This I agree - details in the shadows are of no interest for particular image.
I personally like images with deep shadows too, esp indoor images, like the car above. Darker images allow specular highlights to pop up and make entire scene more dynamic.
But :)
Mike's Lisbon street v2 is very different scene and does not include specural highlights, also it is outdoor scene, where deep shadows are not always needed. Currently it is almost a high key image, where most of scene is rendered in light tones and little black is also present.
Or (sorry I contradict previous myself here) - on my screen both images look great :)
There are highlights in the background that are not taken into account but are acceptable.
But, high key?
Is it appropriate in this photo?
Not really, I think.
Unless our monitors are way way different.....
The shadows aren't the problem here, it's the vehicle. On my screen and according to the histogram, it's underexposed. But this is where we need to discuss the difference between what the eye sees and what a camera sees. We also need to consider the difference between averaging exposure across the whole scene and using spot exposure measuring. Both are accurate but they aren't what your eye/brain does and what you think you are seeing.
Just in case it really is my monitor and eyes, does any one else think the car image from Kumsal looks too dark?
If you are happy, everything is fine.
I am a fool who invests a lot of money in photo equipment.
Others invest a lot of money in cars or houses.
But if you say that your mobile phone can do it just as well: then I say forget it!
I still want to move this discussion elsewhere.
Re the car photo. I agree that the shadows aren't the problem. It's the lighter tones, the car especially, that is underexposed. Kumsal. you say it looks perfectly exposed to you and on your software. What is your histogram showing? Mine shows the whole image as being predominantly to the left. Again, this is where we need to discuss the difference between what our eye/brain does and what a camera does.
You had to rework your photos a few times, Mike.
They come in overexposed.
It's not about who's right.
A little underexposure, 1/3 stop, won't hurt a car in a museum.
I agree that it isn't about who's right but you are not understanding what I am saying.
I'll start a new thread in Technical Discussion to continue this. It will take me a little time to write what I want to say here so give it a little time before checking in. If anyone else wants to join in, please wait a bit until I get the thread going.
I like this version better. I like the straightened verticals on the left side, the way the bright primary colors work together. I even like the violet of the shadow which keeps up the crayon box color scheme.Thone one black door is enough of the black for my eye, like a comma in the middle of a long, word-rich sentence. There is reduced detail in the brightest whites in the brightest areas, but detail isn't necessary there so it isn't a visual bother. It might impact printing though, so careful attention in those areas would be needed. A cheerful, enjoyable image, more fun than the first version.
The car image is too dark for my taste too, and a little too flat. I looked at it on 3 different screens (two mobile and 1 desktop, calibrated) and it looked pretty much the same on all of them. I put it in Photoshop and the histogram is shown in this screenshot, weighted heavily on the "dark side". (There is a difference between "underexposed" and "too dark".
Just for the heck of it I asked PS AI to suggest an edit and I'm attaching that too. AI thought some brightening was a good idea, for whatever that's worth.
As Mike noted, cameras do not see as we do. And they do not think like we do, or have opinions or tastes like we do. (Some people keenly appreciate very dark shadows for the increased contrast and depth. Others, like me, react negatively to an abundance of intense shadows, get visually lost in them, and give up trying to look at the image).
We make alterations in our own captured images for a couple of reasons: to make a captured scene look more like our eyes and brains perceived and recalled it, or to make it look like we want it to even if that is different than how it may have appeared to us. We are not wed to the camera's interpretation, or to our software's preferred interpretation. We aren't wed to our viewer's interpretation either, and different viewers may have different opinions on almost every aspect of our images. Whatever we might want to do with our images, we are usually best served by getting the strongest/best initial capture we can in order to have the most data to work with. But there's no reason to limit ourselves to our camera's vision unless we just want to.
Thanks minniev. That's what I was seeing on my histogram too when I double checked in case my monitor screen really was out. The Ai version is almost what I imagine is the way our eyes would have seen the car if we had been there. Especially I think we'd have been attracted to the chromework on details such as the wheels.
When I say "almost," I'm referring to the background. If I was doing the processing I'd have left the background much, especially the top details, much the same as in Kumsal's original photo. for the reasons I develop more in the longer explanation I've posted to dprevived.com/t/exposure-of-a-posted-image/6467/post/88641/
If we were looking at this scene in real life, our eyes would adjust to the car as we concentrate on the vehicle but not to the background, until we raised our eyes to the background. It's the photographer's artistic choice. Raise the shadows on the vehicle and leave the background as is to raise both car and background to the levels you find satisfying as your eye moves from one to the other. A photograph is static. The eye isn't.
As the culprit who took this photo I feel compelled to respond - not in defense nor to argue any points, just to state the situation.
First, the lens used was a Pana Leica 100-400mm Mk I on G9 m43. It would seem I have been lucky enough to acquire one of the better to excellent copies of this lens going on results and comments from those that are familiar with them (it is a lens with quite a lot of copy variation). I have seen results from other copies of this lens which would struggle to acquire this shot. The G9, although somewhat dated, like so many digital cameras is still capable of good to excellent results. Burst mode with single area auto focus limits potential compared to single shot, single point but I challenge anyone to pan and get focus with single point even on a bird this size and with slower flying speed - possible but probability of success is a lot less than probability of a good shot with lesser settings.
While not one of the better shots I have taken, under the circumstances and for various reasons it snuck in - I liked the bird's aspect, the translucence of the wing feathers showing some blue sky, the fine tail feathers showing the bird's battle with a strong headwind and the twig (@minniev I don't know the difference between a home building twig or a courting twig). A little bit of wing tip motion blur doesn't normally bother me. It wasn't over exposed in white areas as is so often the case with white birds in sunlight and the shadows under the wings weren't too deep. It was sharp enough. Not what the lens is capable of but in flight is not so easy to get.
The original was cropped about 50% both x and y. Heavy? Not quite.
I am careful with sharpening. I have read quite a few threads on over sharpening with good examples and as a result normally err on conservative. I wouldn't say this was over sharpened but everyone has their feeling on how much is too much.
Kumsal your demanding expectations are interesting.
I would say the whole photo is not perfectly sharp - but it's not that far off.
I would also say that technically the shot is a reasonable to good photo - could be quite a bit better but we don't always get National Geographic covers.
[Edit] Thanks Alan for showing the crop. I always base my feeling on sharpness at 1:1 (100%) view. I have my own metric on sharpness quality - how quickly does the pic fall apart when viewing more than 1:1? Most pics don't survive 150% but occasionally I get one that is just passable above 150% This pic is one of many that immediately start to fall apart over 100%
For comparison the original jpg is below. A bit blurry, yes. Recoverable to some degree by sharpening, yes.
