For me it's just a matter of wondering if featureless bright areas contain hidden detail. If the photog intentionally leaves or creates featureless white areas, that's their choice. If someone looking at one of my images were to point it out and ask if it were intentional, I'd happily answer the question without resentment. Monitor performance always my first suspect.
Jack --- On Mon, 4/5/10, steve harley <[email protected]> wrote: > From: steve harley <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Define "blown out" :-) > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, April 5, 2010, 11:28 AM > On 2010-04-05 12:05 , Jack Davis > wrote: > > My point is about the difficulty in defining the > general visual impact tolerated. That's a job for each > viewer. > > well, you could say that areas too bright for the camera to > handle will be displayed as pure white, with no detail; > adjacent areas not quite too bright for the camera may stand > out strangely as a result, some times as out-of-context > islands of very light color in a sea of white; photographers > may adjust the tone of blown out areas so they are not pure > white, but they'll still lack detail > > using blown out detail creatively is of course very > subjective, but if realism is desired, the blown out areas > should typically fit the image, such as highlight > reflections in eyeballs, or other shiny surfaces; even very > bright scenes such as snow and ice scenes don't look > realistic when heavily blown out because our eyes have very > wide dynamic range and we tend to expect detail even in the > brightest large areas of an image > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
