Is this photo under/over exposed?

[Elanino]

Picture taken with my new VC Bessa R2 + Ultron 35 mm 1.7 - is this picture
over or underexposed? I am new in analog photograpy and please
apologize for amateur question.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/elanino/4659678686/

Tanks for advice.

Marjan

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Marjan,

The print is too light (normally a sign of overexposure) but this could easily be a printing error rather than a film exposure error.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gdi]

And it looks like you have some veiling flare from the upper left washing out a large portion of the frame.

 

[le vrai rdu]

looks quite OK to me but can't tell without seeing the neg

 

[Neare]

There's nothing seriously wrong with the exposure. It's not underexposed by any means.

Overexposure... that really just depends on what you exposed for in the shot. If for the foreground and small details, it came out nicely.
If you were exposing for the sky (which I really, 100% doubt that you were) then it's overexposed.

There is a little 'fogging' going on the top half of the frame. This is likely to be another factor such as flare etc.

 

[Elanino]

Thanks to all.
Btw, picture is scan from negative (not a print).

 

[uhligfd]

Best to look at the film itself; scanners can alter the density .. as can the printer ...

That is where to look, not the print, not the scan, but the film.

 

[AlvinChuan]

from the photo the light is coming from the front of camera the above the tree resulting the lens flare glow. The exposure looks OK.

 

[braver]

Yup, the exposure seems about right, but is hard to judge from a scan. I would've scanned it darker though.

 

[Warren T.]

The flare was the first thing that I noticed. I think the original exposure itself is okay.