Please post no more than five images a day and respond to as many images as you post. Critics, please be constructive, specific, and nice! Moderated by gahspidy and mtbbrian.
By posting on the Photo Critique forum you agree to post only your own photos, be respectful, and give back as much as you receive. This is a moderated forum and anything abusive or
off-topic will be removed.
The first one is way too dark but I like the tall crop. The second one is very nice with good lighting and exposure. It works well, but I might feel better with a slightly looser crop.
All in all, the second shot is the winner here, by far.
Very nice
From what I understand, the right side of the histogram stores magnitudes more information than the left side. Which is why shadows end up noisy/etc. So my question is should low-key shots like this be exposed more "correctly" and then darkened in PP to preserve quality?
As far as the actual picture, the second one is a lot better imo. There are some scratches you can clone out and some condensation/drips in front of the glass (the scratches take away my attention, the condensation doesn't actually bother me too much). Clearly quite nitty, but it's because you have a well done photo, that's all there is to critique on from a technical basis. I do think that a darker liquor/liquid would help (so it meshes with the scene a bit better). I also really like the title being legible in the first photo and think the second could use a title or something to clue in that they are photography reading materials.
From what I understand, the right side of the histogram stores magnitudes more information than the left side. Which is why shadows end up noisy/etc. So my question is should low-key shots like this be exposed more "correctly" and then darkened in PP to preserve quality?
I'm not sure if I would look at it as being more information, but certainly what happens is the brighter a subject/scene is the stronger the signal hitting the sensor. Dark areas are weak signals. The signal to noise ratio is better with brighter areas whereas darker areas have a poor SNR and so the noise becomes more evident.
I think you are correct in theorizing that its better to expose a bit more and then tone down later. They call it "Exposing to the right"
I had a discussion about this just recently with a photographer friend of mine. He had also read an article that suggested this idea was good practice.
This is not to say that we should overexpose highlights but rather fill in the shadows a bit more than desired by adding fill light be it flash or reflector.
We can then tone down whatever should remain darker afterwards in PP.
I don't mean to derail the thread more here and I'm sorry if it's bad form to post links off site... here's a Expose to the Right article I read a few days ago: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...se-right.shtml ... it has me thinking about exposure way differently and also explains why higher iso speeds can result in less noise.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by caleb
