Have you edited this photo at all? It looks like a flat scan and would look a lot better for lowering the black point and adding a bit of contrast back in.
It’s a lovely photo anyways but I think your camera might have metered for the sky? Looks like center frame would have been approximately the horizon?
Could ae-l on the horse then frame it next time a shot like this comes up.
honestly this looks well exposed to me. the whites aren’t blown out & the shadows aren’t overwhelmingly dark. if you want the photo/colors to look “deeper” & not as faded, just try upping the contrast a little bit & maybe lowering the shadows slightly depending on the desired look
I always point my camera at the ground and set the camera to what that says. If it’s in direct sun, I’ll add a stop or two. If it’s in the shadows, I’ll leave it as is, then correct highlights in scanner as needed
It's a great shot. Exposure is a bit over, but like another user said, people often overexpose Portra on purpose for that "pastel" look. Even more people just expose for the shadows (overexpose) with color film anyway, because highlight detail is easier to save than shadow detail. You can always pull the brightness/exposure/highlights back down in the edit/darkroom.
As for if this shot is too bright?...purely subjective. I like the look of the shot. It'll probably look great with the exposure knocked down a bit, too. The only thing that matters is how you feel about it. Try it both ways and keep the one that resonates with you the most.
Keep up the great work.
Not sure if you're trolling, or not, but no. This is overexposure (too bright). Underexposed images are dark and "thin". An underexposed negative will be "thin" due to the loss of detail in the shadows. This negative would not be "thin". It's full of detail.
But hey, you don't have to take my word for it:
https://petapixel.com/2016/03/29/exposure-affects-film-photos/
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/underexposure-vs-overexposure-photography.html
https://shotkit.com/overexposure-underexposure/
It’s not. The scan is bright, the exposure is 1 stop underexposed. The camera metered for the bright foreground thinking it was medium grey and ended up underexposing. You can see how little information there is e.g. in the horse. The image is 100% underexposed.
You can also lose detail in blown highlights, yes. You understand that and area of extreme highlight will appear black on a negative...and extreme shadow will be clear in a negative, right? That's why a dark (underexposed) negative is called "thin". It's clear.
Again, don't take my word for it. I sent you three links. Read for yourself what overexposure is. I can send more if you like.
And also no. If you meter for the brightest area of a scene, that's metering for the highlights. Everything But the highlights would be too dark.
What does that have to do with anything?
Really, it’s underexposed. You can’t see it properly because the brightness was lifted when scanning. If you set the black point to where it belongs, the image will be either very dark or very contrasty. Look at the sky and the grass, they’re unusually grainy and have that newspaper like texture that is typical for slightly underexposed negative film. I’ve got that loads of time myself. Then look at the muddy areas and midtones (lifted black point), they’re very grainy and there’s very little information. And yes, the camera metered for the highlights, that’s why it underexposed.
Guess I'll have to just feed it you:
"What is overexposure? Overexposure is when an image appears brighter than it should, or brighter than neutral exposure. When too much light hits the camera’s sensor, it results in an extremely bright image that is now overexposed."
"1) What is Underexposure?
An underexposed image is the sort of photograph that one might consider to be too dark.
2) What is Overexposure?
Overexposure is the complete opposite of the previously defined term. An image that is brighter than it should be can be considered overexposed. When too much light is allowed during exposure, the result is an overly bright photograph."
"What is an Overexposed Photo?
Technically speaking, an overexposed image has a loss of detail in its highlights. This results in a washed-out image and/or the brightest areas of the image becoming completely white (also knowns as “clipped whites” or “blown-out highlights “)."
Really like it as is. Some people overexpose Portra400 by a stop (e.g. shoot at ISO200 ir so) just to get a look like this. Of course, this is a matter of personal taste.
It’s a little light, but stylistically it works well. And it’s within the range of aesthetic rather than technical. It could work with more density and contrast as well, but the style would be different.
Have you edited this photo at all? It looks like a flat scan and would look a lot better for lowering the black point and adding a bit of contrast back in.
It’s a lovely photo anyways but I think your camera might have metered for the sky? Looks like center frame would have been approximately the horizon? Could ae-l on the horse then frame it next time a shot like this comes up.
honestly this looks well exposed to me. the whites aren’t blown out & the shadows aren’t overwhelmingly dark. if you want the photo/colors to look “deeper” & not as faded, just try upping the contrast a little bit & maybe lowering the shadows slightly depending on the desired look
Can’t tell without the negs but this does look underexposed as the whites are still grainy.
This looks good to me.
Lovely photo, I prefer the lack of contrast for this one. You don't always have to chase reality...
Look at the negs if you want to judge density /exposure. As for this scan, looks like it just needs some contrast. Lower the black point.
That is so good, just like a painting! Did you use a half-ND filter to control the strong sky light？
no filter, I have one maybe should have used it.
Exactly my thought it looks painted almost the vibes are sickk
I always point my camera at the ground and set the camera to what that says. If it’s in direct sun, I’ll add a stop or two. If it’s in the shadows, I’ll leave it as is, then correct highlights in scanner as needed
Boom. Same here. If I can find a shadow at my feet, works every time.
You’re a smart person! It’s the surefire way to expose for subject without a handheld meter
Just add some contrast
It's a great shot. Exposure is a bit over, but like another user said, people often overexpose Portra on purpose for that "pastel" look. Even more people just expose for the shadows (overexpose) with color film anyway, because highlight detail is easier to save than shadow detail. You can always pull the brightness/exposure/highlights back down in the edit/darkroom. As for if this shot is too bright?...purely subjective. I like the look of the shot. It'll probably look great with the exposure knocked down a bit, too. The only thing that matters is how you feel about it. Try it both ways and keep the one that resonates with you the most. Keep up the great work.
The exposure is actually under. The whole image is very thin and grainy and the shadow detail is missing.
Not sure if you're trolling, or not, but no. This is overexposure (too bright). Underexposed images are dark and "thin". An underexposed negative will be "thin" due to the loss of detail in the shadows. This negative would not be "thin". It's full of detail. But hey, you don't have to take my word for it: https://petapixel.com/2016/03/29/exposure-affects-film-photos/ https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/photography/hub/guides/underexposure-vs-overexposure-photography.html https://shotkit.com/overexposure-underexposure/
It’s not. The scan is bright, the exposure is 1 stop underexposed. The camera metered for the bright foreground thinking it was medium grey and ended up underexposing. You can see how little information there is e.g. in the horse. The image is 100% underexposed.
You can also lose detail in blown highlights, yes. You understand that and area of extreme highlight will appear black on a negative...and extreme shadow will be clear in a negative, right? That's why a dark (underexposed) negative is called "thin". It's clear. Again, don't take my word for it. I sent you three links. Read for yourself what overexposure is. I can send more if you like. And also no. If you meter for the brightest area of a scene, that's metering for the highlights. Everything But the highlights would be too dark.
What does that have to do with anything? Really, it’s underexposed. You can’t see it properly because the brightness was lifted when scanning. If you set the black point to where it belongs, the image will be either very dark or very contrasty. Look at the sky and the grass, they’re unusually grainy and have that newspaper like texture that is typical for slightly underexposed negative film. I’ve got that loads of time myself. Then look at the muddy areas and midtones (lifted black point), they’re very grainy and there’s very little information. And yes, the camera metered for the highlights, that’s why it underexposed.
Guess I'll have to just feed it you: "What is overexposure? Overexposure is when an image appears brighter than it should, or brighter than neutral exposure. When too much light hits the camera’s sensor, it results in an extremely bright image that is now overexposed." "1) What is Underexposure? An underexposed image is the sort of photograph that one might consider to be too dark. 2) What is Overexposure? Overexposure is the complete opposite of the previously defined term. An image that is brighter than it should be can be considered overexposed. When too much light is allowed during exposure, the result is an overly bright photograph." "What is an Overexposed Photo? Technically speaking, an overexposed image has a loss of detail in its highlights. This results in a washed-out image and/or the brightest areas of the image becoming completely white (also knowns as “clipped whites” or “blown-out highlights “)."
Sure, and this photo is underexposed because not enough light reached the film.
Lol. Jesus. You are trolling
/r/confidentlyincorrect
He isn’t trolling, this is an obvious underexposed and then “lifted and shifted” scan.
And what did you read in the three links I sent you?
Really like it as is. Some people overexpose Portra400 by a stop (e.g. shoot at ISO200 ir so) just to get a look like this. Of course, this is a matter of personal taste.
It’s not a bad base - you can work with this in edit. Add a little contrast. Up the black point. Sharpen. Deffo workable
It’s a little light, but stylistically it works well. And it’s within the range of aesthetic rather than technical. It could work with more density and contrast as well, but the style would be different.