I just got the SMC M 50mm 1.7 lens and was playing around in low light conditions. I took the picture below underexposed on purpose to try and capture the mood... does it work for you guys or would you dismiss it as an underexposed image?

[prajno]

For me it's a bit dark too. But i like very much the idea you want to express. Why don't you try with some PP to get something different? This is one idea, if you don´t mind.

Juanraortiz,

What type of setting did you adjust on the picture? It's subtle and I like it... I went a little crazy on my PP and brightened the image quite a bit! I'm curious to print out some of these and compare what the results would be...

[metroeloise]

I definitely haven't gotten to planning a composition yet and so far have been just trying to capture shots. That will definitely be the next step is trying to improve some pictures. Loving the 50mm 1.7 lens even though the manual focus and getting the right exposure can be a little tiring.

OH Amen on the tiring thing! I went with fresh focusing screens for both the k20d and k100ds. Ah! Huge difference. It teaches you how to position your eye and all around I am getting better at handling the camera. Best 30 something bucks I spent. If only all the AF lenses had an auto clutch.

[mischivo]

It doesn't work. Underexposure doesn't give it any real effect, aside from looking underexposed. In films, any serious dark scenes have specifically controlled lighting. It's called low-key. Most of the screen is black, dark, or underexposed, but the subject, where light falls on them, is always lit well. However, it always has the mood of darkness, because that is what surrounds the subject. I advise you try to simulate this in your photography. Keep the overall frame low-key, meaning dark, except for the actual subject, which should be exposed within a certain limit of middle grey or a stop below. It's up to you to decide how harsh the light / shadow boundaries are.

[Rense]

Great shot, nice idea, and the adjustments in the later pics improve it. The comment of Mischivo non-sense and b*ll sh*t. Whether it works or not is not static, nor a given property, but it has to do with ones mind and conception. What is working for one person is defenitely not working for another. It's not working for him obviously, but it's working for me....in the adjusted version. The first one is just too dark. But sometimes I like the underexposed versions of my pics better than the perfectly exposed ones. Whatever he might say, sometimes underexposure gives a REAL EFFECT.

[prajno]

Great shot, nice idea, and the adjustments in the later pics improve it. The comment of Mischivo non-sense and b*ll sh*t. Whether it works or not is not static, nor a given property, but it has to do with ones mind and conception. What is working for one person is defenitely not working for another. It's not working for him obviously, but it's working for me....in the adjusted version. The first one is just too dark. But sometimes I like the underexposed versions of my pics better than the perfectly exposed ones. Whatever he might say, sometimes underexposure gives a REAL EFFECT.

Thank you for your encouraging comment. I am pretty happy with the post processing on that image as well. I notice that sometimes it's tough to gauge the "exposure" on the camera LCD when it's really bright outside or really dark... still getting used to the camera and all. Also, seems like photos that look good on the macbook pro don't look good on other uncalibrated monitors... I really need to print out some pictures and see how they look.