Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | People Photography | Join Upload & Sell

Archive 2014 · help me not suck at fashion photography

swordfishphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · help me not suck at fashion photography

A model I know is starting a clothing line or something, collection, whatever-the-who, asked me to take some pictures. Turned into a 6 hour marathon, was pretty tired at the end. Anyway, what do you think?
1

Edited on Nov 02, 2014 at 09:04 AM · View previous versions

Nov 02, 2014 at 01:00 AM

Paul_K
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · help me not suck at fashion photography

Exposure and sharpness are OK, although don't really pop. Background could IMO be less prominent. Poses are, although not very natural, not too much over the top (what probably be out of place with the atmosphere of the clothes)

Don't know if you used a stylist (the designer will obviously have been present) since there IMO are a few imperfections in that regard.
The dress in picture 1 and the red dress in picture 4, 6, and 8 seem to be more crumpled (hope that's an existing English word, not a native speaker) then necessary, while the shoes and pants of the male models in the pictures 3 and 6 are IMO not on the quality level of the rest of the clothes.

What I really miss (and that does fall under the technique of the photography) is the image/profile the designer wants to project with her designs.

Having done a fair bit of shooting catwalk shows of fashion courses (eg the Royal Academy Antwerp, AMFI Amsterdam, Palimoda Firenze) what always was clear when looking at the collections of those aspiring designers is that they didn't just had a bunch of clothes, but that to begin with they also had a clear vision/personal identity they wanted to project. And they used styling, models, make up and photography to achieve that.

I kind of miss that in your pictures, even if there is an effort to create that with the combination colored male models with the ethnic theme of the clothes of the female models. They are a faithful rendition of the clothes. not to bad on the models, and as said technically pretty much all right.

What IMO lacks in the images is the reflection of the willfulness/pigheadedness which would make the designer stand out from the crowd and draw the attention of a potential public and possible buyers.
The responsibility for that of course would in the first place be with the designer, but as the photographer it's also up to you to draw that out of her before any shooting starts in order to think up the concepts/moodboards you can start working from and inspire the models with (and probably reduce your shooting time as well

)

My two cents.

Nov 02, 2014 at 07:00 AM

friscoron
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · help me not suck at fashion photography

I really like what Paul had to say here.

The two things that I think would really impact your shots are the lighting and the backgrounds. You have to control every element of the image, and I think that's lacking here. By the way, be sure to number your pics to make it easier for us to comment on individual shots. Paul's comments really nail this, though.

By the way, I think it's great that you did this 6-hour marathon and I like what you're doing. Focus on what Paul said, work on the lighting and background/setting, and your shots will really take off.

Nov 02, 2014 at 07:41 AM

swordfishphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · help me not suck at fashion photography

Paul_K wrote:
Exposure and sharpness are OK, although don't really pop. Background could IMO be less prominent. Poses are, although not very natural, not too much over the top (what probably be out of place with the atmosphere of the clothes)
How would I make them pop more? It was a bit difficult because almost every surface was reflective, and I don't have any grids. Was using a CPL to remove some, but it only works so well. I increased the brightness on the clothes +10 in post, which helped a bit but yeah it's not too noticeable.

Do I grid and work it out so the light only falls on the clothes? Then take down any extra spill in post? I did that with 7 a bit but the guy's face looks weird because of it. Also I hate using brushes in Lightroom because of my lack of power on the hardware side of my computer, I find adjustment layers much easier to work with, but I can't really get all the information and edit like I can a raw in Lightroom.

Don't know if you used a stylist (the designer will obviously have been present) since there IMO are a few imperfections in that regard.
The dress in picture 1 and the red dress in picture 4, 6, and 8 seem to be more crumpled (hope that's an existing English word, not a native speaker) then necessary, while the shoes and pants of the male models in the pictures 3 and 6 are IMO not on the quality level of the rest of the clothes.Nope, no stylist. The designer pretty much did everything herself, recruited a bunch of friends of hers, guys wore whatever black clothes they had, and everyone involved was a poor college student. The girl in 1 has some runway experience, and 4,6,8 has done some modeling before but I don't think anything extensive or serious.

What I really miss (and that does fall under the technique of the photography) is the image/profile the designer wants to project with her designs.

Having done a fair bit of shooting catwalk shows of fashion courses (eg the Royal Academy Antwerp, AMFI Amsterdam, Palimoda Firenze) what always was clear when looking at the collections of those aspiring designers is that they didn't just had a bunch of clothes, but that to begin with they also had a clear vision/personal identity they wanted to project. And they used styling, models, make up and photography to achieve that.

I kind of miss that...Show more →
Awesome thanks for all that. The idea was pitched to me on Tuesday and we shot on Wednesday because she had a runway show on Friday. Never worked with a storyboard before, but I really need to start, at least for my own shoots when I have no idea what to do. I've sort of just gotten away with it so far, but obviously it's not working.

I'm just not sure how these clothes would fit. I mean, they're certainly not my style, and they only cater to a very specific type of woman. Then again, I don't see people wearing haute couture that often either. Do I try and photograph their clothes their natural habitat, how people and where people would wear them if they bought them? Like for instance, "Oh, if I went to these balls and galas, I would wear a dress like this," so I should set up a scene that looks like it's from a ball or gala and place the model in it? That's what I would want to do, but where the hell would you wear clothes like these? Is it casualwear? Just going out to the grocery store? Is the outfit in 2 actually a pair of pajamas? I guess these are things I need to ask the designer.

Anyway, what you've said so far has been very insightful and I appreciate it. Thanks so much!

Nov 02, 2014 at 09:25 AM

rickjphotography
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · help me not suck at fashion photography

Such great locations and all you did was fiddle around with silly poses. To each their own I suppose.

Nov 02, 2014 at 11:05 AM

Paul_K
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · help me not suck at fashion photography

swordfishphoto wrote:
How would I make them pop more? It was a bit difficult because almost every surface was reflective, and I don't have any grids. Was using a CPL to remove some, but it only works so well. I increased the brightness on the clothes +10 in post, which helped a bit but yeah it's not too noticeable.

Do I grid and work it out so the light only falls on the clothes? Then take down any extra spill in post? I did that with 7 a bit but the guy's face looks weird because of it. Also I hate using brushes...Show more →

Dont know what a CPL is so can't comment on that. But based on the catchlights in the eyes and the sunglasses you most of the time seem to have worked with two lightsources coming from left and right (al least one of which was a softbox) at a relatively greater distance from the models (which accounts for the fact that both models and background get almost equally as much light, and the big exposed areas in the windows) and at times also with a lightsource from the back as an effect/hairlight.

My personal suggestion (which I must stress is based on personal taste) would have been to put the 'frontal' lights closer to the models, so that a) the models could get sharper due to a possible higher aperture number b) cause the background to be (much) darker (and less prominent even if sharper due to the more closed down aperture) then the models which make the backgrounds less prominent (like in picture 1 and 3). Also the overall atmosphere would then (due to the increases contrast) be a bit more dramatic (since you work with two 'frontal' lightsources and hardly no availible light you would still be able to control the shadows on the models as well as you already do right now.)

You don't especially need grids to be able to direct the light. You could use barndoorns, and if your lightsource is too big use e.g. reflection screens (which besides reflecting light usually also are non transparent) to flag the direction of the light. Same with the back/hairlight, rather then having it illuminate a big area (see picture 5 and 6) make a tube from cardboard/thick paper to give it more direction and less spread.

Can't comment on the software you mention as I don't use it (don't care much for Photoshop and the likes). But from my very limited experience with Lightroom, I believe it similar to Nikon Capture NX2 has the option to create a small (variable by manual selection) area which can then be given a correction in exposure, contrast saturation (Nikon nomenclature : Color points, which BTW unfortunately have been scrapped in NX-D), and basically is the digital, if easier and more sophisticated version of the old fashioned burning and dodging analog printing techniques. I use that a lot to create the look I want in my digital pictures.

Nope, no stylist. The designer pretty much did everything herself, recruited a bunch of friends of hers, guys wore whatever black clothes they had, and everyone involved was a poor college student.

Well, I'm not commenting on whether the clothes are 'chique' enough or not.

What I mean is that on one hand there are the what seems unpolished shoes in picture 3, and ruffled pants of the male model in picture 7, and the crumpled clothes of some of the female models.
In my experience part of the duties of a stylist are also to have a smoothing iron (again, not sure if that's the correct word) lying around to make the clothes look at their best, and some tape/clamps/pins to make the clothes fit the models perfectly. And look after such details as shiny (or not) shoes and draped out of shaped pants. Otherwise it IMO would not fit with the well groomed image which seems to be aimed for.

On the other hand some of the male models are dressed very casually in t-shirts and sweaters, while in other pictures they're wearing shirts and jackets. Doesn't seem very consistent either.

I can understand the designer may have been a bit too busy/overloaded with everything (and the upcomIng runway show) to have noticed those details, but then it's up to you to point those things out (and have them corrected), even if only to save your own skin (after all, when things work out, everybody will claim the glory, but when things bomb, it's usually the photographer who's to blame)

Awesome thanks for all that. The idea was pitched to me on Tuesday and we shot on Wednesday because she had a runway show on Friday. Never worked with a storyboard before, but I really need to start, at least for my own shoots when I have no idea what to do. I've sort of just gotten away with it so far, but obviously it's not working.

You don't always need a moodboard. Especially when you have little time to prepare, just a few images found on the net you put on your phone or tablet, or pages torn from magazines, to illustrate what you have as an idea would IMO suffice

I'm just not sure how these clothes would fit. I mean, they're certainly not my style, and they only cater to a very specific type of woman. Then again, I don't see people wearing haute couture that often either. Do I try and photograph their clothes their natural habitat, how people and where people would wear them if they bought them? Like for instance, "Oh, if I went to these balls and galas, I would wear a dress like this," so I should set up a scene that looks like it's from a ball or gala and place the model in...Show more →

Agreed. So she should not just give you the clothes to take pictures of, hope for the best and basically leave the responsibility for the eventual result with you. But also give you an indication what she's looking/aiming for by herself showing you a moodbook (a very common tool used by designers and stylists, be it students or established names) to illustrate what the intended atmosphere of the clothes is, and tearsheets/ other examples of what of photography she likes/is hoping for.

Maybe next time

Nov 02, 2014 at 01:48 PM

Tony Hoffer
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · help me not suck at fashion photography

Paul_K wrote:
but that to begin with they also had a clear vision/personal identity they wanted to project.

This is the perfect critique. Great fashion photography has a vision, and edge and makes you feel something (for better or worse). To me, these are just missing that vision and style. It's nothing technical, it's much more conceptual.

Nov 02, 2014 at 04:09 PM

swordfishphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · help me not suck at fashion photography

rickjphotography wrote:
Such great locations and all you did was fiddle around with silly poses. To each their own I suppose.
Such great capacity to do something decent and all you did was go on the Internet and be an asshole. To each his own I suppose.

---------------------------------------------

Paul_K wrote:
Dont know what a CPL is so can't comment on that. But based on the catchlights in the eyes and the sunglasses you most of the time seem to have worked with two lightsources coming from left and right (al least one of which was a softbox) at a relatively greater distance from the models (which accounts for the fact that both models and background get almost equally as much light, and the big exposed areas in the windows) and at times also with a lightsource from the back as an effect/hairlight.

My personal suggestion (which I must stress is based...Show more →

Hey cool. For some reason I thought it was shutter speed that dictated how much ambient light was allowed in, but I just tried it with the aperture stopped down to f18 and this is obviously not the case.

You don't especially need grids to be able to direct the light. You could use barndoorns, and if your lightsource is too big use e.g. reflection screens (which besides reflecting light usually also are non transparent) to flag the direction of the light. Same with the back/hairlight, rather then having it illuminate a big area (see picture 5 and 6) make a tube from cardboard/thick paper to give it more direction and less spread.Hm yeah. Someplace around here I have a paper snoot I made, but since I'm using speedlights I'm not sure how broad my options might be. Also, the softbox is a 50" and is always just out of frame, so it's never that far away. It's just so big that the light still ends up going everywhere I think.

Well, I'm not commenting on whether the clothes are 'chique' enough or not.

What I mean is that on one hand there are the what seems unpolished shoes in picture 3, and ruffled pants of the male model in picture 7, and the crumpled clothes of some of the female models.
In my experience part of the duties of a stylist are also to have a smoothing iron (again, not sure if that's the correct word) lying around to make the clothes look at their best, and some tape/clamps/pins to make the clothes fit the models perfectly. And look after such...Show more →Well yeah. The guys didn't have outfits, they just sort of showed up in whatever they had. An iron would've been an excellent idea. And some hair brushes.

You don't always need a moodboard. Especially when you have little time to prepare, just a few images found on the net you put on your phone or tablet, or pages torn from magazines, to illustrate what you have as an idea would IMO suffice

Agreed. So she should not just give you the clothes to take pictures of, hope for the best and basically leave the responsibility for the eventual result with you. But also give you an indication what she's looking/aiming for by herself showing you a moodbook (a very common tool used by designers and stylists, be it students...Show more →
Yeah hopefully next time. Thanks a bunch. Definitely informative. I'll need to go back and read again and take some notes.

Nov 02, 2014 at 05:28 PM

swordfishphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · help me not suck at fashion photography

Tony Hoffer wrote:
This is the perfect critique. Great fashion photography has a vision, and edge and makes you feel something (for better or worse). To me, these are just missing that vision and style. It's nothing technical, it's much more conceptual.

I'm pretty awful at conceptual. So far my motto is "Technically good, but boring." I aim to change that.

Nov 02, 2014 at 05:32 PM

Squirrely Eyed
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · help me not suck at fashion photography

swordfishphoto wrote:
Hey cool. For some reason I thought it was shutter speed that dictated how much ambient light was allowed in, but I just tried it with the aperture stopped down to f18 and this is obviously not the case.

When working with strobes/flashes, the aperture and ISO will dictate the exposure of the flash (at constant power) whereas the shutter speed will only affect the ambient exposure. The actual duration of a flash is very short.

Nov 03, 2014 at 03:36 PM

tonyfield
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · help me not suck at fashion photography

IMHO, you did a decent quick shoot with no time to prepare. The inexperienced models certainly tried hard to come up with something useful ... but the lack of experience does show. It is always tough to get your mind around the situation aesthetically and it becomes easier to rely on technical skills rather than the subject being shot. For this type of shoot, a stylist / art director is certainly an asset. However, this type of person is pretty rare

Paul_K's comments are right on the money ... I hope you can digest some of the thing he has said. In particular, I like his note regarding the story or mood board ... unless you have extensive experience in this fashion genre, it is certainly is a good idea to browse the internet with your pad and come up with some posing style ideas - just to get your (and the designer's) mind in a contemporary fashion concept mode

I notice a couple of things - the first is the red dress is out of gamut for SRGB. I find that beautiful red or other pure colours are the first to exceed gamut in many images. Seem to me it would be useful to reduce the red exposure in RAW and/or pull down the highlights in RAW and then do what ever is necessary in photoshop to bring the rest of the tones back to "normal". Gamut problems always seem to smear texture and detail.

For my taste, I think the "sitting with crossed legs" is a bit overdone ... some alternate body styles might be more appropriate. Crossed legs seem to require a strong pose with a strong woman (IMHO)

I hope she did not bleed too much when you chopped off part of her hand in #8

Nov 03, 2014 at 06:51 PM

swordfishphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · help me not suck at fashion photography

tonyfield wrote:
IMHO, you did a decent quick shoot with no time to prepare. The inexperienced models certainly tried hard to come up with something useful ... but the lack of experience does show. It is always tough to get your mind around the situation aesthetically and it becomes easier to rely on technical skills rather than the subject being shot. For this type of shoot, a stylist / art director is certainly an asset. However, this type of person is pretty rare

Paul_K's comments are right on the money ... I hope you can digest some of the thing he has...Show more →
Which red dress? The first one, or the one with the white girl? That dress isn't exactly red, it is that weird reddish color, but not pure red. And the fabric is made of a weird material so if you held it in your hand, the pattern wouldn't be completely visible all of the time, only at certain angles. I've spent too much money and time and effort on color calibration and the sorts, and yeah it looks weird, but it is fairly accurate from what I remember.

Nov 03, 2014 at 07:36 PM

swordfishphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · help me not suck at fashion photography

Squirrely Eyed wrote:
When working with strobes/flashes, the aperture and ISO will dictate the exposure of the flash (at constant power) whereas the shutter speed will only affect the ambient exposure. The actual duration of a flash is very short.

I dunno, I just played around with it and that statement isn't entirely accurate. Aperture and ISO definitely affects the ambient light too.
---------------------------------------------

DeeAperture wrote:
And you are no better with your snarky reply mate! At least he had the DECENCY to NOT swear and curse. Be happy you aren't an artist and a photographer instead. Skin isn't thick enough to handle the blunt. Pictures look ridiculous for what they're intended for.

I'm not claiming to be better. But coming in here like you two assholes are doing and saying "it sucks" isn't helpful at all. If you want to be a troll, go do it someplace else, otherwise it's unappreciated and counterproductive. Now, on the otherhand, if you weren't suck a prick and instead said "it sucks, and here is why I think so..." then ok, that's different, and I would value your opinion. Instead, nope.

Nov 03, 2014 at 07:44 PM

Ravitej
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · help me not suck at fashion photography

Cannot see the garments for the backgrounds and support models. The main element for the designers is their product. And anything that detracts from the projects is a negative. Everything must support the central object – the product, the fashion. Too much black clothing with equal lighting hides the product. Background that dominates the product is a negative. Too much, too large, too dark, too imposing. Look at runways. What one is looking at is the product. The design. Even the model and environment is not that important except to enhance the product. That said, here are photos of product to learn from for the real shoot. The fashion is a little on the plain side. Nothing flamboyant. And amongst props, support models and large object backgrounds gets a little lost. The upside is the all you need to do is find a simpler location and shove all the support people in the background so the model and product is projected forward. Flatten the lighting so everything but the product is blended with a little more light (like a ring or beauty dish) on the model so the product projects forward. Watch your reflections and over lighting backgrounds, objects and other models. Not taking pretty pictures of people in great places. Taking photos of products by designers who expect their creative endeavors to be prominent. This would almost work better outside in daylight with a good light on the model and everything else flattened out. Just my take as a long time TV and ad agency Art Director.

Nov 03, 2014 at 07:55 PM

tonyfield
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · help me not suck at fashion photography

swordfishphoto wrote:
Which red dress? The first one, or the one with the white girl? That dress isn't exactly red, it is that weird reddish color, but not pure red. And the fabric is made of a weird material so if you held it in your hand, the pattern wouldn't be completely visible all of the time, only at certain angles. I've spent too much money and time and effort on color calibration and the sorts, and yeah it looks weird, but it is fairly accurate from what I remember.

I am sorry, I certainly was not clear

Yes, the white girl in images #4, #6 and #8... maybe not pure red, however is close to it (maybe I should have said "very strong bright colours") . The shimmery colours come from the Damask weave of the cloth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damask) or of a shot silk weave Taffeta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_silk). This can certainly be problematic, even more so when you also have Moiré patterns. (One additional thing to consider is to carry a small hand-held steamer ... quite inexpensive, around $20 ... this can easily remove some of the creases from some materials like Taffeta).

If you look at the histogram of #8 in Photoshop, the reds are blown in a practical sense ... even though the RGB values of red are a max of 253. This makes it very difficult even for well calibrated monitors (and printing). This is visible along her left hip where the red colour texture is somewhat "smoothed". On my very good and well calibrated aRGB monitor, the colours look fine, however on my otherwise decent calibrated sRGB monitor, part of her hip has a plastic washed out quality. (Not that it matters, however after proper editing of images that will be displayed on the internet, I like to preview the image on my sRGB monitor - just to see what a "normal person" might look at.) .... just my opinions

Nov 03, 2014 at 08:53 PM

swordfishphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · help me not suck at fashion photography

Ravitej wrote:
Cannot see the garments for the backgrounds and support models. The main element for the designers is their product. And anything that detracts from the projects is a negative. Everything must support the central object – the product, the fashion. Too much black clothing with equal lighting hides the product. Background that dominates the product is a negative. Too much, too large, too dark, too imposing. Look at runways. What one is looking at is the product. The design. Even the model and environment is not that important except to enhance the product. That said, here are photos of product...Show more →

But wouldn't black clothing sort of blend in and not attract as much attention as the person wearing the flamboyant clothes? Or is it because the background isn't as dark, that human props stand out more than they should?

awesome thanks
---------------------------------------------

tonyfield wrote:
I am sorry, I certainly was not clear

Yes, the white girl in images #4, #6 and #8... maybe not pure red, however is close to it (maybe I should have said "very strong bright colours") . The shimmery colours come from the Damask weave of the cloth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damask) or of a shot silk weave Taffeta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_silk). This can certainly be problematic. (One additional thing to consider is to carry a small hand-held steamer ... quite inexpensive, around $20 ... this can easily remove some of the creases from some materials like Taffeta).

If you look at the histogram of...Show more →

Ah, ok I see what you're saying about her hip. Also I've got my monitor set up for sRGB and just recaled a couple days ago and it seems ok, but I can now see a pattern of diamonds in the last picture that doesn't show up on the whole dress or even in the other pictures, even when the raw is down-saturated and darkened a bit both with exposure and red luminance. Man, fabric is hard!

But ok, since sRGB can't reach that color, and just maxes it out and only comes close, and fooling around with the RAW doesn't seem to do much, I think the only course of action would be to try to get the glare off the fabric in-camera, and worry about it next time. Sadly the ipad I tether too isn't retina, so I'm sort of at a disadvantage there. Maybe I should invest in one of those for better inspection on the spot.

Nov 03, 2014 at 09:12 PM

Squirrely Eyed
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · help me not suck at fashion photography

swordfishphoto wrote:
I dunno, I just played around with it and that statement isn't entirely accurate. Aperture and ISO definitely affects the ambient light too.

Right, ambient light will be aperture, ISO, and shutter speed as always. It's just the short duration of the flash that makes it agnostic to shutter speed within sync speed of the camera.

Nov 04, 2014 at 11:32 AM

innovis
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · help me not suck at fashion photography

Man, you ask for advice then are very hostile and oppressive in tone, hopefully unintentionally. The critique given were awesome. Even the ones pertaining to your attitude.

Just don't feed the trolls and easy on the name calling please.

The pictures look good. I think RickJ meant you had such wonderful backgrounds and focused more on posing than cohesion between models and environment. Color temperatures are at too much of a discrepancy and that's what develops that sterile image.

Whatever it is, act like grown-ups here guys. Been seeing this a lot lately on the forums and it's not FM attitude at all.

Nov 04, 2014 at 05:19 PM

swordfishphoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · help me not suck at fashion photography

innovis wrote:
Man, you ask for advice then are very hostile and oppressive in tone, hopefully unintentionally. The critique given were awesome. Even the ones pertaining to your attitude.

Just don't feed the trolls and easy on the name calling please.

The pictures look good. I think RickJ meant you had such wonderful backgrounds and focused more on posing than cohesion between models and environment. Color temperatures are at too much of a discrepancy and that's what develops that sterile image.

Whatever it is, act like grown-ups here guys. Been seeing this a lot lately on the forums and it's not FM attitude at...Show more →

ok good point

Nov 04, 2014 at 07:25 PM


FM Forums \| People Photography \| Join Upload & Sell

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.