Yup. Possibly photographer's choice. Nothing to "fix". Live and let live.
Darkening of journalistic photography
-
A
- Thread starter warden
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Shen Hao TFC617 A or B
- Started by djdister
-
Free CP40Y Color Printing Filtet
- Started by Roger Thoms
-
For Sale For Sale: 55mm ƒ/1.8 SMC Pentax Takumar Lens (M42 thread) and 50mm ƒ/2 Pentax-M
- Started by Kodachromeguy
-
Want to Buy Half Case For Nikon F
- Started by chuckroast
Forum statistics
Yup. Possibly photographer's choice. Nothing to "fix". Live and let live.
I didn't question the photographer's skill. I defended her. I took the trouble to actually research her work and provided links to it. It showed she knows how to properly expose photographs and present them online accordingly. See my earlier post #25 copied below. I have no idea why the OP posted one of hers that is so dark, but it doesn't seem to be representative of her work. She's a very skilled and accomplished photographer.
Here's the photographer's portfolio for photojournalism. Her shots seem normal. Why not contact her and ask her why the publication messed up? Her phone number and email address are on her website.
I deliberately left some of the details on the girl's shirt, the brightest part of the picture. But not all. A simple 5 second levels edit. With ten more seconds, one could have left all the details and still had a brighter picture elsewhere.
The photo isn't really representative, in either exposure or composition. But it is published by a news agency and widespread. And a number of other similar photos for similar news stories are also dark in that way. From yesterday:
looks like the photo is probably from the same batch as the one in the original post.
I said earlier that her photos seem darker going back to the election but I think it was only one example and not really dark in the same way these other ones are.
that's darkish but the exposure looks correct.
I think @warden was not really picking on that photographer specifically but on a more general trend toward less-bright photos, which I think is just a natural outcome of digital cameras + digital publication + no print media. And all we've done is pick on this photographers photo.
OP
OP
Correct I'm in no way picking on the photographer, and as I said in post #1 I've been seeing this in other news outlets too from other photographers or the people that alter their images. I wasn't going to share the photographer or news outlet info initially because I didn't want it to seem that I was interested in either the photographer or this particular news organization. But it didn't feel right to share an unattributed image.
I'm glad you cited the photographer. It gives people a chance to see this photo is not the regular one you would expect.
Looking the Reuter's 2024 in pictures, you can see that there is a tendency toward more "cinematic-looking" photos - i.e., maybe you should be sitting in a dark room to view them. They're all well-exposed, though.
Do you have the original link to the article the picture appeared in?
OP
OP
I don't see it now Alan but if you go to The Guardian the story was about Harvard and their legal situation with the federal government. The article is no more than five days old but I don't see it presently.
I see.
... again it looks like someone set for not loosing highlights (though there aren`t a lot of highlights) ...
You are assuming the photographer is using a Canon digital camera. I don't believe any others have such a setting.
My Nikon D 7100 camera does that which was the original complaint from the OP. Everything dark. Proof positive that technology can go too far and end up replacing that which was at it's peak (being film), and didn't need replacing. But as long as there IS film, I won't be exhausted into compliance. My D-7100 is nothing but an automated last ditch backup device for important shots, and a fair to middling exposure meter. Other than that I can say that digital photography has not improved the quality of my life one iota.
I sent the photographer an email and asked her about it. Let's see if she can settle it for us.
Great idea, Alan, I hope she replies
Not relevant to your idea above but I was a regular reader of the Guardian during the pandemic when a large-chain grocery store in the U.K. was giving it out "free" if you spent more than a certain amount on groceries and I never noticed such a picture's darkening before. I occasionally read articles from the Guardian online and again this is the first picture that I have seen looking like this
pentaxuser
Exactly! I'm heartily pissed off with the crap work that is waved in front of us by kiddywinkies lauded as tomorrow's wunderkind out of some turd-rate uni (one not far from me). NO would-be graduate from a photo-related course should leave unless they have shown their ability with analogue process, and a basic grounding in art and design - understanding perspective, both of light and geometric. I'm a pretty poor artist, but I really cracked perspective and architectural drawing, although I was useless at penning a pair of voluptuous tits on the college model. It was later in my career that my film cameramen colleagues enlightened me on the subtleties of lighting both natural and artificial. As for The Guardian, I did as a freelance succeed in selling a few shots to them and held their few staffers such as Dennis Btesh in awe!!
On top of that, everyone thinks they're competent when it comes to photography and design. Armed with today's technology and automation (not to mention what AI has inshore for us), and no education in the fundamentals, just an "anyone can do that" attitude. Sure, it works for some, but it also results in a lot of crap being produced and published. And by lowering standards, the viewing audience has lower expectations. I sometimes can't believe the junk proudly posted online in forums and websites.
I did communicate with her. She checked and said the original was dark like the one posted. She said most of her work shows normal brightness but this one was lowered to prevent clipping the highlights. Reuters requires JPEGs only from their photographers, no RAW shots.
I sent her the link to this thread. She added the following: "I glanced at the forum- and I agree there is a trend with the blacks, which I absolutely don’t do. I have noticed the younger photogs do it- and I suspect in part because they never learned photography in the film era, ever printed in a darkroom or printed C-41"
By the way, She does very nice work. You all ought to check it out.
I am just wondering whether this is an auto-failure, maybe in the camera or in editing of the newspaper.
Alan contacted her and she said she set the exposure to not clip the highlights. Reuters did not adjust the exposure. So, it's a combination of underexposure plus a lack of post-processing.
With digital raw files, highlights can be hard to recover if clipped. Shadow detail is easily brought back, so many intentionally expose for the highlights (like reversal film) intending to make adjustments in processing the raw files. The newspaper’s policy of only accepting camera jpegs should have been taken into account if she was shooting on assignment. Unfortunately, since the metadata will show if the file has been modified in PhotoShop (or other program, I assume) the editors cannot tell if has only been adjusted or other manipulation has been done.
MattKing
Moderator
In the deepest realms of history, photographers and editors would have had a chance to communicate about these technical issues - and frequently that communication worked well for both sides.
Of course, those were also the days when there was a photographic print in the middle of that chain.
I used to frustrate my editors sometimes, because when I had a decent idea where they wanted to use my work, and the approximate size and shape of the window they needed filled, I would give them stuff that they could only use one way, no matter how much they wanted to wield that crop mark pencil!
Of course, those were also the days when there was a photographic print in the middle of that chain.
I used to frustrate my editors sometimes, because when I had a decent idea where they wanted to use my work, and the approximate size and shape of the window they needed filled, I would give them stuff that they could only use one way, no matter how much they wanted to wield that crop mark pencil!
OP
OP
I'm not in the industry so here's a basic question for anyone who might know. I completely understand why NYT, Guardian, etc would require a jpeg that has not been adjusted by the photographer for reasons of trustworthiness. I also get why the photographer would want to preserve the highlights, resulting in an initially unnaturally dark jpeg file.
So why can't the news organization do the final edits on a copy of the trustworthy file to make daylight images look like they were actually taken in daylight conditions? Maybe they can, and normally do. I dunno.
We've been discussing this Guardian image but I see the issue more often in NYT for what that's worth.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |