On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 23:34:27 +0200, elonafan@almaty.city wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 13:32:34 -0700, OddBALL <odd@ball.net> wrote:
>
>>On 04 Jul 2014 17:59:51 GMT, Millard Filmore
>><hibbert@jackson.county.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 09:44:35 -0700, OddBALL wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 08:10:19 +0200, elonafan@almaty.city wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>IMHO white and bright background with selective focus on model makes the
>>>>>pictures flat, all is bidimensional, there is no shade and light effect.
>>>>>This Polina's set and previous Gabrielle set are quite perfect.
>>>>>
>>>>>lnfn
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.
>>>>
>>>> True admirers of the models want the best focus, color, and lighting on
>>>> the model and the background is merely a distraction.
>>>>
>>>> But it's ok to agree to disagree.
>>>
>>>the color of the costume is important as well. if you follow the TTL
>>>models, the sets with red clothes are the worst. maybe it is a problem
>>>with the digital processing in the camera but it really does a number on
>>>picture clarity. the sets before and after are crystal clear, you can
>>>see every hair, every mole. so the camera is good, the models are
>>>great. but the red set the skin is washed out.
>>
>>
>>I believe it is a problem with the camera's automatic white balance.
>>The red throws it off and the photographer doesn't know about white
>>balance or doesn't care.
>>
>>Most photographers don't know about it.
>>
>>Here's a model with a white balance card that is used to set white
>>balance perfectly with each lighting situation:
>
>The white balance could be correct, and sure it is with the reference
>card at hand, but if background is too bright, the model appears flat
>on it, see Jll and Mary sets, Susie is better.
>
>The Jane_T set is great and I'll buy it, but I am aware of that sort
>of photowork are time consuming an expensive.
|
|
 - jane3_015.jpg (0/1)')){kind=link}