[Schellamo]

Now, I like to think of myself as being open to criticism...

On another baby-related photography board, someone said that most of the photos on my website were underexposed. On my monitor they look fine, and no-one else has mentioned it (except maybe of the one of Taliver looking over the well, and i do like it like that). So i'm a little bit confused. I know I don't have lots of experience so perhaps what looks 'right' to my eye looks dark to someone elses.

Than again, on my parents computer (which is a bit of an old CRT) they do look a bit dark. Maybe I should just take the plunge and work out how to calibrate my monitor?

I don't know what I'm asking you guys here.... Do the photos i post here and on my website look underexposed to you?

[Keith Alan]

Just took a look at your site, and they look about right to me.
(Better to be underexposed a little than overexposed anyway, because once the highlights are blownout they're gone forever.)
But it's probably a case of the critic's monitor being too dark, or they are one of those people who think that all shadows MUST have highly visible detail.
What do the critic's photos look like to you?
Overexposed? If so, that's another clue.

Google "monitor calibration" and look through some of the results.
You'll find greyscales that go from black to white, and if you can distinctly see every block, your monitor is fine.

[Petographer]

I took a look through your images and as far as I can see the only issue might be with uneven lighting. The exposures are fine. However, it would be a good idea to make sure your monitor is calibrated.

[matthew]

Do the photos i post here and on my website look underexposed to you?

LCDs do show a lot more detail in the blacks than CRTs do.

Exposure isn't an absolute, but a preference. They look fine to me. They don't generally have a lot of light tones -- not every image does, or should, contain white highlights -- but the skin tones look accurate. A few could use a touch of lightening, perhaps, but the histograms look pretty good (random sampling). Maybe lighten the mid-tones a little?

Since you're with people who are used to baby photos, there might be different expectations for the genre. I suppose a lot of people would like baby photos to be brighter, given the "cheery, sunny" connotations. I haven't looked around to see what the norm is. But, that's wandering into bigger questions.

[Schellamo]

Thanks guys,
This is true, I do prefer 'moody' sort of photos i guess. her photos aren't overexposed, but the tones do tend to be a lot brighter with lots of white backgrounds and they tend to have a light and airy feel too it.
i do tend to overexpose just because it is fairly simple to fix in photoshop, and keep the detail in. Now looking at the shots again, I am seeing that some of the backgrounds in the kids shots are dark and a bit moody.

Thanks for helping me out here guys, muchly appreciated

[smarti77]

I think your photos on your site (and here) are generally well exposed.

Its clear that you have intended some shots to be brighter or darker than others and it would be dull if they all had the same exposure.

I have often wondered the same about my photos and will look through google as Keith recommended.

I found this chart.



The darkest two shades looked pretty much the same on my moniter so I have brightened it up a little.

[slejhamer]

Regardless of whether or not your photos are properly exposed, you should calibrate your monitor!

At the very least, get the free basic version of Praxisoft WiziWYG:
http://www.praxisoft.com/pages/support.d....html#wizi
http://www.praxisoft.com/pages/products.wiziwyg.html

[shuttertalk]

On my laptop's LCD, your website photos look good to me....

[wulinka]

Schell, I love your pictures. From all I have seen, they have been exposed to convey the atmosphere of the moment.
Technically, an "underexposed" picture is one where the area you meter for is printed as middle grey. So if you look at e. g. the shot of Taliver over the well and imagin, most of the picture was middle grey, it would have lost all of its atmosphere! but it would be technically correctly exposed and show more detail on the wall of the well, the grass and stuff - which is completely irrelevant for your shot.

the way you get these shots is probably by either setting the exposure compensation to -1 or -2 or so, or when you are in manual mode, and you watch your meter, I bet it is not at 0 for most of your picture. (here we are back to the lack of spot metering on the 350D, discussed in the other thread....*can't be bothered to lookupandlink* ).

So maybe the guy who said this was just making a technical statement and it was not a qualitative judgement. Anyway, I would not worry the tiniest bits, because your shots are fantastic-fantastic, and you will be happy to look at them for the rest of your, and Taliver's, life!

uli

[Russt]

Regardless of whether or not your photos are properly exposed, you should calibrate your monitor!

At the very least, get the free basic version of Praxisoft WiziWYG:
http://www.praxisoft.com/pages/support. … .html#wizi
http://www.praxisoft.com/pages/products.wiziwyg.html

Mitch, Thanks for the links, had a play with this one I am quite happy with the results. I have used one similar before and the results were awful (could have been me) can't remember the name of it. This one is much better.

cheers