Should I love this?

OMG. I made such a simple request.

william_cpa wrote: You are laying a minefield around your image, Gary.

Do you refer to my reputation? I'm willing to risk it. Let me explain.

It looks to me (rather obviously) that you overexposed the shot. It is too overexposed to repair so I recommend shooting it again. This kind of shot requires little to no post. It is all about exposure.

I'm going to go with "incorrect, sir."  The original is not overexposed, according to lightroom. I took the NEF and reset everything to get a good look at the starting point.  And I took screen grabs which I've included here.

You can see in the first image that shadow and highlight clipping are enabled; only the light source itself is blown out. Nothing else shows up red, and nothing at all in blue (no clipped blacks).  In the zoomed view (1:1, below) you can see no red or blue on his skin, which tells me that the forehead exposure is pretty close to perfect. Lowering the highlights brings out the detail you can see in my 2nd (do-over) post of the reworked image.

I maintain that, given this as a starting point, I did a pretty damn good job. Not necessarily perfect, but pretty good. I'm thinking my reputation is safe. I agreed that the first version needed further work, and the second posted version, above,  is more technically correct. So I'll repeat my question: If I'm going to re-shoot something like this, what should I be doing differently thnt what I've shown to be done? Please enlighten us.

I like the original very much, Gary. It pushes the portrait style of Youssuf Karsh to a perhaps extreme but expressively effective statement which I find beautiful.

garyrhook wrote: OMG. I made such a simple request.

william_cpa wrote: You are laying a minefield around your image, Gary.

Do you refer to my reputation? I'm willing to risk it. Let me explain.

I think he meant you don't want anyone criticizing your work.

garyrhook wrote: Well, I didn't say I was done with it. But I do like where it's going.

Yes, the forehead (especially) needs work; it's not blown out, so I will do some more work. I was just happy with where the image is going, and was curious about what others might think. I think it's important to attempt to gain an understanding of other's perspective. I've already learned that other folks will gravitate toward shots that are not my favorites.

Thank you, everyone!

I've found that, too.  I always find my absolute favourites get the least reception.

quote="garyrhook" post=387495]OMG. I made such a simple request.

william_cpa wrote: You are laying a minefield around your image, Gary.

Do you refer to my reputation? I'm willing to risk it. Let me explain.

It looks to me (rather obviously) that you overexposed the shot. It is too overexposed to repair so I recommend shooting it again. This kind of shot requires little to no post. It is all about exposure.

I'm going to go with "incorrect, sir."  The original is not overexposed, according to lightroom. I took the NEF and reset everything to get a good look at the starting point.  And I took screen grabs which I've included here.

You can see in the first image that shadow and highlight clipping are enabled; only the light source itself is blown out. Nothing else shows up red, and nothing at all in blue (no clipped blacks).  In the zoomed view (1:1, below) you can see no red or blue on his skin, which tells me that the forehead exposure is pretty close to perfect. Lowering the highlights brings out the detail you can see in my 2nd (do-over) post of the reworked image.

I maintain that, given this as a starting point, I did a pretty damn good job. Not necessarily perfect, but pretty good. I'm thinking my reputation is safe. I agreed that the first version needed further work, and the second posted version, above,  is more technically correct. So I'll repeat my question: If I'm going to re-shoot something like this, what should I be doing differently thnt what I've shown to be done? Please enlighten us.

[/quote]

The "minefield" refers to you making this into an argument where someone has to win and someone has to lose.

I don't think I needed your histogram to prove that you overexposed the face but, now that you have provided it;

There is a vast difference between overexposing and clipping highlights. I can overexpose a face in Lightroom by three stops and still not activate the clipping mask. I could leave it at that but I feel you will not be satisfied, and believe me I don't want to harm your reputation, as you put it.

If, in fact, I do activate the clipping mask by some chance on skin, I can be certain that I am severely overexposed by two stops or more. It is true that it would then cease to be a personal judgement and would be incontrovertible evidence that I had not exposed the shot 'pretty close to perfect'. It would be wildly off. A reshoot would become inevitable.

As I look at the full size version of your Lightroom screen capture, I find myself drawn to the subject's nose and the curiously glowing red area thereon.

Here is an image I have purposely overexposed in Lightroom by three stops. You can see that none of the skin has activated the clipping mask

This is kinda fun.

Anyway, devils advocate: just because Gary's picture (set at zero) has some overexposed parts, doesn't mean it has gone beyond what the camera has captured in RAW. Until it's unrecoverable it's not overexposed in my books.

Sure if he 'got it right in camera' he'd have no issues and there would be no PP needed. In that case, he might as well have shot jpeg. Since he shot RAW I'd say it's not (technically at least) overexposed and a reshoot is a tad extreme.

Anyway, nothing wrong with some artistic blown highlights.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: This is kinda fun.

Anyway, devils advocate: just because Gary's picture (set at zero) has some overexposed parts, doesn't mean it has gone beyond what the camera has captured in RAW. Until it's unrecoverable it's not overexposed in my books.

Sure if he 'got it right in camera' he'd have no issues and there would be no PP needed. In that case, he might as well have shot jpeg. Since he shot RAW I'd say it's not (technically at least) overexposed and a reshoot is a tad extreme.

Anyway, nothing wrong with some artistic blown highlights.

I based my recommendation on two images. It appears to be unrecoverable, therefore, a reshoot is not extreme.

If you notice that any future images posted by me are unfocussed, Adrian, please note that they are artistic choices and there is no need to comment. Same goes for color, exposure, composition, blah blah blah ...

william_cpa wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: This is kinda fun.

Anyway, devils advocate: just because Gary's picture (set at zero) has some overexposed parts, doesn't mean it has gone beyond what the camera has captured in RAW. Until it's unrecoverable it's not overexposed in my books.

Sure if he 'got it right in camera' he'd have no issues and there would be no PP needed. In that case, he might as well have shot jpeg. Since he shot RAW I'd say it's not (technically at least) overexposed and a reshoot is a tad extreme.

Anyway, nothing wrong with some artistic blown highlights.

I based my recommendation on two images. It appears to be unrecoverable, therefore, a reshoot is not extreme.

If you notice that any future images posted by me are unfocussed, Adrian, please note that they are artistic choices and there is no need to comment. Same goes for color, exposure, composition, blah blah blah ...

Sure.

All you need to do is think out of the box a little.  Rules are for the mundane, I'm sure we all agree on that.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: Sure.

All you need to do is think out of the box a little.  Rules are for the mundane, I'm sure we all agree on that.

I agree 100% and some people hide behind the artist disguise when they realize they screwed up the image (it must be said here that Gary is not doing that at all). I can only choose to break the rules after I have mastered them. If I haven't mastered them then I cannot break them by choice. I am breaking them only inadvertently because I don't know any better.

I don't think I needed your histogram to prove that you overexposed the face but, now that you have provided it;

There is a vast difference between overexposing and clipping highlights. I can overexpose a face in Lightroom by three stops and still not activate the clipping mask. I could leave it at that but I feel you will not be satisfied, and believe me I don't want to harm your reputation, as you put it.

If, in fact, I do activate the clipping mask by some chance on skin, I can be certain that I am severely overexposed by two stops or more. It is true that it would then cease to be a personal judgement and would be incontrovertible evidence that I had not exposed the shot 'pretty close to perfect'. It would be wildly off. A reshoot would become inevitable.

Okay, see, that's helpful. I believe that, without a context, a bare statement is content-free and of little value.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on what "overexpose" means, I think. If I am understanding here, you find the lighting too uneven. Okay, I can't disagree with that. My first effort was off; I think my second effort was closer to where it should be.

So I'll ask for more detail: now that you've seen the simple single-light setup (because I was just trying different hings in a dark room) I would be curious to hear your suggestions as to what you would do differently. Even if the response is simply "turn down the power on the light".

In this situation my intent was to capture mood and expression of his playing rather than worrying about perfect lighting. That doesn't mean I can't learn, however, in post-shoot analysis. Thus my interrogative.

As I look at the full size version of your Lightroom screen capture, I find myself drawn to the subject's nose and the curiously glowing red area thereon.

His nose has a hot spot (and a few clipped pixels) that requires taming, yes. Past that, I'm unsure as to what you're referring.


William, you purport to be an educator that has chosen to take the time to participate here; a request for explanation and detail seems perfectly reasonable to me. If, however, my expectations are untoward than I shall refrain from further requests. And no, I'm not trying to start an argument. I am not so arrogant as to be unteachable. The fact that I am requesting input supports that assertion, at least in my mind.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: This is kinda fun.

This.

Anyway, devils advocate: just because Gary's picture (set at zero) has some overexposed parts, doesn't mean it has gone beyond what the camera has captured in RAW. Until it's unrecoverable it's not overexposed in my books.

And this.

william_cpa wrote: I agree 100% and some people hide behind the artist disguise when they realize they screwed up the image

Yeah, screw that. I despise that behavior.

(it must be said here that Gary is not doing that at all). I can only choose to break the rules after I have mastered them. If I haven't mastered them then I cannot break them by choice. I am breaking them only inadvertently because I don't know any better.

Aaaand this.

garyrhook wrote: Do-over.

this one i like.. i like that it has a mysterious appeal to it ...

Is it that you think a RAW file is somehow blessed with limitless headroom and all of the color information can be recovered as long as it is not clipped? Do you think that none of the color channels are clipped unless they appear to be so in the histogram?

In the original crop that you posted, the skin is overexposed to the point that there is no color information in the file to recover, as we can see in your second post.

Regardless of whether or not an image can be recovered, if it is overexposed then it is overexposed either intentionally or otherwise. the image you posted is so clearly overexposed that I had to turn my back on the computer, go to my front door and open it to find my neighbor from across the street standing there saying "Wow! That image you are looking at on your computer is way overexposed. Please close your window blinds because the kids are complaining that they can't get to sleep due to aliens beaming high intensity light rays into their bedroom and seeing images of humans on fire".

I can also see that it is so overexposed that there will be every likelihood that it contains little or no color information to recover, as witnessed in the second post.

william_cpa wrote: Is it that you think a RAW file is somehow blessed with limitless headroom and all of the color information can be recovered as long as it is not clipped? Do you think that none of the color channels are clipped unless they appear to be so in the histogram?

In the original crop that you posted, the skin is overexposed to the point that there is no color information in the file to recover, as we can see in your second post.

Regardless of whether or not an image can be recovered, if it is overexposed then it is overexposed either intentionally or otherwise. the image you posted is so clearly overexposed that I had to turn my back on the computer, go to my front door and open it to find my neighbor from across the street standing there saying "Wow! That image you are looking at on your computer is way overexposed. Please close your window blinds because the kids are complaining that they can't get to sleep due to aliens beaming high intensity light rays into their bedroom and seeing images of humans on fire".

I can also see that it is so overexposed that there will be every likelihood that it contains little or no color information to recover, as witnessed in the second post.

Well, unless we have a RAW file to play with, we can't really tell if the second shot is a result of over ambitious editing or that the RAW has gone beyond its limits.