Blown Highlights - OK or not?

I find myself increasingly using -2/3 to -1 stop of exposure compensation with the K-5 in many situations. Every camera has quirks you need to get used to and learn to compensate for when appropriate.

Technical quality does matter, but it's only one part of the story. To think it's irrelevant just encourages sloppy working and that filters through into other parts of the equation.

In the OP's image I feel the blown out highlights are less than ideal and that overall the picture could have been darkened considerably. The problem may have been right from the start with the exposure, so avoiding pools of sunlight falling on the main part of the subject and using exposure compensation when needed will go a long way towards solving that.

Having said that, if some small areas are still blown out and the picture is otherwise a cracker, then so be it. If the picture isn't in that category, then I would look for another.

Is there a way of globally underexposing on the K5 though rather than using the +- button for each shot? I admit it, I'm being lazy not checking all the menu's/handbook!

Vic.

Once you set the exposure compensation it should stay at the value you set it to in every exposure mode but full auto, until you decide to set it again. With the default memory settings it should even stay after turning the camera off and on again.

I think you may be right, provided you've set the "memory" to keep the last setting?

Vic.

Yes, go to 'Memory' in the Rec. Mode 5 menu and make sure the "EV Compensation" box is ticked.

I don't think anyone's said technical aspects are irrelevant. But when a picture works artistically it works regardless of any technical aspects.

And there's something to be said for being sloppy sometimes. When I'm out on shoots I often throw the "technical" to the wind and just snap almost chaotically, even without looking through the viewfinder. You can get some great pics this way, but obviously also a lot of duds. The key is deciding which is artistically good back home and deleting/discarding the others.

I guess we all have methods of working which suits our own photographic personality. I always try and learn from my last shoot and almost every time some of my favourite shots from that shoot come from the shots that were done without much regard for "technically correct" - IOW I always try and be more 'sloppy'

Blown Highlights?

Black Shadows?

Its only clipping! A technical photographic recording would not have either of these.

Art should have no limits.

Sometimes we strive to be technically perfect at the expense creativity.

A beautifully composed, technically perfect photo can stagger the viewer.
But you can also push the limits in every way, ignoring the rules to create an image that provokes thought. Or even set your camera wrong by accident and produce an image that benefits from the mistake.

If I can overdrive the Pre-amp on my Marshal to cerate the effect I want why can't you overdrive the sensor on your Pentax to create the photo you want?

MZ

Ruin the picture? I don't think so, but I think perhaps the question should have been " Would this be a better photograph without the blown highlights". To which my answer would be yes. The patterns of the tattoos on his face would look far more interesting if we could see them properly. The side of his face that is not blown is a strange hue as well? Though the highlights bother me more, not from any purists point of view but because IMHO the loss of detail from the blown highlights in this particular photograph is detrimental to the image as a whole.

In the days of printing from B&W film, you'd expect a properly exposed image to go right down to the white "base" of the paper in areas that should be white. If there was no trace of a proper white, it was considered to be underexposed. How this relates to "blown highlights" in digital images is an interesting question.

Al

Exactly the EV settings I use for 90% of my shots with the K5 - which has a tendency to over-expose in some common situations.

The patterns on his face are not tatoos, but blue (and white) face paint with base wash of blue basically all over his face (I don't think wash is the right term as I'm no face-painting expert but you know what I mean). Does that explain the 'strange hue' or do you mean something else?

Blown highlight are sometimes unavoidable, its the extent of them that makes or breaks an image, in the case of the ones posted here I think the exposures could have been handled much better, had they been mine they would have gone straight into the recycle bin, sorry guys

High key images require skillfull manipulation, otherwise they just look like a poorly exposed shot, and they rarely work in colour.

I would have used a bit of fill in flash.
But if all else fails in the taking stage, a couple of minutes in PS can sometimes rescue a mistake. I have had a bit of practice at it.

Hope you don't mind.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/ImagesbyJA/5710565347_50eb6e3915_b.jpg[/IMG]
John

The blown highlights make it impossible to work that one out, IMO. DOIK's version seems to show that PP technique as much as exposure contributed to the blown highlights...