15 Creative Uses Of Overexposure
The nice thing about all the rules of photography is they can often be broken with great results. Some would even claim there are no actual rules of photography, just results. Whether the whole image or just part of it, I’ve complied 15 great examples of how overexposure can be used to enhance the end result.
Photo by LeRe Pics - 1/80 f/8 ISO 3200
Photo by brianschulman - 1/60 f/3.5 ISO 1600
Photo by Yandle - 1/5 f/8 ISO 50
Photo by .Pete. - 1/40 f/18 ISO 200
Photo by TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³ - Exposure Not Published
Photo by skycaptaintwo - 1.3 seconds f5.6 ISO 100
Photo by katmere - 1/125 f/2.8 ISO 200
Photo by ljmacphee - 1/8 f/8 ISO 50
Photo by melody.gates - 1/10 f/16 ISO 100
Photo by cstrom - 1/1000 f/2.8 ISO 100
Photo by reborg - Exposure Not Published
Photo by ooOJasonOoo - 1.6 seconds f/3.5 ISO 800
Photo by mangpages - 1/15 f/2.8 ISO 200
Photo by Lachlan Hardy - 1/640 f/8 ISO 200
Photo by John Worthington - 1/800 f/7.1 ISO 100
50 Responses to “15 Creative Uses Of Overexposure” - Add Yours
February 24th, 2009 at 1:04 am
send me some tips on my black a white photos
February 24th, 2009 at 1:18 am
Half of those would look better properly exposed.
February 24th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Great examples!
I really enjoyed the one by melody.gates and ljmacphee
Not totally sure the last one is overexposure, though…
And here is something of mine :P
http://www.ilanbresler.com/2008/07/spots.html
February 24th, 2009 at 1:30 am
I like overexposing but prefer to do it controlled using curves or levels in Photoshop. Having all the pixel data in raw means you can apply the effect where and when you want without destroying the original image.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Can’t say I’m a big fan of these examples.
High key portraits can look really good but most of these just look like bad exposures, in my opinion obviously.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:43 am
Wow. Neat stuff — the photo of the bird legs is absolutely spooky for me. Looking through my own photos, I don’t find anything which was “creatively overexposed” — instead, anything like that got tossed out. It’s another good tool to have in the photographic toolkit.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:52 am
I really liked melody gates’ shot, as well. Also, the shot by LeRe is great; I don’t think they would have been able to bring out her eyes like that otherwise (barring some post production).
Ilan, I enjoyed your shot as well – nicely done!
February 24th, 2009 at 2:53 am
very bad samples for overexposure…. dont like any of photos :(
February 24th, 2009 at 3:11 am
I would love to show another creative example by my wife. This was done in front of a window on a bright day. So the white background is really just an overexposed window. The woman is lit by a Canon Speedlight 580.
http://miriamlovell.blogspot.com/2008/12/becoming.html
February 24th, 2009 at 3:48 am
Well, only few of these pictures were good examples – you can really find better use of this technique. Neither I think that we can call these pictures “Creative”. I see this list as fast way for publicity of Peter Carey himself and his blog. On the other hand, I think picture “Photo by ljmacphee – 1/8 f/8 ISO 50″ represents creative way of overexposure quite well, but it’s sad that it’s not really sharp and detailed.
February 24th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Just recently I tried to take a photo of a wind turbine but it was far too bright for long exposures to show the speed of the blades, but I took a couple of photos anyway.
f/32, 1″, ISO200, Pol Filter, then a massive -4EV in post to give:
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/330579/Pictures/turbine.jpg
February 24th, 2009 at 7:12 am
I’d like to see some photos from those saying that these ones aren’t good. Show us your work, we want to see it!
February 24th, 2009 at 8:01 am
High Key has it’s place. Over exposed is just over exposed to me.
February 24th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Why give the exposure settings? Unless we know the “correct” settings, this data is useless.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Sweet!! All my mistakes are ART now… maybe I should get a PRO account on flickr. ;)
[m9]
February 24th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Enjoyed looking at these “over exosed” photos and went down to the beach and played with my own today. It too is very over exposed, but I like the effect. Thanks forthe creative push.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/juliecortens/3304977663/in/photostream/
February 24th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I didn’t like this series
February 24th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Second example is awesome. I wanted to try something like that a long time ago, in the underground KL train tunnels, but there was only one of me and there were too many people passing around.
February 24th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
These are all excellent examples of bad photography. If you turn out work like this then you should use the auto settings on your camera, they may not produce exceptional results, but they will be a vast improvement on the above examples.
Peter Carey should enroll in The Digital Photography School, after visiting a shrink!
February 24th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
You can definitely tell by the comments that overexposure isn’t for everybody. I know everytime I post a picture on flickr of a shot I purposely overexposed, it generally doesn’t get that good reviews.
Me? I love overexposed shots. Obviously not every one of them, but I love the unique look that it can bring to a shot. Fortunately photography is art, and not all art is appreciated by everybody. It just has to be appreciated by the creator.
February 24th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Wow, I’m amazed at the hostility in some of these comments. Sure, some of the photos above aren’t great. On the other hand, some of them set certain moods very well. (And once again — the bird legs shot — spooky! I love it.) A photo which breaks a “rule” may not be great art, but it’s not automatically crap either. Consider each photo for its own value.
But of course, photography is a very subjective art — but I think a few too many of us here are automatically dismissing anything that doesn’t look like a “normal” good photo.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:55 am
I’m reborg author of #11 “sympathetic convolution” with columns and shadows. Thanks for the post! The data: f/10 1/60s iso100 14mm. The story: it was not shot with the idea of overexposing it, but it was a tricky subject and I decided to expose for the shadows to have some texture in the floor and ceiling. When I saw that the result was overexposed I liked it anyway and published this instead of other “well” exposed picture of the same subject. So, here’s an example of overexposure by mistake but selection on purpose! :)
February 25th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Great photos! Didn’t know overexposure can work to such great advantage for these shots. Thanks for sharing.
February 26th, 2009 at 1:48 am
Not all of the examples are my cup of tea, but I’m not hostile to them as some seem to be. On the contrary, on the whole I really love the artistic effect. I’m a huge advocate of producing a vision from your mind rather than documentation from the little machine you hold up to your face. I agree with AA, to all those who are so happy to throw jabs, let’s see how your work is so much better. No one ever said these were the best shots ever produced, only that this was a way of salvaging mistakes and still coming out with something visually satisfying.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:32 am
If you were to make a coat rack and because of your incompetence you made it so badly and oops you hung it upside down on the wall, so that you could not hang coats on it anyway Would you leave it there claiming “Oh it’s a work of art”, knowing full well that all your friends would tell you how wonderful you were to your face, but saying what they really meant behind your back.
February 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am
“No one ever said these were the best shots ever produced, only that this was a way of salvaging mistakes and still coming out with something visually satisfying.”
exactly. I’ve had comments from people saying (about my wind turbine pic) “not good enough for a competition entry, but interesting effect nonetheless”
February 26th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
RinceyNZ
An interesting effect nonetheless, has got to be one of the top ten greatest put downs ever.
There is good art, Bad art. then there is your effort.
The great thing about Digital Photography is that you can take thousands of photos, but if they turn out rubbish it has not cost you anything, so delete it and go back and try, try, try, again. Hopefully, eventually you may get it right.
You could try a graduated neutral density filter on top of a pile of other neutral density filters, or better still, a range of evening shots merged together in HDR.
February 26th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
peter, how about you give us an example of your “creative overexposure”…
my photo was taken 2 hours north of home, and 1 hour south of my destination on that trip… it was opportunistic, and while “wrong”, it was salvageable to give an interesting effect nonetheless.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
rinceynz
The only “creative overexposure” I am ever likely to attempt is High Key Portraiture, but I still would not blow out the highlights. Blown out highlights is just bad photography, it’s not creative, it’s not art.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I can hardly see any interest in any of those pictures (well … maybe n°11 looks good, but not due to overexposure). The poor girl on the first picture would be much prettier without this horrible red border tone on top of her nose … I don’t think that someone taking an outside portrait at 3200 ISO does care about creativity anyway.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Some of these images here are very good, however, quite a few of them could be pushed even further, treated in Photoshop to remove the last traces of detail in the whites for a truly surreal feel. Some of them, as they are just now, look a bit amateurish and before you say anything, it may have been amateurs who took them, but that’s no excuse to leave an image when a little more attention could do so much for it.
Then again, simply blowing your highlights when you should be using D&B or HDR (I’m thinking about that streetlamp and the clouds behind the driftwood) isn’t a particularly clever creative statement – it just looks like you can’t control your exposure.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:34 am
With digital, under exposure is best you can always adjust it in Photoshop or whatever. There is more data there and you have more to work with. With overexposure the data is just not there at all.
Not the same as with film.
And I agree that many of the shots would be better at a “proper” exposure. You can always “play” with the shot.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:38 am
I actually really like many over-exposed photos (but I also really love the way lomo photos look, and think graffiti is beautiful), and always felt that a lot of the ‘wrong’ examples in photography books don’t look as nice as the over-exposed ones. I don’t think it’s fair to act as if any one of us can say what is or isn’t art, because it’s subjective and personal. Some people want to do things ‘correctly’, others want to create a ‘feeling’ or mood. Anyway, for the people who took a lot of the above pics, nice effort, and i hope the writer isn’t too discouraged from the negative comments, as at least I enjoyed the article.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:49 am
Photography, like poetry, is sometimes better felt than explicated. I think creative use of overexposure adds to the feeling of the shot, and I think photos 5, 11, and 12 above are perfect examples of blow-outs adding to the sense of atmosphere and mood.
But what do I know? I’m just a novice with a Nikon.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:52 am
I’m agreeing with most here – blown out shots are just bad technique, but art IS subjective. IF you can get a cool effect by overexposing, do it in post and prove to everyone that you know what you’re doing. I’m all for art – and sometimes bumping exposure is the best way to add depth and contrast to otherwise boring or useless pics. There should be very very few “accidental” shots if you know what you’re doing. If you don’t know how to use manual, use Auto, Av or Tv and pay attention to the setting results.
For the most part, I notice “photographers” all pretending to know what’s “right”. Bottom line is, either you’re an artist, a technician, or a fake. You must be the former 2 and get paid to be a real pro.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:03 am
i agree these pictures are just bad pictures.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:59 am
I can’t believe what arrogant pricks some of you are (Peter and co). If you don’t like it, fair enough – and by all means say so. But to put someone down because the way they interpret their photography doesn’t fit your particular standard is just bollocks. Get a life…
February 27th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I find some of these pictures very artisitcally stimulating others.. well not so much. I like the way some of the moods come across in some of these photographs. true I believe that some of them were not good examples but others were very nicely taken. Obviously a few people seem to have a rather obtuse opinion on these photos but I enjoyed looking at them.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Very Nice Examples
February 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I don’t know, but I think some, if not most of the shots here are merely overexposed, not creatively overexposed. Just my two cents anyway.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Guys,
I am seeing wayyyy tooo much personal attacking going on here. Sure there are some photo’s which may me big mistakes, maybe they were intentional.
The main point, I think, is that perhaps we can all go out to try to bend the “rules” and come up with something outstanding (hich by the way I consider the bird to be). If we don’t push to the egde nothing changes and evrything becomes boring and mundane.
You don’t like then analyse why and comment you do like do the same but don’t attcak the person. To me it says add this aspect to what you consider possible when you look at a possible photo opportunity.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:05 am
This is actually encouraging! Sometimes when I look at a photo I just took, some, Ok…sometimes MANY of my flicks come out overexposed and I end up trashing them. But after seeing this, my supposed “overexposed” shots might have just ended up that way serendipitously. Go figure… Now on to more shooting!!!
February 28th, 2009 at 10:42 am
As I first scrolled down through these images, several of them really caught my eye (in a good way), such as the guitar player, the bird legs, and the people walking in the field. Then, I began to read the comments (whew, you guys can be vicious!) and I started second-guessing my initial opinions. Went back, looked again and, yep, I still like them.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:49 am
This will make alot of changes now with my photography. Overexposed photos where always deleted and for some reason i dislike them but now i can find myself using overexposed photos. thanks heaps Peter
March 1st, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Wow, I think this is the 1st big controversial post I’ve seen in DPS. I like the driftwood, and #’s 11 & 12 are pretty cool. The others aren’t really my thing, but I think they do show all the different ways overexposure can change a photograph. And I agree with Jeffrey “No one ever said these were the best shots ever produced, only that this was a way of salvaging mistakes and still coming out with something visually satisfying.”
March 1st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Everytime I get an overexposed photo, I don’t delete it immediately and instead take time to upload to my PC to see any hidden beauty of it. These are great examples. Not every overexposed photo is trash. Great one!
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 am
These are great! Obviously some will like and some will not. That is no reason to criticize someone’s art. If you don’t like it, ‘put the needle on another song”.
March 11th, 2009 at 1:26 am
sorry i think the last word of my last comment was over exposed…………………………
April 24th, 2009 at 8:33 am
got to say…. did´nt like the examples very much :(
May 7th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
These have definitely peaked my interest and I agree that too many previous commenters are quick to judge.
One the one hand you can of course say “these fools didn’t know how to use their camera’s” but what about the fools that do, and who then purposely set out to break the “rules” knowing darn well what the proper exposure is and then ignoring it. That takes technical ability too.
Melody Gate’s photo (which is absolutely fantastic) also illustrates a second aspect; ‘good’ photography is often not concerned with the technical or the perfect or the proper. Good photography makes you feel…
If you have to look at a photo and _analyze_ it before you even allow yourself to take it all in, you could be missing out. Making sure the subject is in the perfect left 3rd of the frame, the exposure is exactly how your eye sees it, and the composition with the background was just right is often not necessary at all, and in many ways, not what was required in the first place to tell the story you wanted to tell.
Leave a Reply