OT PESO - Casey
jsessoms002 at nc.rr.com
Mon Oct 26 13:09:25 EDT 2009
From: David Savage
> 2009/10/26 John Sessoms <jsessoms002 at nc.rr.com>:
>> > From: David Savage
>>> >> Well I didn't take any photos, but I did get a good enough look at
>>> >> said lovelies to know that they are very real.
>>> >> This is a situation where the right choice of top has complemented her
>>> >> assets rather well.
>> > Pose and camera angle add to the illusion. It'd be 10 out of 10 if it didn't
>> > have the blown highlight.
> Not that I disagree, but what is it about the blown highlight that detracts?
The highlights are very specular, and the way digital captures them
makes them garish. The transition is so abrupt, like falling off a
cliff. You lose the texture and distort the modeling of the face ... and
other areas. Look at the right arm near the elbow. It looks like the
forearm is just laying there detached from the model.
It's not a criticism of the photo. The way digital handles blown
highlights is just one of the realities of the medium that every
photographer is going to have to deal with.
This is a well composed, well posed photo. It does more than just
present the obvious "assets".
I remember earlier in the thread you expressed the wish you'd had a
large diffuser to soften the light.
And I got the impression these model shoots are organized by a photo
club of some kind. If you can't afford the diffuser yourself, maybe the
club could invest in one for group shoots.
But, if this was a workshop you paid to participate in, whoever
organized the workshop should have had that diffuser available.
Softer light would have helped make the highlights less specular and
would have pushed the photo over the top.
10 out of 10 or maybe even "goes to 11".
More information about the PDML