| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2006 12:30:19 AM · #1 |
Just an observation...
Sometimes I think any white that is simply a pure, brighter white is labled a "blown highlight." Yes, this is a disagreement with a comment left on one of my photos which I cannot share because it is currently in a challenge...but I have seen this comment so many times in critiquing that I would like a discussion on what truly constitutes a white that is so bright it is considered too bright.
To me, it is almost a glaring white with no visible detail left. Now, in some cases, there's very little detail in those areas to begin with. A "blown" highlight almost seems to bleed out into other areas where there were originally no highlights - if that makes sense.
Anyone else care to share thoughts on the subject? |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 01:23:27 AM · #2 |
Yah, I do. I think the "blown highlight" police are INSANE! I don't think there's anything wrong with blown highlights in principle; it's just a matter of where they are and what they are. For example, you really can't photograph chrome properly without allowing the highlights to go pure white; that's what chrome is FOR, facripesake...
Now, admittedly, there are times when a picture doesn't look as good as I think it ought to because the shooter has allowed the highlights to block up in areas where I really WANT to see detail. But then again, maybe that's what the shooter INTENDED, eh? There's a whole genre of pictures out there that glory in their extreme contrast and blown-out bright areas, and they hang in galleries and people pay lots of money for them sometimes... Here in DPC-land, though, that's apparently unacceptable, and there's nothing I can do about that except steer away from that sort of stuff when I post images here.
Which is easy enough for me to do, 'cuz I'm not a blown-out bright areas kind of guy. But I sympathize, I really do...
R.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 01:26:30 AM · #3 |
hi-key (hi-tone?) photography deals with blowing out the highlights on purpose..
totally agree with you though. Much of the time the photgrapher wants the blownout highlight to be in the photo. With RAW processing now, its very easy to eliminate the blownout bits of an image. So tsk tsk blowout police...!
-Dan |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 01:31:32 AM · #4 |
*bright* whites don't bother me. However, I commented on a picture tonight about how the blown highlights distracted me. (Don't know if it was the OP's or not).
I commented on that (as well as a couple of other things) because it was terribly distracting (to me). There was no detail in that one section of the picture and it was like a glowing hole. To me, that did not add anything to the picture.
So, I guess if I am a blowout policeperson, just give me my badge. :) |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 01:34:42 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For example, you really can't photograph chrome properly without allowing the highlights to go pure white; that's what chrome is FOR, facripesake...
R. |
Yup, got to blow a highlight or two to give chrome its bling.
For the most part, I try to look at artistic intent when I see a "technical bo-no" and give the artist the benefit of the doubt. I might not like what I see, but I'm not gonna discount the artist's judgement.
If it looks like a mistake though, I will offer advice.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 01:39:56 AM · #6 |
And so often it IS something that actually benefits an image.
Our eyes see extreme brights (known as blow-outs to some), so should our pictures:
  
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 01:43:06 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by BradP:
|
Really good example here.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 01:57:53 AM · #8 |
Yah, absolutely. I was HAMMERED for the blown-out halo of hair in this, but it's pure backlighting in very late afternoon and that's exactly what I saw, and what drew me to take the image in the first place...
This one also was docked for the blown-out tiger (and for post processing as well, another story) but that tiger was absolutely GLOWING in the window light, it's just how I wanted it to be...
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-09-02 02:00:49.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 07:26:14 PM · #9 |
| My thought is that sometimes whites are called "blown highlight" even when imo, they are not. |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 07:38:33 PM · #10 |
Sometimes it can be disguised by duotoning/colorizing the photo ...
 and sometimes it's the subject itself ...  |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 08:06:59 PM · #11 |
yep the blown highlight folks are the same ones that scream oof when there is correct use of dof
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 08:09:34 PM · #12 |
I didnt use the term "blown highlight" but i did recently commetn on a white being too bright. hopefully not the OP's but to me its too bright when it hurts to look at and makes me involuntarily look away. no real formula just wether or not i can physically stand it. hth. and sorry if it was my comment.
crystal |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 08:10:28 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 09:16:02 PM · #14 |
| Nice subject to bring up ;-) |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 10:12:24 PM · #15 |
I will admit to being one sensitive to blown highlights. Sometimes I remark about it but it doesn't actually lower my vote. I personally do not light blown highlights in DOF blur. Often they are alone in a darker background and serve to draw the eye away from the subject (which of course is Bad(TM)).
On the other hand, my current entry got a comment for not being white enough. The dropper was 225 across the board. Do I really need it to be 255? It's the flip side of the coin. |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 10:38:24 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will admit to being one sensitive to blown highlights. Sometimes I remark about it but it doesn't actually lower my vote. I personally do not light blown highlights in DOF blur. Often they are alone in a darker background and serve to draw the eye away from the subject (which of course is Bad(TM)).
On the other hand, my current entry got a comment for not being white enough. The dropper was 225 across the board. Do I really need it to be 255? It's the flip side of the coin. |
Yep...I think it's a pretty subjective judgement and that's why I brought it up. It's a term tossed around here pretty frequently and I was hoping to pin down a more technical description of what it is and why and when is it considered a "bad" thing in a photo.
I think it boils down to whether or not the viewer finds it distracting from the main feel or subject of the photo. And I really do appreciate comments on my photos even if I don't agree with them. It makes me think about and critique my OWN work in ways I may not otherwise consider. |
|
|
|
09/02/2006 10:41:28 PM · #17 |
The two "blown highlights" that bother me are obviously unintentional glare - usually newbie portraiture - and sunsets where the colors have been so hypersaturated that it has actually blown out portions of the clouds and looks more like splotches done with the paint tool than anything remotely natural. Other than those two instances, they very rarely bother me.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2006 10:43:33 PM · #18 |
I remarked earlier about an area of an image in a challenge appeared to be almost "blown out", but I didn't knock the score for it. It was just my observation of the photo. I thought the image would have been slightly better with just a little detail in that area if at all possible.
I come from a printing background where you they teach you to use "blown out" high lights very sparingly. Chrome is a great example of a highlight that almost has to blow out.
So, go ahead and give me a badge too. Wait a minute, I haven't really made that many comments for blowing out the white area, so I guess I am just a deputy at the moment. :>
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/08/2025 04:28:50 PM EDT.
