overexposed K100D shot?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by m II, Nov 27, 2006.

  1. m II

    m II Guest

    m II, Nov 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. m II

    G.T. Guest

    m II wrote:
    >
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
    >


    Ugly photo, ugly model, so who cares if it's over or underexposed?

    Greg

    --
    "All my time I spent in heaven
    Revelries of dance and wine
    Waking to the sound of laughter
    Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
     
    G.T., Nov 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. m II

    mogh baba Guest

    On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:48:56 -0800, "G.T." <>
    wrote:

    >m II wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
    >>

    >
    >Ugly photo, ugly model, so who cares if it's over or underexposed?




    She is gorgeous, you have to wash your eyes.

    M


    >
    >Greg
     
    mogh baba, Nov 27, 2006
    #3
  4. m II

    Ron Hunter Guest

    mogh baba wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:48:56 -0800, "G.T." <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> m II wrote:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
    >>>

    >> Ugly photo, ugly model, so who cares if it's over or underexposed?

    >
    >
    >
    > She is gorgeous, you have to wash your eyes.
    >
    > M
    >
    >
    >> Greg

    >

    Obviously, different standards of beauty here. I am sure the
    photographer considers her beautiful, even though I don't agree. I
    suspect the lighting was supposed to set a mood, but missed, in my opinion.
     
    Ron Hunter, Nov 27, 2006
    #4
  5. Ron Hunter wrote:
    []
    > Obviously, different standards of beauty here. I am sure the
    > photographer considers her beautiful, even though I don't agree. I
    > suspect the lighting was supposed to set a mood, but missed, in my
    > opinion.


    Looked like the head was stuck on after the photo was taken....

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Nov 27, 2006
    #5
  6. Bennie C'ra''mer, Nov 27, 2006
    #6
  7. m II

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:16:20 GMT, m II <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
    >
    >
    >mike


    Go to the "Original" size, and look around.
    If this is an example of what the K100D is capable of, I'd steer
    clear.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Nov 27, 2006
    #7
  8. m II

    Roy G Guest

    "m II" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:Etah.19750$1U5.15868@edtnps90...
    >
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
    >
    >
    > mike


    A lot of rubbish has been spoken about this picture.

    The exposure on the face is Ok.
    The Body is a bit underexposed ( Too Dark), but that may be deliberate in
    order to keep[ us looking at the face.

    The actual pose is ever so excessively ordinary, "hand on hip, stick out
    tits". The facial expression is dreadful, is it meant to be sexy, or is she
    just pissed off ? The head is straight on to the camera, the eyes are level,
    the lighting is flat.

    The red wall behind, way behind, is lit as brightly as the face. The whole
    thing really looks like a picture of a red wall with a female obscuring part
    of it.

    2 out of 10.

    She should really get someone, who knows what they are doing, to take her
    next set of photos.

    Roy G
     
    Roy G, Nov 27, 2006
    #8
  9. m II

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:30:51 +0000, Roy G wrote:

    > "m II" <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:Etah.19750$1U5.15868@edtnps90...
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
    >>
    >>
    >> mike

    >
    > A lot of rubbish has been spoken about this picture.
    >
    > The exposure on the face is Ok.
    > The Body is a bit underexposed ( Too Dark), but that may be deliberate in
    > order to keep[ us looking at the face.
    >
    > The actual pose is ever so excessively ordinary, "hand on hip, stick out
    > tits". The facial expression is dreadful, is it meant to be sexy, or is she
    > just pissed off ? The head is straight on to the camera, the eyes are level,
    > the lighting is flat.
    >
    > The red wall behind, way behind, is lit as brightly as the face. The whole
    > thing really looks like a picture of a red wall with a female obscuring part
    > of it.
    >
    > 2 out of 10.
    >
    > She should really get someone, who knows what they are doing, to take her
    > next set of photos.


    Looking at the rest of the set there's one where here eyes are a not
    unpleasant slightly silvery blue but in the rest they're a kind of dingy
    gray with no detail to speak of in the irises. Was she wearing colored
    contacts for some of them or is the white balance off somewhere?

    Should get her hair done professionally just prior to the shoot and get
    some makeup on those stretch marks as well.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 27, 2006
    #9
  10. m II

    Colin_D Guest

    Colin_D, Nov 27, 2006
    #10
  11. m II

    W Paul Mills Guest

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    m II wrote:
    >
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
    >
    >
    > mike


    Well, I does not look overexposed to me. But the lighting on this shot
    seems rather bad. Either because of reflections off of colored objects
    or mixed source lighting.


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFFa9Cku4tRirKTPYwRAugsAJsF+HWUXLJ8QA+EUHpwXny2baRJvwCfT4EG
    YTU019Y6cEibPvtmH36w6jQ=
    =ldcS
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    W Paul Mills, Nov 28, 2006
    #11
  12. m II

    Rob Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:16:20 GMT, m II <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
    >>
    >>
    >> mike

    >
    > Go to the "Original" size, and look around.
    > If this is an example of what the K100D is capable of, I'd steer
    > clear.


    I have one, and indeed, it does have its "issues".
     
    Rob, Nov 28, 2006
    #12
  13. Bill Funk wrote:
    > On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:16:20 GMT, m II <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
    >>
    >>
    >> mike

    >
    > Go to the "Original" size, and look around.
    > If this is an example of what the K100D is capable of, I'd steer
    > clear.

    I assume you are referring to the nasty JPG artifacts and posterising in
    the red area? Don't take too much notice of that image - it's
    compressed to about 700kb, whereas the normal JPG's from the K100D
    average about 2.5MB. Therefore the image has at the very least been the
    victim of some severe JPG compression - goodness knows what else has
    been done to it.
     
    Graham Fountain, Nov 28, 2006
    #13
  14. m II

    Mike Russell Guest

    The image is in the Adobe RGB space. If viewed in a browser, the colors
    will be more normal looking, so people may be talking about two different
    appearances of the same image. In Photoshop, the image is too red and
    saturated.

    I used curves in Lab mode to get the skin tones to a nominal hue and
    saturation. I converted the original image to sRGB so that it will look
    about the same on the web as in Photoshop:

    http://mike.russell-home.net/tmp/Model_1/

    This is not a professional shot from a lighting and composition standpoint,
    but you are obviously experimenting with interesting effects, and your
    skills are definitely approaching that level. Keep at it, and try to get
    what you can from the criticisms others throw at you here.
    --
    Mike Russell
    www.curvemeister.com/forum/
     
    Mike Russell, Nov 28, 2006
    #14
  15. m II

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:23:55 +1000, Graham Fountain <>
    wrote:

    >Bill Funk wrote:
    >> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:16:20 GMT, m II <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> mike

    >>
    >> Go to the "Original" size, and look around.
    >> If this is an example of what the K100D is capable of, I'd steer
    >> clear.

    >I assume you are referring to the nasty JPG artifacts and posterising in
    >the red area? Don't take too much notice of that image - it's
    >compressed to about 700kb, whereas the normal JPG's from the K100D
    >average about 2.5MB. Therefore the image has at the very least been the
    >victim of some severe JPG compression - goodness knows what else has
    >been done to it.


    Don't take too much notice? It was presented to us for just that
    purpose.
    When my shots are downsized, they don't get that posterization.
    Is the mottling actually present in the model's legs?
    Same for the chest in
    http://www.pbase.com/jackschouten/image/65539065
    Look at
    http://www.pbase.com/jackschouten/image/64991665
    too. What's with the left arm/side of the model? Was it moving? Along
    with the hair moving in the same exact way?

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Nov 28, 2006
    #15
  16. m II

    Guest

    mogh baba wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:48:56 -0800, "G.T." <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >m II wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
    > >>

    > >
    > >Ugly photo, ugly model, so who cares if it's over or underexposed?

    >
    >
    >
    > She is gorgeous, you have to wash your eyes.


    Yuck. Dyed blond hair, fake tits, and overplucked eyebrows is NOT
    gorgeous...

    -Gniewko
     
    , Nov 28, 2006
    #16
  17. m II

    J. Clarke Guest

    On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:12:34 -0800, lubecki wrote:

    > mogh baba wrote:
    >> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:48:56 -0800, "G.T." <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >m II wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> http://www.pbase.com/image/65541368
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >Ugly photo, ugly model, so who cares if it's over or underexposed?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> She is gorgeous, you have to wash your eyes.

    >
    > Yuck. Dyed blond hair, fake tits, and overplucked eyebrows is NOT
    > gorgeous...


    In the immortal words of Austin Powers, "m-m-m-m-m-m-m-o-o-o-o-o-o-le".

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 28, 2006
    #17
  18. m II

    m II Guest

    m II, Nov 29, 2006
    #18
  19. m II

    Skip Guest

    Skip, Nov 29, 2006
    #19
  20. "Skip" <> wrote in message
    news:iN9bh.8584$...
    > I'd be inclined to say it's underexposed... ;-)
    >

    I saved it, imported it into Photoshop, and lightened it up, but it didn't
    really improve it. Sometimes a little too dark in the shadows is
    intriguing.....I like her just the way she is.....
     
    William Graham, Nov 29, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jack

    Overexposed

    Jack, Nov 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    609
    MikeWhy
    Nov 13, 2003
  2. Bishoop

    Extremely Overexposed

    Bishoop, Dec 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    322
    Paul Heslop
    Dec 28, 2003
  3. Bob Steinbeiser
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    547
    Bob Steinbeiser
    Jul 12, 2004
  4. digiboy
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    912
  5. Jason K. Lambrou

    overexposed in macro

    Jason K. Lambrou, Jan 23, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    436
    Jason K. Lambrou
    Jan 24, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page