Photographer
TaiChiJohn
Posts: 46
New York, New York, US
i don't think the images are overexposed, but, in my opinion the contrast is a bit too high for the subject material. Traditionally, black and white head shots for actors and models were printed around a polycontrast value of 2; these look to be around a 2.8 which has filled in the darker areas and reduced detail there. That does give richer and more distinct blacks but also compresses the lighter areas, leading some to think that the image is overexposed (but if that were the case, there would be detail in the dark areas but not in the light areas).
Photographer
Adventure Photos
Posts: 106
Palos Park, Illinois, US
Just a bit bright'. Compared to her fine color pics. Some photographers here purposely post in an overexposed version, or in a hideous pink/orange color. (think Trump skin color for 4 years)! I think they do that to discourage photo theft by changing color balance of their best work. But I'd say these are clear enough to see each detail of her fit body.
Photographer
Jaysen R Lee
Posts: 547
Anaheim, California, US
It's so bright, I'm blinded and can only see the tilted door frame. 
Photographer
Modelphilia
Posts: 971
Hilo, Hawaii, US
Adventure Photos wrote:
Some photographers here purposely post in an overexposed version, or in a hideous pink/orange color. (think Trump skin color for 4 years)! I think they do that to discourage photo theft by changing color balance of their best work. It may not be the photographers who are doing it. The conversion by MM is often quite bad. Editing expressly for MM (after first seeing it in an MM-trial version) is something I have often had to do.
Photographer
Modelphilia
Posts: 971
Hilo, Hawaii, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
The following photo looks normal on my laptop and on my phone. . . .
Yes, they are on the "high" side of exposure, but over exposed? See my comment above re the MM conversion process being its own "version."
Assuming it may not be what you want, another way to approach the brightness factor that you may want to try is to turn down the Luminance in the Yellow channel a little bit, and perhaps an even smaller amount (up or down) in the Red channel (affecting detail and apparent contrast as appropriate to your vision). You should be able to tame it a bit that way, IF that's what you want to do.
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 11630
Olney, Maryland, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
The following photo looks normal on my laptop and on my phone. The image looks very consistent to me from the preview on my camera, to my Nikon software, to Adobe, and MS Edge, and iOS Safari. But someone said the edited version is too overexposed to see anything.
18+ images
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47536459
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47536664
Yes, they are on the "high" side of exposure, but over exposed? Do they look the way that YOU want them to look?
Do they say what YOU want them to say?
You know what they look like on your equipment.
Don't change them to satisfy an internet stranger.
(But I agree, they are over exposed for my taste.
However there are lots of such images on MM.)
Edit: Does the model like them?
Photographer
Sliver-Sliver
Posts: 175
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
But someone said the edited version is too overexposed to see anything. Is the opinion of that person more valuable to you than your own?
Retoucher
ML Retouching
Posts: 82
New York, New York, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
The following photo looks normal on my laptop and on my phone. The image looks very consistent to me from the preview on my camera, to my Nikon software, to Adobe, and MS Edge, and iOS Safari. But someone said the edited version is too overexposed to see anything.
18+ images
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47536459
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47536664
Yes, they are on the "high" side of exposure, but over exposed? The first photo is fine, the second looks a bit over exposed. I would take exposure down on both pictures on her chest area, which is a bit brighter.
Photographer
Fist Full of Ish
Posts: 2301
Aiken, South Carolina, US
I agree that the second one is slightly over exposed. First one is OK.
Photographer
LightEnough
Posts: 72
Washington, District of Columbia, US
Both are overexposed and would look better with more contrast. Both are great shots! The ? for me is are they overexposed in camera or did it get that way in Post?
Nice model btw.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
OMG, I am terrible procrastinator. Ugh...I suck.
Ok...more background and then I'll respond to whatever I feel like responding to.
Photos were reviewed on camera and no complaints. But after I shared the photos later, I was asked if they could see the originals that were on camera. Those were the originals. My computer and my phone all match my camera display (reasonably anyhow). But they felt they were not usable for them because they couldn't see any good details.
So that was the crux of it because all my devices are matching and I was actually kind of wondering if anyone out there was seeing anything grossly over exposed vs technically over exposed, if that makes any sense.
Anyhow, sorry for the very late return to my thread.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
TaiChiJohn wrote:
i don't think the images are overexposed, but, in my opinion the contrast is a bit too high for the subject material. Traditionally, black and white head shots for actors and models were printed around a polycontrast value of 2; these look to be around a 2.8 which has filled in the darker areas and reduced detail there. That does give richer and more distinct blacks but also compresses the lighter areas, leading some to think that the image is overexposed (but if that were the case, there would be detail in the dark areas but not in the light areas). Thank you. The high contrast was intended on my part. the current settings are intention and ultimately pleasing to my eyes for this session.
However, what these "day time" shoots in this elevator has shown me is, I really really really prefer to shoot these at night as my night time photos are my most favorite.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Mark Salo wrote:
Do they look the way that YOU want them to look?
Do they say what YOU want them to say?
You know what they look like on your equipment.
Don't change them to satisfy an internet stranger.
(But I agree, they are over exposed for my taste.
However there are lots of such images on MM.)
Edit: Does the model like them? Yes, I like them and the style is intentional.
She appeared to really like them on the camera, but afterwards I think perhaps not.
It's ok, my "style" isn't going to be for everyone and these shoots are for me, not for them. But I am happier if they like them and use them. Its a paid shoot so everyone got what they needed so it's a win win regardless.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
LightEnough wrote:
Both are overexposed and would look better with more contrast. Both are great shots! The ? for me is are they overexposed in camera or did it get that way in Post?
Nice model btw. I think I may have boosted exposure up to 1 stop extra over the in-camera version. I do not recall now. Shooting on the higher end was intentional so I may not have made any adjustment on these particular photos.
Photographer
Al_Vee Photography
Posts: 107
Asheville, North Carolina, US
It appears a bit overexposed on my laptop screen, but not at all on my phone screen.
Photographer
Studio NSFW
Posts: 665
Pacifica, California, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
Photos were reviewed on camera and no complaints.
. Checking a histogram would put to rest that these images are actually “Overexposed “ Just looking at the set, the daylight coming through the background windows would tend to fool a reflected light meter and, if anything, underexpose the subject. So exposure was properly adjusted for the actual subject. The windows are blown our and “overexposed” but the subject has a good tonal range, you lost a little detail in the ring. So, no, I don’t think they are overexposed unless the important part of the picture is the curtains.
What “detail” does your critic think they cannot make out? I can see the lines left from the models undergarment on her skin, every strand of hair….so, the criticism isn’t exactly valid….but! The eye is drawn to light areas in an image, in this case the blown out windows.
Shooting in front of a window like that will always lead to a choice between overexposed windows or underexposed subject. A fill flash can be used to balance the two, and get you anything from a silhouette (minimal fill) all the way to overpowering the windows with big strobes…
(18+) close to silhouette: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/46969212
(18+) balanced: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/43422883
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Studio NSFW wrote:
Checking a histogram would put to rest that these images are actually “Overexposed “ Just looking at the set, the daylight coming through the background windows would tend to fool a reflected light meter and, if anything, underexpose the subject. So exposure was properly adjusted for the actual subject. The windows are blown our and “overexposed” but the subject has a good tonal range, you lost a little detail in the ring. So, no, I don’t think they are overexposed unless the important part of the picture is the curtains.
What “detail” does your critic think they cannot make out? I can see the lines left from the models undergarment on her skin, every strand of hair….so, the criticism isn’t exactly valid….but! The eye is drawn to light areas in an image, in this case the blown out windows.
Shooting in front of a window like that will always lead to a choice between overexposed windows or underexposed subject. A fill flash can be used to balance the two, and get you anything from a silhouette (minimal fill) all the way to overpowering the windows with big strobes…
(18+) close to silhouette: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/46969212
(18+) balanced: https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/43422883 Agreed. These are shot in an outdoor windowed elevator and with my limited hours during the summer, tried shooting during the day. I shoot these with no reflectors or fill lighting. So because of that, the backgrounds are very blown out.
Much different than when I shoot at night which is what I have decided to stick to.
Retoucher
sanqiuyinghua
Posts: 105
Huaiyin, Jiangsu, China
I don't think so, he's a high-brightness black-and-white photograph that blurs the details of the skin tone, more to express the mood
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2383
Los Angeles, California, US
Modelphilia wrote:
It may not be the photographers who are doing it. The conversion by MM is often quite bad. Editing expressly for MM (after first seeing it in an MM-trial version) is something I have often had to do. YES. Totally agree.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Focuspuller wrote:
YES. Totally agree. I haven’t had this issue. I think if you stay with MM’s resolution and file size constraints and use sRGB for your colorspace, you should be fine.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2383
Los Angeles, California, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
I haven’t had this issue. I think if you stay with MM’s resolution and file size constraints and use sRGB for your colorspace, you should be fine. Hmm. I do use sRGB jpeg's and presume if the files are accepted then they are within MM's size and resolution requirements, yet the MM render is regularly skewed left exposure-wise. I use Capture One Pro; maybe that is the problem.
Photographer
Magic in Light
Posts: 10
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
The following photo looks normal on my laptop and on my phone. The image looks very consistent to me from the preview on my camera, to my Nikon software, to Adobe, and MS Edge, and iOS Safari. But someone said the edited version is too overexposed to see anything.
18+ images
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47536459
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47536664
Yes, they are on the "high" side of exposure, but over exposed? If you like the look fine.
Try just for kicks in LR bumping the shadows up a bit and the highlights down a bit.
And if this is for professional printing having their printer profile can prevent some errors.
Photographer
AE Photography
Posts: 215
Pullman, Washington, US
TaiChiJohn wrote:
i don't think the images are overexposed, but, in my opinion the contrast is a bit too high for the subject material. Traditionally, black and white head shots for actors and models were printed around a polycontrast value of 2; these look to be around a 2.8 which has filled in the darker areas and reduced detail there. That does give richer and more distinct blacks but also compresses the lighter areas, leading some to think that the image is overexposed (but if that were the case, there would be detail in the dark areas but not in the light areas). as a former B&W darkroom guy (custom, pro labs) ditto on the above. Lower the contrast a tad and if you've added shadow on your levels undo that to keep your shadow detail from blocking up. And as another has said, "what do YOU like?"
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Focuspuller wrote:
Hmm. I do use sRGB jpeg's and presume if the files are accepted then they are within MM's size and resolution requirements, yet the MM render is regularly skewed left exposure-wise. I use Capture One Pro; maybe that is the problem. If you're over their pixel limits, they will resize your image and the compression used, in my opinion, is too aggressive and lowers the quality significantly..
Photographer
JSouthworth
Posts: 1042
Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom
The second picture could be said to be overexposed in the sense that the window area shows no detail, the model is not very overexposed.
Photographer
Focuspuller
Posts: 2383
Los Angeles, California, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
If you're over their pixel limits, they will resize your image and the compression used, in my opinion, is too aggressive and lowers the quality significantly.. Something is definitely going on. I also suspect anecdotally that contest submissions are rendered differently than portfolio entries, but I could be mistaken.
Photographer
Stephen Dubois
Posts: 12
Narragansett, Rhode Island, US
My opinion yes.. actually I would like to see these in color.
Photographer
RichPhoto
Posts: 246
Casper, Wyoming, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
The following photo looks normal on my laptop and on my phone. The image looks very consistent to me from the preview on my camera, to my Nikon software, to Adobe, and MS Edge, and iOS Safari. But someone said the edited version is too overexposed to see anything.
18+ images
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47536459
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47536664
Yes, they are on the "high" side of exposure, but over exposed? Technically yes. You have blown highlights. Red alert captain Kirk. How can you tell? Load your image into an editor (mine is ON1), turn on the blown highlights alert/crushed shadows alert. You can also turn on "blinkies" highlight alert on your camera so you can see this on your display which will show flashing red.
Lets look at your images. The second image is more blown out than the first.
The red area is blown highlights.
http://www.imadethis.photo/MMblownhighlight/pic1.png
The second image has more blown highlights
http://www.imadethis.photo/MMblownhighlight/pic2.png
Even in your edited jpg (not raw) can be fixed by sliding the highlights slider to the left (-3) without any artifacts or visible changes to the image. Of course, you should always make corrections like this in raw, at least that is my advise.
http://www.imadethis.photo/MMblownhighl … 2fixed.png
This is not an opinion, the editor or the back of the camera will tell you when you have blown highlights BUT... The others are correct, you can have a bunch of blown highlights if you want and it CAN happen most often in highkey photography. BUT, it is better not to have blown highlights when printing. It CAN (not will) cause the photo to look funky because the will be areas of the photography where there is no ink and looks funky (depends on the paper/ink and how the printer handles blown highlights in images when it prints the photo)
The safe, more correct answer is not to have blown highlights when it is so easy to fix (if you have bad blown highlights and shot jpg, you cannot recover or really bad and you cannot recover in raw) and you won't have anyone saying online that your images have blown highlights or are overexposed.
Photographer
Moon Pix Photography
Posts: 3907
Syracuse, New York, US
Post hidden on May 03, 2023 03:54 pm Reason: other Comments: spam
Photographer
Lallure Photographic
Posts: 2086
Taylors, South Carolina, US
Your links looked ok, to me, but the second one did lose some detail in the hands.
It is really hard to say whether that was the photograph or whatever editing you were talking about, or the tech hardware.
Rick
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 11630
Olney, Maryland, US
Lallure Photographic wrote:
Your links looked ok, to me, but the second one did lose some detail in the hands. That would be shallow depth of focus.
Photographer
Models inc
Posts: 41
Dayton, Ohio, US
Those are well done black and whites, I like the slight high key look, A+ for you today
Photographer
Ben Levis Photography
Posts: 1327
Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Slightly high key and contrasty. But outright overexposed? I don't believe so.
Photographer
Robert Mossack
Posts: 1285
Joplin, Missouri, US
On my monitor, they look more high key than anything. I really like them!
|
