>>4133294>>4133309>chiaroscuro these are dark mainly because they're unedited and get noisy very fast, they don't love how dark (and moody) the photos are because they want to advertise the place being fun and exciting, and.. I think it probably looks bad on a phone. in the raws it's focused well enough you can see the dudes pores very clearly, but you lose a lot once it's posted on facebook and viewed on a phone obviously
>>4133305I wouldn't increase the brightness much anyways, they're very true to the moment and I feel like they capture the darkness and "mystery" of the events. Everyone is silhouetted against the far off lights of the bar, shining through hanging glasses, and occasionally, briefly, illuminated by a stage light. The dark of it offers a sort of privacy and intimacy even in the open space, and you catch people staring across the room, trying to discern one group of shadows from another, looking for friends, or trying to get glimpses of the girls dancing as the lights move across the dancefloor. I'd like to improve my shooting to be able to deliver brighter (less noisy) photos for clients who want to sell the event to normies, but the versions I keep for myself are much darker and more honest. To ask to brighten these feels like poor taste, like cranking up the exposure during the latest Batman movie, where all of the action is in the highlights, silhouettes, and the lighting is never direct but reflected in windows and through rain. Chiaroscuro or something I guess.
