my score seems to be swinging up and down a lot with each vote. I'm not currently tracking the votes on the monitor trackers but I'm guessing the voters either like it or its a DNMC low vote.
Should be interesting to see the final vote spread when its over.
I agree.
glad someone agrees. maybe we should stick together and form a secret troll photography group
My score is also swinging wildly up and down, currently down.
Surely the interpretation should be three fold?
1. Incorrect Exposure
2. Reduced Exposure Value
3. Reduced strobe/flash output
Details: Create a photograph that is purposefully underexposed for its effectiveness.
It sort of says that it should be underexposed as shot. So I went with that too.
I don't see it that way, actually. Certainly, back in the film days, we'd sometimes print for underexposure, when we wanted that effect. In fact, I think it's kind of foolish to "waste" an image by underexposing it in camera, when you can do the same thing in post on a normally-exposed image, pretty much, certainly if you shoot RAW.
So for me the challenge is about a "look", a certain density and moodiness that comes from pulling all the values way, way down.. I don't really care how the photographer got to that point.
In my picture I needed to get some details out and I knew where I was going to take the picture it would be dark and windy so to crank those details out I needed to overexpose (although the original is still murky and dull) so that when I pulled the curves down the most important bits stayed while the rest faded away. It just helped to expose it the way I wanted to.
In my picture I needed to get some details out and I knew where I was going to take the picture it would be dark and windy so to crank those details out I needed to overexpose (although the original is still murky and dull) so that when I pulled the curves down the most important bits stayed while the rest faded away. It just helped to expose it the way I wanted to.
In my picture I needed to get some details out and I knew where I was going to take the picture it would be dark and windy so to crank those details out I needed to overexpose (although the original is still murky and dull) so that when I pulled the curves down the most important bits stayed while the rest faded away. It just helped to expose it the way I wanted to.
Votes: 50
Views: 84
Avg Vote: 6.8000
Comments: 2
Gee you left out which photo it is.
lol! I just should have just said I agree with bear music and left it at that
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS got my first comment by UrfaTheGreat life is good now!
I'm jealous,!!!! :):):)
Me too!
Come on Urfa - seeing as you are kicking all of our asses, please try and comment on all of our photos so we can see where we went wrong and you didn't!
Thanks
So for me the challenge is about a "look", a certain density and moodiness that comes from pulling all the values way, way down.. I don't really care how the photographer got to that point.
R.
I totally agree. There are some fine examples here. I voted quite high on them. :)
So for me the challenge is about a "look", a certain density and moodiness that comes from pulling all the values way, way down.. I don't really care how the photographer got to that point.
R.
I totally agree. There are some fine examples here. I voted quite high on them. :)
That's what I was going for, but apparently missed by a mile (or a continent or maybe by a few galaxies).
Votes: 91
Views: 158
Avg Vote: 3.8571
Comments: 1
Never had a brown before and now I may get 2 in the same week. So much for thinking I could get excited about photography again.
