why care about blown highlights?

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
12:41 PM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
just looking at some fine images posted here at rff and one of the comments made was about blown highlights...got me thinking...

why do we care about blown highlights? really?

i know i like a higher contrast image compared to the same image with all the fine detail it could show. i often process so that the image is a bit darker and contrastier than the original scene.

is this why a blown highlight doesn't bother me so much?

why does it bother you??

joe
 
A complete blown sky does not bother me. But a blown forehead or nose simply does not look very nice.So it depends on the blown part if it realy bothers me.
It bothers me in all circumstances because i always have the feeling i could have done better in the exposure department.
 
it is the most nasty part of the digital capture as the transition is abrupt and can not be be saved or at least made look better with a better scan. Otherwise I just LOVE digital :cool: :p
 
I agree Joe, sometimes white is just white (digital level 255). However it does depend where, what and how. Highlights in the sky or sun reflected off snow or a whitewashed wall is more acceptable than, as J. Borger says, foreheads, noses, chins or cheeks. This is where B+W does better than digital capture (at least as we speak). A digital highlight is often rather blatant and proud and borders are often inflicted with banding, which I have more problems with than the actual blown highlight itself. B+W film however will give you nice gradients all the way up to pure white.
 
For me it really depends. If it is on purpose and it serves a photographer to deliver her visual message then it could be fine. If it is the lack of quality/technical imperfection....
 
There's no rules. It's not mandatory to have no blown highlights but your work will frequently be judged as over exposed by your peers if you do have blown highlights.
Having said that, I agreee it depends on the subject. Typically a bride and groom who are the main subjects should have detail in the white dress and in the black suit. But then a silhouette against a sky can be pure black and pure white with no detail at all. Everything else can be somewhere in between.
But then again it depends whether you are trying to make a subtle fine print or a more graphical high contrast in your face look.
 
that's it?

i agree it can depend on where that highlight is...like on a face.
though when shooting in a contrasty environment, no matter how careful the exposure, there are times when it's go for the shadows or go for the highlights.
 
back alley said:
that's it?

though when shooting in a contrasty environment, no matter how careful the exposure, there are times when it's go for the shadows or go for the highlights.
Click to expand...

Well that depends on your film stock or whether you are stuck with what a digital sensor can do.
Typically B+W photographers may use compensating developers to keep contrasty subjects under control so that highlights don't get blown while at the same time retaining some shadow detail. But this depends on how you work and what you want your prints to look like.
 
Ezzie said:
...borders are often inflicted with banding, which I have more problems with than the actual blown highlight itself.
Click to expand...

That's what pisses me off, too. Of course, things were no different when I shot Kodachrome and Astia.
 
true, but i no longer use developers...digital rd1 user now...

what about the aesthetics of a detail-less highlight?
 
back alley said:
why does it bother you??

joe
Click to expand...

Hello Joe,

It does not bother me really (unless it is on the face of a close portrait).

Like you, I like high contrast photos, and lots of shadow.
I always thought those rules about "expose for the x and develop for the other" were too rigid.

I like lots of black and dark shadows.
 
JamesH said:
Hello Joe,

It does not bother me really (unless it is on the face of a close portrait).

Like you, I like high contrast photos, and lots of shadow.
I always thought those rules about "expose for the x and develop for the other" were too rigid.

I like lots of black and dark shadows.
Click to expand...


nice avatar...



.
 
Nothing says one needs to care. Did you care about overexposure on film? If the print (or the screen rez jpg if that's all one makes) is acceptable to the photog then it is fine.

I like highlight detail from film or digital.
 
I don't care about blown highlights... At least I see I tolerate pure white on prints more than the academic view on the subject... Especially if I've pushed fast film and my image must be placed into a narrow tonal range, I prefer to lose detail both in the shadows and in the highlights, against the more common use of accepting the shadows must hold the whole range lessing... I have no problem with some pure white skin zones if that benefits the general image tonal range.

Cheers,

Juan
 
back alley said:
true, but i no longer use developers...digital rd1 user now...

what about the aesthetics of a detail-less highlight?
Click to expand...
depends how big it is. It might look OK or it might not. I think you have to take it on an image by image basis.
Your best image of a shoot might be the one with a tad of blown highlight. Would you throw that image and use a less good one for the sake of having full highlight detail? I don't think I would unless the blown highlight really spoilt the image.
 
Blown highlights are something I'll always try to avoid if possible unless they are an intended part of the image. I saw a pic on another forum that everyone was fawning over and complimenting the poster ... it was a portrait and had some very ugly areas of severe overexposure that completely ruined it for me ... but not others obviously???

Digital looks particularly unpleasant with blown highlights IMO ... film handles them better for some reason, the transition seems less severe!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom