| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/23/2010 12:53:11 PM · #1 |
In the discussion thread for the Underexposed challenge, many people seemed a bit shocked by their results. Can we post out entries here for further discussion? Everyone who got less than a 5, maybe? (I remember this being an interesting exercise w/ other challeneges a few years ago)
Here is mine. 
As a Free Study, it would be too dark (duh), but in this challenge I thought it created a mood. I didn't expect a ribbon, but how is this worth a 2? It got four 1s and fifteen 2s!
Message edited by author 2010-09-23 12:53:33. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 01:03:49 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Donna21:
In the discussion thread for the Underexposed challenge, many people seemed a bit shocked by their results. Can we post out entries here for further discussion? Everyone who got less than a 5, maybe? (I remember this being an interesting exercise w/ other challeneges a few years ago)
Here is mine.
As a Free Study, it would be too dark (duh), but in this challenge I thought it created a mood. I didn't expect a ribbon, but how is this worth a 2? It got four 1s and fifteen 2s! |
I look at it and see no reason for its being what-and-as it is. It looks like an accidentally underexposed snapshot. Were it properly exposed, it wouldn't be a particularly interesting image in terms of either composition or subject, so why would underexposing it add to its allure? On top of that, the color palette is weird; the unclouded portion of the sky has a distinctly greenish cast, especially.
My primary take-away from viewing this image is that it's, at best, somebody's exercise in experimenting with underexposure to see how it works; which is probably about the case, when it comes to that :-)
R. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 01:29:03 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Donna21:
Here is mine. |
I gave it a 5. It wasn't bad, but didn't do anything to grab me either. Though it met the topic, I don't think the underexposure added anything to the scene. I also suspect with the skyscape challenge going on at the same time, that subject choice may have suffered some. I'm a generous voter, so If I am giving a 5 to something, it's often getting 3's and 4's from many others. plus some 1's and 2's from the harsher critics. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 02:33:25 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Donna21:
In the discussion thread for the Underexposed challenge, many people seemed a bit shocked by their results. Can we post out entries here for further discussion? Everyone who got less than a 5, maybe? (I remember this being an interesting exercise w/ other challeneges a few years ago)
Here is mine.
As a Free Study, it would be too dark (duh), but in this challenge I thought it created a mood. I didn't expect a ribbon, but how is this worth a 2? It got four 1s and fifteen 2s! |
I gave this a 5. I liked the sky but didn't like the fact that I could see no detail in the fence. Which, of course would happen with an underexposed picture. Personally, I think, even in a good underexposed picture you should still be able to make out some detail of what you are seeing. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 02:34:35 PM · #5 |
OK, I'll bite. Here's mine. It ended up with a 4.21.
Message edited by author 2010-09-23 14:35:15. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 03:10:29 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Luci11e:
OK, I'll bite. Here's mine. It ended up with a 4.21.
|
That's not underexposed by any reasonable definition. The foliage is properly exposed. The BG is dark, but that's because it's in shadow. Compositionally, the image divides up into two nearly-equal vertical halves, which usually isn't a very dynamic way to compose. There's a bit of a diagonal sense with the frond tips, but the overall dynamic is a vertical split.
Added to this, the subject itself is not particularly compelling, the image is pretty much just a "study" of light on leaves/fronds, so there's not a lot for people to react to.
R. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 03:24:32 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Luci11e:
OK, I'll bite. Here's mine. It ended up with a 4.21.
|
That's not underexposed by any reasonable definition. The foliage is properly exposed. The BG is dark, but that's because it's in shadow. Compositionally, the image divides up into two nearly-equal vertical halves, which usually isn't a very dynamic way to compose. There's a bit of a diagonal sense with the frond tips, but the overall dynamic is a vertical split.
Added to this, the subject itself is not particularly compelling, the image is pretty much just a "study" of light on leaves/fronds, so there's not a lot for people to react to.
R. |
OK, I follow everything your saying and agree with it all except the part about the BG....the BG was darker than the foreground but I underexposed it to the point that it is in the pic, first in camera then slightly more in post processing. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 04:48:28 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Luci11e:
OK, I follow everything your saying and agree with it all except the part about the BG....the BG was darker than the foreground but I underexposed it to the point that it is in the pic, first in camera then slightly more in post processing. |
Yeah, but that's not particularly relevant to the challenge, is it? Where the challenge is "underexposure", how is properly exposing the subject and darkening everything we don't particularly want to see an example of underexposure?
Take a look at the top-10 in the challenge; # 1-7 are all, with the exception of #2, pretty clear examples of underexposure of an entire scene, *for a reason*; the underexposure, in other words, appears intentional and organic. #2, I'm not so sure about; from my perspective, a silhouette against a nominally-exposed, bright background doesn't really qualify. But the voters thought otherwise, and it IS a heck of a shot, vibrant and engaging.
8th is not conventional either, in that the foreground is properly exposed, but the mountains/sky are severely underexposed and contribute a brooding presence by being so, and I think it works well within the challenge context. 9th and 10th, again from my perspective, are pretty optimal renderings of their respective scenes, and they don't really shout "underexposure!" to me, but they are dark and powerful, so...
That's my take on it, FWIW.
R.
Message edited by author 2010-09-23 16:49:11. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 07:06:18 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Luci11e:
OK, I follow everything your saying and agree with it all except the part about the BG....the BG was darker than the foreground but I underexposed it to the point that it is in the pic, first in camera then slightly more in post processing. |
Yeah, but that's not particularly relevant to the challenge, is it? Where the challenge is "underexposure", how is properly exposing the subject and darkening everything we don't particularly want to see an example of underexposure?
R. |
well, to be honest - your absolutely right and I figured that's why it didn't score well ;-)
|
|
|
|
09/23/2010 09:14:40 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Luci11e:
OK, I'll bite. Here's mine. It ended up with a 4.21. |
I gave that one a 4. It was sharp and detailed, but it didn't grab my attention at all, and I was left wondering what I was supposed to be looking at. Hope that makes some sense.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2010 09:15:48 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by Luci11e:
OK, I'll bite. Here's mine. It ended up with a 4.21. |
I gave that one a 4. It was sharp and detailed, but it didn't grab my attention at all, and I was left wondering what I was supposed to be looking at. Hope that makes some sense. |
yep, makes sense - thanks |
|
