| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/07/2006 11:09:48 AM |
Originally posted by Kaveran:
Interesting how you think a little more underexposure would do the trick while others say the image is allready underexposed... |
The point is that a silhouette does not show any detail, it should only show the shape, the outline.
What you have here is a photo that is too dark (i.e. underexposed) for a "normal" subject, yet has too much detail to be called a silhouette.
If you were to underexpose this even further, you would then actually HAVE a silhouette, and a pretty interesting one at that! |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 12:33:12 AM |
Thanks for the insight LoveSpuds. Interesting how you think a little more underexposure would do the trick while others say the image is allready underexposed...**shrug** whats a guy to do?
Anyway, I didnt go out of my way to take this shot, it seemed to fit a silhouette (at least I thought it did) and figured it would work as a 1st challenge for me to get my feet wet and see how the whole voting process etc works. |
|
Comments Made During the Challenge  |
|
|
09/02/2006 07:13:43 PM |
| A nice attempt, but for me the image is very flat. You have a nice, interesting silhouette, but I think you could do with underexposing the shot by another stop or so to get the silhouette darker, and that might hopefully bring out a little more colour in the sky. |
|
 Photographer found comment helpful. |
|
|
09/01/2006 07:05:30 AM |
| Cannot find any silhouettes here. It seems more an underexposed subject than a silhouette. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 09:00:52 AM |
|
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: 11/04/2025 12:21:59 AM EST.
Add photograph to your favorites
Add photographer to your favorites
