I like the idea but not the execution. Some items should be swapped for others
***SW&D Photography Thread*** - Page 48
I always thought it was better to do the opposite, "expose to the right" since the right half of the histogram contains much, much more information than the left. You can then bring the exposure down in Lightroom if needed but you still have much more information in your image than if you underexposed.
It really depends on your camera's meter and what you tend to shoot - some cameras blow highlights more easily than others. It's easier generally to recover shadow detail from RAW than highlight detail. I tend to find that for quick shooting when I don't have time to be sure I nailed the exposure, evaluative metering works better than spot, set with 1/3rd stop underexposure in very bright conditions. The short answer is 'it depends'...
Underexpose digital. Maybe not a full stop, but if you can get away with it, sure. Depends on your camera probably.
This has been one of the most noticeable progressions in digital over the years, in my experience. Used to have to nail the exposure +/- 1/3 stop. Now, the details I can pull out of shadows with my D800 is insane. It still feels a bit like cheating when shooting interiors.
I'm shooting 100% film at the moment and it's a fucking blast.
I'd show pictures but I find SF so cumbersome a platform to do that.
re: exposure - depends on what you want - I like blown highlights sometimes, and I like a lot of ultra shadow high contrast stuff (underexposing in harsh light is fun fun fun)
Agreed - the 'correct' exposure isn't always the one you want artistically.
One of the great things with black and white is how far you can push exposure and it still looks right. With colour some subjects will cope with severe under/over exposure and look fine, but skin tones have a much narrower range to look acceptable.
~bumping this shit~
I agree - it'd be good to have somewhere I can drop an interview link, or ask a question, or show some work and have a varied, interesting somewhat responsive discussion.
So, I've been thinking about doing some self-publishing recently - I've got a huge backlog of work and think I can make a pretty compelling 25-30 page zine, so I'm hoping that I can learn InDesign and make something that prints well and sell it for not much. More for the satisfaction of having it done and showing people than any desire to make fat stacks, I'd be happy if I broke even and learned enough to do it again. I habour a dream of working with other amateur photographers to make something quarterly - there used to be a cool zine called 'Stay Young' that was like $10 an issue and was really cool, I'd cut dozens of photos out each time. It since stopped (dude who made it I guess has other things to do).
I've also been getting more and more interested in Black and White photography - I've always liked some of it, but really embracing the variation and possibilities:
I mean take Eugene Smith's Country Doctor - it's so brooding and intense and it feels BnW is a real part of that tone:
It really couldn't be the same without it black and white - obviously - but there'd be something about the nature of it, less serious, more optimistic or happy. I know that sounds cliche, but those images of the Country Doctor walking to work with a blue sky and green grass and yellow flowers, I mean it would be completely different.
Michael Kenna (https://www.google.com/search?q=michael+kenna&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMI_Y2dw4e8yAIVgbiUCh1QHQa9&biw=1366&bih=657) also said something really fascinating, I'll butcher it here, he said that Black and White is inherently unrealistic, it's so far from a representation that he finds it much more creative and personal. I think that argument cuts both ways, but it's certainly a position I hadn't heard before.
Trent Parke (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=657&tbm=isch&q=trent+parke+minutes+to+midnight&revid=131314767&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q1QJqFQoTCMvKhMuJvMgCFYYVpgodtugPzQ) - a bit closer to home, but again the intensity of these photos, the harsh whites and impossibly dark blacks, it's just so involved.
On the other hand, colours are so rad.
I have really been enjoying The Art of Photography's youtube - each video that is on a photographer is really well done, shows a variety of images and has some interesting commentary. Not every comment is brilliant, not every opinion is necessary or something I agree with, but the guy pours a lot of effort into the choices he makes, and it shows.
the LPV show is, I think, the best podcast going - I really, really, like each one - find the comments really cool and discover tonnes of great work through listening. It always makes me want to buy a photobook though.
Is hard. Trying every day. Know I'm moving in the right direction, never know exactly what to do next. Hard to know whether it's worth pursuing digital recognition, or just tinker away on my own stuff, I kinda crave the small attention and affirmation of showing work, but detest the inauthentic ways people grasp for followers, likes and promotion.
He does landscape photography, I don't know anything about the technical aspect of photography and I of course am biased since he's my brother but a lot of his stuff is awesome. I think he's been shooting for about 7 years total, more seriously as time has gone on.
Definitely my favourite: http://www.bencoope.com/product/wanaka-in-infrared-nz/
I'd almost prefer it with a red filter so the sky went almost black (not sure how that'd be with Infared, though).
He really likes long exposures!