tchoi wrote:
The white on white and the posing for the most part are fine with me. The images look somewhat cold to me, by which I mean they don't seem to evoke much interest besides looking pretty. I don't mean this in a pejorative way, but they look like catalog shots- meant to be a clear documentation of an object. The posing is routine (again, not being mean, just trying for constructive criticism). I don't know if you did a lot of post-processing, but there's such a digital look to the images that even if you did very little PP, I'd say they look overprocessed. Maybe it's the studio thing- with evenly lit white seamless, the subject has to carry 100% of the image since there's zero mood coming from the background. It's tough to do with restrained posing and relatively large flat lighting. She is a gorgeous subject though....Show more →
Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment. I do understand what you are saying and seeing in the photos.
Evan Baines wrote:
There's an old photo school exercise for white on white, where you shoot an egg on a white background. One of the points of the exercise is that
1) True white lacks detail
2) We are programmed to want to see the foreground object as brighter than the background most of the time.
3) Thus, in order to convey something that registers to our eyes as white-on-white, you typically want the background to be a slightly darker (but still bright) gray than the foreground object. If the foreground object is darker than the background, it registers as dingy.
Its a tightrope act, but as a general rule I think you might have better luck with "white" on "white" if you ease off on the background light a bit and let it fall off to gray just a smidge. It will still register to the eye as a white background, even if its actually just a light gray. It may not be the only way to do it, but its the "tried and true." As Steady said, though... exposure can be a matter of taste.
jfinite wrote:
Yes, I like the additional detail, but there may be a little bit of a blue bias in the shirt and background now (I'm on a bad monitor right now, so I could be wrong).
I actually like the white on white, shows off her face and hair very well. The whites are not "that" blown out, I pulled the images in photoshop and noticed you did blow the blue channel in a couple of them, but I still see plenty detail, enough for me.
jwheel wrote:
I actually like the white on white, shows off her face and hair very well. The whites are not "that" blown out, I pulled the images in photoshop and noticed you did blow the blue channel in a couple of them, but I still see plenty detail, enough for me.
?