Disagreement at work about best photography practices!
February 28, 2013 9:18 AM Subscribe
When shooting and preparing an image file for print, I've always tried to set things up so that the highlights are bright, the shadows are dark, and everything else is in the middle. At work, I've occasionally been told by my immediate superior that I'm overexposing my images, and that the highlight detail is, in their words, 'blown away'. Checking my files, the highlights in the images in question cut off around 245, sometimes as low as 240! Is there a reason why they'd want the highlights even greyer?
posted by rhooke to technology (12 answers total)
There is an extended back story to this, but I'll try and keep specific to my immediate quandary. I've been working as a photographer for a small company for a little over three years. Our head office is in another city, and that is where the senior photographer (who's been with the company for decades) is located.
To my eyes, the images we produce are adequate, but not stunning, and to put my best work in, only to have the outcome be mediocre is extremely disheartening. The perennial problem is lack of contrast, the images coming out flat and grey. It seems clear to me that we're not using the full tonal range of the images, and these muddy photos are the result. However, after trying to ask my superior why this is the way things are done and getting nowhere, I've alternately tried talking to the owner, sneaking in edits that bump the contrast, talking to my superior again, all to no avail.
I can probably figure out the office politics in the situation, but before I dig my heels in on this one, I thought I'd educate myself on metafilter, as my knowledge of CMYK processes is a little sketchy.
Can y'all think of any reasons why one would want to produce images that only run from 15-230 instead of 5-250?