What is right?

[jgaddy]

I am going to use a quick snapshot as an example as I just don't have any really good examples at the moment. You always hear people say, "don't clip" but that can lead to a really dull underexposed shot most of the time. Now I now that some will shoot not to clip and are excellent at post processing to perfection. Maybe I am trying to confirm the 2 schools of thought here.

In my example below, how would you have shot it? I will not argue with anyone that it is under-exposed but....Is this a time where you break the rule of don't clip? Or, do you shoot it like I have and post it back up where it should be?. If any added exposure is given in-camera, the hair rapidly turns into a blob of burn-out as well as portions of the pink dress blowing as well. What is the acceptable way in these situations.

I will post better examples in a thread tomorrow as I want to get some better examples put together. I really have a hard time dealing with un-controlled lighting and this hurts me big time at any type of events. My results go one of 2 ways: either under-exposed from not clipping (with post in mind) or a shot, that for the most part, looks great at the expense of allowing clipping to take place in order for tones to be placed where they should be...and this is probably the best approuch except when shooting such things as brides in white dresses. For example: (in-camera) How do you get a caucasians skin-tone exposed exactly where is should be placed without blowing all or part of the white dress? I will post some examples tomorow regarding this.....It would be great to see some feedback until then.



Thanks

[jgaddy]

29 views and no replies....Come on, give some feedback....

Thanks

[LoungeLizard]

I would have come in a lot closer to their faces. You've got all the underwater leg thing going that really detracts from the main focal point - which is the expressions.

[jeffkohn]

Well, I think the answer is "it depends". Specular highlights are one thing, large areas that are completely blown-out are another. As you mention, in the case of a bride for instance you wouldn't want to lose all the detail in the dress because of over-exposure. Likewise I think you want to avoid large areas that could distract from your subject, such as blown-out background in a portrait that draws the eye away from the person in the foreground.

In your picture above, I think if the highlights in the hair were blown a bit the picture would still be fine. Some people might object to any blown highlights at all, but IMHO that's just being anal. Also keep in mind that some of the things photographers obsess about just don't matter to most people. For instance if I posted this picture in a critique thread I'd probably get lots of comments about how the blown highlights are terrible and I should have used fill-flash, etc. It was just a quick grabshot at high ISO in low light, and I'll be the first to admit that it's far from good technically, and yet the parents love this picture and have a framed print of it on the mantle.

[Bill]

You avoid blown highlights because you want detail in them. If no detail, you cannot bring out the detail in post-processing. It is not surprising that the rest of the picture is underexposed.

Here's the trick: It is often easy to pull up the detail in the dull underexposed parts, than to try to retrieve detail that is not there in the blown highlights. And if some of the shadows have gone to pure black and have nothing to brighten, that is usually much less objectionable than pure white in the highlights.

If you are not interested in highlight detail, go ahead and expose so there is no detail there if it helps the rest of the picture.

Post-processing is what dodging and burning was all about in printing film.

[Gabby498]

Don’t claim to know much but I have a question. A fill would have been best, but under the circumstances, what is wrong with shooting it the way you have and then moving your mid tones up in curves?

[jgaddy]

I posted this horrible shot as an example as you know....This is a result of making sure that you do not clip. I have never been a fan of preserving the highlights to this point but.....If someone could give there recipe for post processing an image like this to the same quality that is received "with" burned out parts, I would truly love to know what it is as it would answer many questions for me.

Fill would have been an option but from my experience you woudl 1) have to have a pretty power flash as the speedlight is not going to cut it and 2) if fill was used, it would never have been a natural look....you would have seen it easily... Not the gospel, so someone step in and correct me if I am wrong...


Thanks


As for the wedding photographer.....Have mercy on him as skintones and white dresses do not mix as it would seem to me that every image would have to be post processed...Once again, I would love to hear the post processing technique.

Originally Posted by Gabby498

Don’t claim to know much but I have a question. A fill would have been best, but under the circumstances, what is wrong with shooting it the way you have and then moving your mid tones up in curves?

[jgaddy]

The framing and cropping of this image example is not the point of this post....Thanks

Originally Posted by LoungeLizard

I would have come in a lot closer to their faces. You've got all the underwater leg thing going that really detracts from the main focal point - which is the expressions.

[jgaddy]

Jeff,

Almost the perfect example that you have posted.....Though, your shot is one of those borderline areas to me....But, with that said, if you would have preserved the highlights the shadow side would have gone way too dark....if you would have used fill in any amount, it would have been obvious.... Granted, you could have got some more gear out and made it look natural but that is not what I am after for casual snaps...can this be done without getting too serious?

Don't get me wrong, I love your shot but it goes against the rules that have been preached over and over again....Don;t burn the highlights.....

Seems to me that if you follow that rule, you end up with a tough chore in post with images like the one you posted as it would be very dark.....What gives?

Thanks

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Well, I think the answer is "it depends". Specular highlights are one thing, large areas that are completely blown-out are another. As you mention, in the case of a bride for instance you wouldn't want to lose all the detail in the dress because of over-exposure. Likewise I think you want to avoid large areas that could distract from your subject, such as blown-out background in a portrait that draws the eye away from the person in the foreground.

In your picture above, I think if the highlights in the hair were blown a bit the picture would still be fine. Some people might object to any blown highlights at all, but IMHO that's just being anal. Also keep in mind that some of the things photographers obsess about just don't matter to most people. For instance if I posted this picture in a critique thread I'd probably get lots of comments about how the blown highlights are terrible and I should have used fill-flash, etc. It was just a quick grabshot at high ISO in low light, and I'll be the first to admit that it's far from good technically, and yet the parents love this picture and have a framed print of it on the mantle.

[Gabby498]

You ask “…can this be done without getting too serious?”

I do debate your comment that fill would look unnatural. Of course it will if it is over done. The idea is not to over do it.

I do not know how serious you consider too serious, but for a casual shot where you do not want to set up lighting or use fill you can pull up the shadow area in curves. I selected an area just outside the eye socket and moved it laterally till the shadow was not so deep.

I have attached a before and after. This took all of five seconds (actually much less)—not very serious. It can be debated whether this is as good as, or not. But it is simple.

Gary

[jeffkohn]

Almost the perfect example that you have posted.....Though, your shot is one of those borderline areas to me....But, with that said, if you would have preserved the highlights the shadow side would have gone way too dark....if you would have used fill in any amount, it would have been obvious.... Granted, you could have got some more gear out and made it look natural but that is not what I am after for casual snaps...can this be done without getting too serious?

Candid-type photos are often in less than ideal lighting situations and you often have to make do with what you're given. Sometimes capturing the moment/expression however imperfectly is better than missing it altogether because you're fumbling with trying to get a flash mounted. I should also point out this was shot at high ISO and if I had shot to preserve highlights and tried fixing the shadow tones in post it would have been a horribly noisy mess. I wasn't happy with that shot really, to me it does lose too much detail in the highlights but the parents liked it so who am I to argue.

I think you want to preserve detail when possible and appropriate, but don't blindly follow the mantra that any clipped highlights at all are a fatal flaw because sometimes it's the best compromise to make for the situation.