Yeh, I delete all the "badly exposed" stuff too, but am paying more attention to them now. I could say (with a smirk) "Blown highlights is a bourgeois concept" 😛
.
And thanks for the compliment, Godfrey.
.
Brilliant thread idea. I'm waiting for a roll to come back from lab, that I changed mid-roll and forgot to set M6 ISO dial. Now a ISO400 is exposed from frame 14 to end with ISO200 setting. Might have some interesting overexposed frames...
Jet engines. Taken with a fisheye lens. I was wanting to get a picture of the back of the plane, it didn't quite work out that way, you cannot even see the vertical stab, the rudder, the elevators, the wings, the main landing gear or even the ground for that matter. Purely accidental but, it has a weird curious feel to it.
This will give you an idea of what it was supposed to look like. This was taken moments before with the same camera and a wide angle lens.
I'm really enjoying this thread, it reminds me of the "focus is bourgeois" threads. Simple but really interesting, and with the chance to change how i think of images
I'm really enjoying this thread, it reminds me of the "focus is bourgeois" threads. Simple but really interesting, and with the chance to change how i think of images
I agree here. My first picture (post #1) opened my eyes to the impact of large overexposed areas.
Normally, people would spit venom about "blown highlights" but that's really *not* the right interpretation in some cases (like these).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.