J n X Photography wrote:
I was at the bookstore a few days ago and saw a book about a Sports Illustrated photog and all the swimsuit models he's shot for their swimsuit edition magazines.

I saw a TON of blown out highlights...for you pros out there, why is this acceptable out there in the real world but when I read critique comments (mine and others) it's frowned upon here?

Because MM is by no means "the Real World".  And what she said above me too.  Hehehehe!  If it looks great, who cares if she's a little blown out.  Plus, a little blown out used to be the standard (and to some still is) of beautiful skin when shooting with film.

J n X Photography wrote:
I was at the bookstore a few days ago and saw a book about a Sports Illustrated photog and all the swimsuit models he's shot for their swimsuit edition magazines.

I saw a TON of blown out highlights...for you pros out there, why is this acceptable out there in the real world but when I read critique comments (mine and others) it's frowned upon here?

It's because camera buffs and amateurs tend to worry about stuff like blown highlights, and professionals worry about THE PICTURE.

Which is why amateurs are constantly looking at pro's work and saying, "I don't get it -- this stuff sucks!"

A more thoughtful answer is -- you gotta know when to break the rules.

bang bang photo wrote:
...It's because camera buffs and amateurs tend to worry about stuff like blown highlights, and professionals worry about THE PICTURE.

Which is why amateurs are constantly looking at pro's work and saying, "I don't get it -- this stuff sucks!"

A more thoughtful answer is -- you gotta know when to break the rules.

Professionals worry about the paychecks. 

But your last line is exactly right.  I'd add the provision that you also have to know that you are in fact breaking the rules.  Too many folks claim after the fact that "I meant it to look like that."

"Rules are meant to be broken" still holds, but if you don't know you're breaking them...then you're just screwing up.

-Don

James Graham wrote:
What's a blown out highlight?

; )

My thoughts exactly!

What it all really boils down to is that knowing all the technicalities of the craft is only a tool to achieve a certain look or feel in an image. They are "Tools, not Rules". Because this is about "Art" man! You can't put rules on creativity, or you'll choke the flow. A critique from another photographer, is simply a method by which he/she would have approached the image. As in composing music, if everyone followed the same rules (I despise music theory cops) then we'd never have progressive genres popping up, and the Beatles would still just be cars built by VW. If you feel your image needs more, or less highlights, then adjust out for it. It's your "Art" and highlight settings (like any other settings) are "Tools, not Rules"
That's why on my website's description page it says "This Site is Hosted & Maintained by:" No, wait thats not the right line.
  It says: "Bringing new and imaginative, imaging ideas to life, is the premise that drives the creativity behind Los Imaging. Casting aside the conventional guidelines, and theories, to embrace the unlimited possibilities in Photography.

So you have to ask yourself, am I an Artist? or a Technician?

Who cares about "Blown Highlights"? Obviously not the editor of Sports Illustrated.

And that's the view through my lens, Good Day!

Gunfitr wrote:
I think the "pros know how to break the rules" line is a bunch of bullshit.  That is bantered about just about every time some fucked up photo makes print by some famous or semi-famous photographer.  People repeat it likes it's some sacred mantra.

I see fucked up crops, blown highlights, bad color cast, and terrible shadow play in a lot of images.

But the one thing they have in common is there is something about that particular image that happens to have some allure or draw.  Photo editors pick images primarily on that "first impact" view.  The let the "error" go, because the image is still strong.

Now,  recently there was a cover of a magazine, that I believe was Tom Cruise's old wife (sorry, cant' think of her name right now).  It was like 50 percent blown highlight all down one side of her face....that, that was choosing to do something intentionally.

I think there is a line between letting a minor imperfection go with the recognition that it is still not a perfect photo, and some gross application far and beyond the "norm" or the rules.

But I don't think every nit pick with a pro photo should be chalked up to "oh, he meant to do that".

Especially, in some cases where the "thing" detracts from the photo versus lending to it's appeal.

I worship my idols, but I don't think they are God. 

Mark

So I guess a better answer would be because it doesn't matter.

Meehan wrote:
I haven't seen these shots, but I'm going to guess the areas being blown out were the backgrounds and not on the models. But yes, I agree with the above statement that once you've mastered lighting, it perfectly fine to break the rules.

Correct.  All blown out backgrounds...usually sky or water.

NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:
I blow highlights all the time, block the shadows, and at times I do both after the fact as well to make more dramatic imagery.  The image is more imporatnt than rules. 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Your avi has a specular highlight where there is no detail. Maybe you should learn how te read a histogram ;-)

RB

Ps. Joke, what can you say?

James Graham wrote:
What's a blown out highlight?

; )

a bleached-blonde with a sore jaw?

RBDesign wrote:
Maybe you should learn how te read a histogram ;-)

I dont use histograms, I have someone run around with one of those thingies that tells them about something that causes them to know how much light.... Luckily I ignore them and there thingies and do what I want.  I know my lighting skills suck, but I like sucky lighting.  and I found if you blow out all the detail in the skin you don't have to retouch so much, which is great cause that computer program scares me.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

Christopher Bush wrote:
a bleached-blonde with a sore jaw?

ohh thats naughty, but i like it,lol

Alix Andrea wrote:
So a blown out highlight is when you blow out the background? Blow out how? Make it lighter?

A blown out highlight is a light area of the picture that is so light that it is rendered as pure white with no color or detail. It happens because the range of brightness that a camera can capture is just a small fraction of the actual range of brightness found in nature. So sometimes, you end up with detail in shadow being rendered all black, and detail in highlights being rendered pure white.

Most photographers try to minimize this effect because it looks bad. A few photographers obsess about it, and develop a wide range of techniques to increase the brightness range of their photographs. And as the original poster noted, some photographers don't worry about it too much.

Regards,
Paul

NYPHOTOGRAPHICS wrote:

I dont use histograms, I have someone run around with one of those thingies that tells them about something that causes them to know how much light.... Luckily I ignore them and there thingies and do what I want.  I know my lighting skills suck, but I like sucky lighting.  and I found if you blow out all the detail in the skin you don't have to retouch so much, which is great cause that computer program scares me.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.PhotographersPortfolio.com

LOL, since all of the white lettering has worn off my thingy so I can't read what the buttons do my exposures have gotten better. If this thingy stops spittin' out numbers on the frunt of it I may have to rub the letters off of a new thingy or I will get very confused.

RB

Alix Andrea wrote:
So a blown out highlight is when you blow out the background? Blow out how? Make it lighter?

A 'blown out' portion of the picture can be anywhere, not just the background. I think you're thinking of the DOF or Depth Of Field where the background is simply out of focus. This is not considered 'blown out'. It is called Bokeh.

A 'blown out' portion of a picture is one that has no image. Overexposure can create this. A digital camera usually has what's called a histogram, where the photog can quickly check the image for any 'blown out' sections and adjust accordingly. If you have a blown out section you cannot bring it back when editing unless you fill in those missing pixels with part of the image from somewhere else. Technically it is considered better to be 'underexposed' rather then 'overexposed'. You can lighten what is there. You can never darken what is not.

MMDesign wrote:
There's also the possibility that the web-presses couldn't hold the dots.

Without seeing the actual photo's, this one gets my vote.

J n X Photography wrote:
I was at the bookstore a few days ago and saw a book about a Sports Illustrated photog and all the swimsuit models he's shot for their swimsuit edition magazines.

I saw a TON of blown out highlights...for you pros out there, why is this acceptable out there in the real world but when I read critique comments (mine and others) it's frowned upon here?

This is complicated, but I will attempt to explain.

If you are a beginner asking for a critique here on MM, I'm going to put your work in a zone of theoretical technical perfection and see what sticks outside the box. I'll then tell you where you're missing the mark and usually why and how as well. You go back and try again, return with new problems, and I analyze the new images for what is outside the zone. Eventually you will develop a level of mental control over the camera and your subjects. You'll know what works and what doesn't, and the pictures you were taking when you started will look amateurish to you fairly soon.

Once you start taking pictures that are in the zone (don't have any major flaws) on a regular basis, you have learned a level of control. Once you have control, you can start breaking out of the box and getting back to why you started taking pictures in the first place.

Think about, The Karate Kid, "Wax on. Wax off. Wax on. Wax off. Wax on. Wax off." You learn the moves, then you can innovate.

I know of no law against busy unbalanced compositions, no law against not having the subject's eyes in focus, and no law against blown highlights. However, to take interesting pictures with the confidence required to get what you want when you press the shutter release, knowing how to control compositions, focus, and exposure is very important.

When I give advice in the critique section, I proceed with the assumption that every photographer needs to get to a point where clicking the shutter release is the most boring thing imaginable, because before you touch it you will already know exactly what the picture is going to look like in the end. Planning the shot and looking at the print in the end are the real fun parts.

Execution of the concept in photography is like, if you're a chef and you are cooking a meal: coming up with the menu and recipes and then later tasting the finished product with a bunc of friends is fun. Doing the work in the kitchen is just work. You need to lear the photography equvalent of "chicken broth needs salt, but a tablespoon of rock salt poured into two cups of chicken broth is not going to royally suck and be ineddible, but a tablespoon of rock salt coating the outside of a baked potato will make it good." You need to know cause and effect in the process of photography for the same reasons you do in cooking. This explains both amateur snapshot photography and also the popularity of tv dinners.

Blowing out a highlight accidentally because you didn't know how to get the right exposure and blowing out a highlight intentionally to emphasise a model's musculature are two very different things.

Ched wrote:
This explains both amateur snapshot photography and also the popularity of tv dinners.

How did you know I'm eating a TV dinner right now?

Mark Ellison wrote:
How did you know I'm eating a TV dinner right now?

You have an online portfolio.

Ched wrote:

You have an online portfolio.

Ohhhh that was COLD Ched, very COLD!