in the bright side of the pic (trunk?). I know you almost always shoot Raw so you have many options there.

[jfrancho]

That's the rub in creating a high contrast image; you have to decide which details to lose to gain the pop. I think for me, I can usually live without all the shadow details. At the time I made the elephant picture, I was more interested in the shadow details, basically following to Martin's advice. I think as time rolls on, my tatse changes. There aren't any blow outs in the elephant (for those viewing this and have no idea what we're going on about, here is the link) so any loss of detail is simply from it looking washed out. If it's distracting to you, you probably aren't the only one. This is also an interesting point you were making in that topic, in that since no one commented, this dialog never occured. But we're having it now, so better late then never.

[aam1234]

John meant this thread (elephant pic): http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,11889.45.html


One of the things I learned from Martin is not to be afraid of dark areas, though I'm still a little conscious about them. I think he is starting to worry about dark areas too now

[Blinky]

Depends on what part of the image or subject you're talking about, some parts will always be under or over exposed unless the light is perfectly flat and there is no depth.

With 35mm chromes I usually underexpose by a third stop to boost saturation, but with anything else (except where special effects are desired) I find that I like absolutely perfect, dead on exposure. It's rare that you see it in anything but commercially produced images where the shooter has the time and experience to make it happen. It takes years and years of experience... I can't say that I've ever done it myself.

This is a great example...
Black Ricco

Chip

[aam1234]

You are right Chip, we all strive to achieve the proper exposure. Isn't that one of the main challenges of photography. But once you accomplished that, do you tend to prefer (slightly) under or over exposure. This is a general question, not meant for Chip only.

[jfrancho]

I know you're looking for responses from more than just Chip and I, but to go back to that original question...when I am actually shooting, I probably lean to edge of overexposure, and then bring it back in raw. The other technique I use quite a bit is the auto bracketing. In fact, I do this a matter of course when the camera is on a tripod or when the subject isn't going anywhere. On the other hand, when shooting sports, like my son's LL team, I'll lean toward very slight underexposure. Some of the difference is in shooting mode: for sports I use jpg, for most everything else it's raw or raw+jpg. Now the end product is quite often quite different than the original capture after being manipulated with a curve, levels, or in the raw converter.

[aam1234]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

when I am actually shooting, I probably lean to edge of overexposure, and then bring it back in raw.

I know you do a lot of band photography, as a matter of fact you are a musician yourself John, right. I'm not talking about such extreme situations, most people are not subjected to such challenging lighting. But it's more the normal shooting light.

[cyclohexane]

I push closer towards overexposure rather than underexposure, but there's usually a given reason:

1. Portraits- I (and others) like to bring out the eyes, and sometimes they look better when I run 'em a little hot.* I try to keep the skin under control, but unless the backdrop's important, I let that one slide.

2. Sports- Journalistic sports shooting usually requires that the athletes are clearly visible- the faces, especially so.* If getting a clear, well-exposed face means overexposing the dark background, then I'll do it.* I'm expected to, LOL.* Also, people don't seem to like sports photos when the faces/athletes are in partial/complete shadow, even when it's an effect I'm playing with.

3. My D2H- this thing has ugly noise that rears its head when underexposed.* Pushing overexposure helps hide the noise, especially at higher ISOs.* I find that lower noise pictures tend to preferred, especially those used to low-noise cameras (while black-and-whites need grains... ughhhh).

[scoundrel1728]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

I know you're looking for responses from more than just Chip and I, but to go back to that original question...when I am actually shooting, I probably lean to edge of overexposure, and then bring it back in raw.

Which to go for when originally shooting depends in part on the relative penalties of under and overexposure. With negative films, underexposure can result in total loss of detail in the darker parts of the image, a large penalty unless that is the effect you want. On the other hand, overexposure would result in perhaps a very small degradation in the resolution or increase in graininess of the image. When shooting with negative film, I would therefore tend toward overexposure.

On the other hand, when shooting with digital, it is the extremely bright parts of the image where detail can be irretrievably lost. Underexposure will result in a noisier image, particularly in the very darkest parts, but this is less of a penalty than total irretrievable loss of detail. If I had only one shot, I would therefore lean toward underexposure when working with digital. Working with transparency film would be similar except correcting the image after the exposure would be more troublesome.

[jfrancho]

Originally Posted by aam1234

I know you do a lot of band photography, as a matter of fact you are a musician yourself John, right. I'm not talking about such extreme situations, most people are not subjected to such challenging lighting. But it's more the normal shooting light.

For the live stuff, I generally just expose for the subject, and not worry about the rest. I'm sure you've seen some of my "remote" flash stuff I started working on. That has been an interesting path toward exposing the entire scene while retaining the mood. Like you said, that is an extreme example, I was referring more to landscape, architecture, and foliage shots.

[jfrancho]

Originally Posted by scoundrel1728

Which to go for when originally shooting depends in part on the relative penalties of under and overexposure. With negative films, underexposure can result in total loss of detail in the darker parts of the image, a large penalty unless that is the effect you want. On the other hand, overexposure would result in perhaps a very small degradation in the resolution or increase in graininess of the image. When shooting with negative film, I would therefore tend toward overexposure.

On the other hand, when shooting with digital, it is the extremely bright parts of the image where detail can be irretrievably lost. Underexposure will result in a noisier image, particularly in the very darkest parts, but this is less of a penalty than total irretrievable loss of detail. If I had only one shot, I would therefore lean toward underexposure when working with digital. Working with transparency film would be similar except correcting the image after the exposure would be more troublesome.

So well put. It's always been a balancing act. Digital just shortens the time it takes to see the results, and learn from them.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by aam1234

Noticed that I tend to like photos that are ever so slightly on the dark side of exposure, nothing major just a tiny bit. It seems it brings a better color saturation and give the photos a bit of a character.

What about you? (slightly) dark, bright, or normal/proper.

I much prefer an image that is slightly on the dark side to one that is overly bright (which can happen quite easily if you rely on things like 'auto levels'). I also tend to prefer low contrast to high contrast - the image holds more detail, even if it ends up with less 'pop'.

[aam1234]

Originally Posted by Paul

I also tend to prefer low contrast to high contrast - the image holds more detail, even if it ends up with less 'pop'.

My thoughts exactly.

[Mark McCall]

I like my images on the dark side as well.

I have spotlights on all my wall prints in the studio. A slightly dark image with a museum style light source has alot of impact.

[Sidebyte]

For me it's the compelling reason for using histograms. Without them, I'm lost.