alaskalive
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #6 · reallycatchyphototitle | |
Eyeball wrote:
I think Josh means that since the lighting was very broad and diffuse, there is not much variation in the baby's face between shadows and highlights and this reduces the viewers impression of dimensionality in the face (makes it look flatter).
I actually don't think it is that bad but the white fur isn't helping much. To start with, it served as diffuse reflector and helped fill in those shadows. Secondly, it sort of "blinds" the viewer of the final image and makes it harder for him or her to see the subtle tonal variation on the baby.
This could be improved in post by knocking back the brightness of the fur and increasing the contrast on the baby's skin a little. During the shoot, you could probably improve this a bit by:
- using a more directional light source (smaller or farther away)
- using a snoot or gobos
- swapping the white fur for something a bit darker
As I said though, I don't think you're that far off the mark. Damping down the brightness of the fur and boosting contrast on the baby a tad would help quite a bit. If you want, I would be glad to post a sample edit to illustrate what I am talking about.
First off, thank you for your help... these simple words do not adequately express the gratitude I have for your help... thank you again...
I understand exactly what you said here. Now , NOW, I understand more fully what is meant by flat.. I understood before you said all this but now It is totally clear what you mean by flat on this image.....
Many times now I find I am in need of a snoot. I am just going to have to get one.
I see now that this photo is all blown out.... I understand!
I will do much better next time.. thanks a lot!
|
