I hear that from women all the time.
mmm
We’ll disagree then. To me, that sort of blown highlight (there is no detail in there in the JPEG–with the DNG you can bring back all but the very edge of her nose) is the type of technical error that would send one of my own photos into the reject pile. Now, you could certainly tone down the burn a little and brighten up her face from where I have it, but keeping the textureless white of the JPG screams to me digital sensor and poor exposure. As a JPEG, the photo is unsalvageable and poorly exposed, no question. There absolutely needs to be a little bit of detail there. In the original photo, it’s even worse as parts of her face where some of the highlights are blown shift into a jaundice yellow color, because there is some color data in the channels, but not in all three of them.
I wasn’t talking about the jpeg, I was talking about my adjustment. The side of her face is bright, but not blown out. There’s detail there. Your adjustment seemed to try to take most of the light off her face entirely, which I think hampers the picture from an artistic viewpoint. You could maybe lower the exposure a touch more in my version, but I think it’s fine as is. Part of the fact that it looks overexposed is that there’s little contrast and detail on her skin - but that’s because she has really smooth skin.
There is no detail there. You can go into Photoshop, use the info palette and see for yourself if you think my eyes are lying to me. All three channels by the skin by her ears are clipped in the red, green, and blue channels. Then you see funny little color shifts where the details start coming back in.
Here’s a version of mine where it’s not quite as toned down, but still retaining information in the skin texture. (You can go even farther, if you wish, but that’s absolutely as far as I personally would go.)
Of course you disagree with me, and you’re welcome not to believe me, but I can assure you that with the photo editors I’ve worked with, they would immediately point out the blown pant leg and the face and ask why I didn’t expose them “properly.” That’s the sort of stuff I point out to my own shooters, too. It’s not pixel peeping or nit-picking, in my opinion. There are blown highlights that are good and work well for the photo, and there are those that don’t.
Yeah, I guess you’re probably right in that there are parts of that that are blown out. I’m not a professional, but I don’t think that necesarily ruins a picture. Her skin is a low contrast, very smooth texture that’s being naturally brightly lit by the sun - it can withstand some lost detail, especially if it fits artistically.
I’m not sure what sort of filter you applied in your last pic but their faces almost look like a sketch. Which is fine if that’s what you’re going for but it strikes me as unnatural.
I apologize if my opinions are coming off way too strong. It’s like a variation on the old joke: How many photographers (or lead guitarists) does it take to screw in a light bulb? One hundred. One to screw it in, and 99 to say “I could do it better.” 
I did not apply any filters to the photo. I do not believe in filters for this type of straight photojournalism. It’s just contrast adjustments and dodging and burning, and my edits are what would be considered ethical in a journalism context. No cloning, no filters, no blurring, no Photoshop trickery outside the standard darkroom work.
I absolutely admit that my quick five-minute edit is not perfect. It’s a bit overworked, and I would have to start from scratch to get it to where I want to were I doing an exhibition print, but that’s the general toning idea. After looking at the photo yesterday and today, I also am very much solidified in my opinion that the wide view (almost exactly as taken) is the more interesting one and the better crop for the picture as taken. It will also print up better to larger sizes as it is not as severe a crop.
Of course, opinions are like assholes and all that, but I’m just talking about the picture as if it were something I took of my own. I’ve made mistakes like this in the past many times with my exposure, and I’d be kicking myself for it.
Yeah, I did mean in Photoshop, but not using a JPEG. I thought initially under-exposing in LR, then going Photoshop in a 16-bit TIFF would be sufficient, but perhaps I’m mistaken. Thanks for the nerdly nuts and bolts above, appreciated.
I’m not 100% sure if a 16-bit TIF would preserve that info or not. Theoretically, it should be possible (most raw files are 12-bit or 14-bit, so there’s enough space in the TIFF), but I don’t know what happens when the the raw->TIFF undergoes the gamma curve. I assume the information is discarded. If you kept it as linear gamma, then the TIFF should contain the info. Judging by a quick export of a photo with blown cloud detail from Lightroom->PS as a 16-bit TIF export, it does appear that when the gamma curve is applied, details that are recoverable in the raw file are lost in the 16-bit space. (The gamma curve is applied under “camera calibration>Profile.” You need a custom calibration in order to display linear gamma. The picture will look very dark, but will contain all the sensor information, so you can see what highlights and shadows are truly and irrecoverably clipped.)
For the future jjimm, double check your camera’s more advanced settings. Some cameras allow to to set an upper limit to the auto ISO so it won’t go beyond a certain point unless you choose to. Based on this photo, I’d probably set 400 as the max if I could.
Thank you. Found the option in the menu - didn’t realise it existed - and have limited it.
Just remember that everything is a tradeoff - under lower light conditions you may end up with correspondingly slower shutter speeds as a consequence of limiting your max ISO (increasing the risk of blurry pictures due to subject and/or camera motion).
Boy, ain’t that the truth.
I definitely didn’t mean you should never go higher on the ISO, just that you should weigh the need for speed against the need for clean.
That seems like a crazy amount of noise to me for an 800 iso, my 1/2.3" sensored camera with a f3.1 lens does better. If that’s what 4/3 has to offer, stuff like the NEX-7 should crush it and kill the market for it entirely.
I dunno, I took this with a first gen micro 4/3 at 800 through glass and water.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26870187@N02/5365121698/
ETA, it is pp, though
That’s so sharp I cut myself.
What does pp mean here?
Post processed