Thomas, "blown highlights" FYI, the term is valid and is meaningful (unless you can think of an alternative that describes what is happening with equal accuracy?). It has been in use along with "clipped highs" since the late 1980s to describe spectral areas of e.g. water which have exceeded the dynamic range of the medium; it applies equally to analogue and digital, with analogue (B&W and/or colour transparency, especially) occuring less abrubtly than digital where dynamic range is insufficient for the subject. A lot of digi cameras have extensible dynamic range. Film does not so we have to meter scenes where there is the possibility of spectrals getting out of order with care. Same thing with shadows. And no, this metering is not done by incident which is less implicit in very contrasty scenes.
Capture applies to digital. I have berated a number of photographers who ask me, knowing full well I've been out with analogue equipment, "did you capture anything nice?"
Bokeh, swirly or not, is just bullshit enough to make me spew in my latté. I cannot believe over on photo.net how "photographers" get their knickers knotted battling away with bokeh in their exclusive little club.
Thomas, "blown highlights" FYI, the term is valid and is meaningful (unless you can think of an alternative that describes what is happening with equal accuracy?).
Bokeh, swirly or not, is just bullshit enough to make me spew in my latté. I cannot believe over on photo.net how "photographers" get their knickers knotted battling away with bokeh in their exclusive little club.
Shadows are by default referred to as "blocked" where there is not a skerrick of detail in them. It would be very confusing in the lab or in comms to describe highlights as "blocked" and shadows as "blown". It's just a term and nothing for people to get uncomfortable with. Remember you can blow a tyre too, or block you dunny... or is it the other way around??
Thomas, "blown highlights" FYI, the term is valid and is meaningful (unless you can think of an alternative that describes what is happening with equal accuracy?). It has been in use along with "clipped highs" since the late 1980s to describe spectral areas of e.g. water which have exceeded the dynamic range of the medium; it applies equally to analogue and digital, with analogue (B&W and/or colour transparency, especially) occuring less abrubtly than digital where dynamic range is insufficient for the subject. A lot of digi cameras have extensible dynamic range. Film does not so we have to meter scenes where there is the possibility of spectrals getting out of order with care. Same thing with shadows. And no, this metering is not done by incident which is less implicit in very contrasty scenes.
Capture applies to digital. I have berated a number of photographers who ask me, knowing full well I've been out with analogue equipment, "did you capture anything nice?"
Bokeh, swirly or not, is just bullshit enough to make me spew in my latté. I cannot believe over on photo.net how "photographers" get their knickers knotted battling away with bokeh in their exclusive little club.
It's just terminology, Thomas. And widely used. It has been used in Ilfochrome Classic print production (incidentally, other terms used at my Ilfochrome lab over the years were "in the margin" and "on the margin"), RA-4, B&W... hybridised processing, the lot. It's not going to change because you disagree.
I know. But the OP asked what terms I didn't like, and there you have it. Plus, you asked me for an alternative that better describes highlights that are so dense that they cannot be shone through. Blocked up? Come on! It's perfect.
For photography to make sense to me I use whatever damned words I please. So there.
And, what's not to like about disagreeing, as long as it can be civil. Perhaps it will even spawn new ideas.
Agreed.
My go-kart has just gone off to the detailers. Uncle Reg has been given the instruction to get rid of the swirly bokeh on the bonnet and roof.
There was a long pause, and he looked at me.
"Right. Out with the swirls... the swirly...?"
"Yep, polish it out."
"Got that. What's that other word?"
"Reg...you really don't want to know."
And now I have to take Pentaximus for a walk. 'scuse me. Photography time.
Anyone care to make a meaningful sentence using all the hate words from this thread?? :wizard:
For the "Words I hate" category, how about "The Big Bang." Really, scientists couldn't think of a better name for what is supposed to be the largest explosion in history?? Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes has a way better name that some abbreviate as the HSK: The Horrendous Space Kablooie. Doesn't that sounds so much more impressive than "The Big Bang" which I seriously doubt happened anyway.
Ha! Well, I disagree. Shadows, in my opinion, are just underexposed if there isn't enough detail. How can something be blocked when there's too little of it? Makes absolutely no sense at all.
Blocked highlights makes sense, because just like a road block there's 'stuff in the way', the density is too high, blocking enlarger light from shining through.
If you shot normal high contrast color slide film in the 80's or 90's, blown is a good description for overdone highlights. You overexposed it and figuratively blew it, no fixing it, like you can't fix a blown light bulb or blown gasket. Blocked up isn't so great a description for highlights on slide film. But we don't want two different words for the same mistake but on different film technologies. Digital worked most like slide film in that it was easy to overdo the highlights, so blown seems to be a good word for "you blew it by overexposing and there is nothing you can do on the computer to fix it".
It can mean so many things: Blown
I hate photographers who refer to themselves and other photographers as "Artist"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?