The advantages of overexposure

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I overexposed a bunch of photos in the woods the other day by about two stops. But XX is pretty robust and, using Vuescan and Lightroom, I was able to take what would have been fairly ordinary shots and give them a kind of unearthly quality. I'm thinking I'm going to start doing this on purpose--stressing film and seeing what kind of artifacts I get.

M2, CZ Sonnar 50/1.5, XX developed in D76.

 

[martin s]

It simply looks overexposed to me. I would have liked them better exposed properly.

martin

 

[sojournerphoto]

Pushing the boundaries of process is a well established artistic route. Find out what happens and then use it expressively.

I always like the way burnt areas flare into the srrounding darker areas.

Mike

 

[Roberto]

It simply looks overexposed to me. I would have liked them better exposed properly.

martin

Not the same for me... I like them 🙂

 

[j_fletcher]

I love the second one. Seems to have a 'bright mist that you want to walk toward but will never reach' look. I dont think the first one works so well because of the large central tree. It's maybe a bit too earthly looking!

 

[gavinlg]

I like them like that a LOT, well done

 

[mike.TTL]

I agree with j_fletcher on this one: the second one looks great this way, but I'm not so sure about the first. The second has this great ethereal quality to it, partly due to the overexposure.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Yeah, well, there's only so much success you can expect as a result of failure!

I usually don't leave in borders, but I really liked the way the boundaries are all kinda melted, from pulling.

 

[Melvin]

They look correctly exposed to me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, the main disadvantages (assuming a perfect flare-free lens and contact printing) are bigger grain and reduced sharpness, often a modest price to pay for the improved tonality.

In the real world, you are quite likely to get increased flare after the first +1 stop or so (cf pic 1) but with lower-contrast subjects and more even illumination there can be major advantages in tonality at +1 and no great penalty at +2 (cf pic 2).

There is, after all, no such thing as 'correct' exposure. All you can hope for is the exposure that you, er, hope for.

Cheers,

R.

 

[pevelg]

I like the results!

 

[Keith]

I've notice Frank Petronio seems to do this a little with a few of his pics ... to great efect I might add.

I like your examples!

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

It seems to me this is a good argument for continuing to use film. Digital is less interesting when you foul it up.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It seems to me this is a good argument for continuing to use film. Digital is less interesting when you foul it up.

Great argument!

Cheers,

R.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

They look correctly exposed to me.

The negs are quite dark--I pulled them back a couple of stops in Lightroom to get them to look "correct." There's a fair amount of latitude in this film, and lots of highlight and shadow detail to work with when you blow the exposure.

 

[robklurfield]

The second one is very nice. The first not my cup of tea. Aesthetics don't need to be defined by some carefully calibrated adherence to a chart in some book or Ansel Adams's codification of the zone system. You can shoot and print what you like and be happy with it. Overexposed can work. Here it does.