AncientMariner
New Member
What I meant was boost the settings of the camera before taking the photo.
's Shoot at Boat Quay (Overexposed Series)
- Thread starter yilishengxian
- Start date
- Status
Static
New Member
Pardon me for saying... I seldom see DP comment on YLSX pics, to be honest, until today. I never see his nick appearing in YLSX threads.. :bsmilie:
But then i may be wrong.
fotoudavid
Senior Member
is it? maybe not worth his time.
yilishengxian
Senior Member
I don't put emphasis on equipment ... Fyi, I'm a budget user who gets the cheapest of everything which I need, require for the job.If you spend $$ learn photographic basics, you'll be better off than after 100 "model" shoots.
If you can post up such shots, you should have the "face" to attend basic lessons. I'm sure there's no shortage of people who'll recommend you SLCC immediately.
One problem with alot of photographers here: After they pick up dSLR, they think no face to go for basic lessons to learn about exposure, that they aim point shoot they'll get "good" photos. Best of all, some start offering their services as a freelance photographer.
IMHO, YLSX => Personally I get the feel that you're putting too much emphasis on equipment, that by getting the equipment you will be able to get better shots. I believe many people has gotten better images with the same equipment as you have. should stop wasting money on photoshoots, and actually attend lessons to learn the basics. It doesn't mean that pick up better equipment = become pro.
An IR cam is what I need to get that IR images which I wanted, as for these, I don't need to spend anything more to learn and try to get the correct effect I wanted .
Student,
Looks like the effect is more or less there. But the images are too overexposed to get back the details on the face.
Looks like the effect is more or less there. But the images are too overexposed to get back the details on the face.
I had been looking at the images for a while. I thought they have potential as B&W images. So I took the liberty to do a quick conversion into B&W.
BTW, one must not be "afraid" to do post-processing to achieve a certain goal.
Let me know if you wish me to remove them.
yilishengxian
Senior Member
Well, ok settings of the camera.
None of those image enhancing settings were turned on ...
yilishengxian
Senior Member
Well, he did pay me visits now and then
yilishengxian
Senior Member
Well, I've thought of doing a B+W conversion tooI had been looking at the images for a while. I thought they have potential as B&W images. So I took the liberty to do a quick conversion into B&W.
BTW, one must not be "afraid" to do post-processing to achieve a certain goal.
Let me know if you wish me to remove them.
, but I'd prefer the effects to be in colour ...Well, I do process my photos sometimes especially the event photos
.
yilishengxian
Senior Member
Well, I've never intended to get the details on the face anyway ... Well, these processed images look more contrasty.
You are right that the details on the face are completely gone.
But remember, images are not necessarily exact representations of people, especially when attempting "art" which I believe what Y is trying to do.
See this image which I posted sometime ago in CS. There is very little details in tha face here. This image was taken conventionally with proper exposure. But the final print showed very little facial features - a result of darkroom "post-processing". A major clue to the exposure is the dark areas. If I had seriously overexposed this image, the dark ares would be very light as in the images in this thread.
Y, apologies for putting up this image as illustration.
I had been looking at the images for a while. I thought they have potential as B&W images. So I took the liberty to do a quick conversion into B&W.
BTW, one must not be "afraid" to do post-processing to achieve a certain goal.
Let me know if you wish me to remove them.
Now I am confused ?????
You are right that the details on the face are completely gone.
But remember, images are not necessarily exact representations of people, especially when attempting "art" which I believe what Y is trying to do.
See this image which I posted sometime ago in CS. There is very little details in tha face here. This image was taken conventionally with proper exposure. But the final print showed very little facial features - a result of darkroom "post-processing". A major clue to the exposure is the dark areas. If I had seriously overexposed this image, the dark ares would be very light as in the images in this thread.
Y, apologies for putting up this image as illustration.
I can appreciate yours but not his. Achieving art is one thing but technically wrong is another thing all together. In your image, the definition of what is a face is there but not his. Furthermore, film is diff. film has so much contrast and multiple grey zones which digital cannot achieve. The DOF is diff
what do you hope to achieve with these photos then? or what was the purpose of shooting a whole series of over-exposed photos? to explains to us that if you shoot over-exposed photos it doesn't work and it gets a whole farm of attention?
i've remembered DP mentioned once said that a photographer must always respect his work and his models and QC the work before it's published. i don't think you respect your work at all, sorry if it's harsh.
You are right that the details on the face are completely gone.
But remember, images are not necessarily exact representations of people, especially when attempting "art" which I believe what Y is trying to do.
See this image which I posted sometime ago in CS. There is very little details in tha face here. This image was taken conventionally with proper exposure. But the final print showed very little facial features - a result of darkroom "post-processing". A major clue to the exposure is the dark areas. If I had seriously overexposed this image, the dark ares would be very light as in the images in this thread.
Y, apologies for putting up this image as illustration.
i think this photo is provoking emotions. i like it.
sometimes, i feel people use art as an excuse, they call the underexposed photos low key and overexposed photo hi key. there's a fine line between using it as an excuse and making an artistic attempt.
i accidentally shot a whole bunch of images like that once but it went into the closet because it's just not right. i didn't use it as an excuse to say i did it on purpose. every now and then i look at them and see whether i can do anything to saviour them but until present, still no luck...
Long Thai Bean
Senior Member
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: An extremely important attitude in a photographer (amatuer, hobbist or pro) When you respect your own work and only show your good stuff and the best of the model then other people will respect your work ... Models will take you seriously and recognise you as a professional photographer to work with.
a lot of ppl think picaso's work are masterpieces. but i fail to see it that way..
i'm sure if you didn't study picaso's work and try to immitate it, you might end up with a failure of copycat attempt and most probably liking his work.
my point is art is subjective.. so is photography. give the guy a break. at least he has the guts to experiment.
yilishengxian
Senior Member
This is what I wanted too, with the slight coloursYou are right that the details on the face are completely gone.
But remember, images are not necessarily exact representations of people, especially when attempting "art" which I believe what Y is trying to do.
See this image which I posted sometime ago in CS. There is very little details in tha face here. This image was taken conventionally with proper exposure. But the final print showed very little facial features - a result of darkroom "post-processing". A major clue to the exposure is the dark areas. If I had seriously overexposed this image, the dark ares would be very light as in the images in this thread.
Y, apologies for putting up this image as illustration.
.- Status
Similar threads
