Reading mode: Light Dark

Fashion Photography ... just what is with the overexposured background ?

Go to last post
Peace On Earth said:
Do not understand why they want some background to be overexposured like that ?
Click to expand...
None are overexposed. Even specular highlight detail is retained.
Peace On Earth said:
Dodgy post processing ?
Click to expand...
Hardly.

On a scale of 1-10 how highly would you score the background interest in these photos? I'd put it at around 1 along with the necessity of retaining any detail in it as it's totally irrelevant and purely incidental to the images - and works very well. The product looks great, along with the lighting on those, and the tonality is really good without being brash.

Nothing at all to do with dodgy post processing - not on this planet anyway.

--
Ian.

Samples of work: http://www.AccoladePhotography.co.uk
Weddings: http://www.AccoladeWeddings.com
Events: http://www.OfficialPhotographer.com

Theres only one sun. Why do I need more than one light to get a natural result?
 
Anyway, it concentrates attention on the clothes.

And the fashion world is weird.

BAK
 
I personally find this sort of work distracting and difficult to look at.

But that is just me and my personal opinion.... I am not in the target market that this image is aimed at.
I am a middle age male and not a cross dresser :)

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
  • Jack London
 
Natural, lifelike images are rare in fashion photography IMO (I'm not talking about catalog photography which is designed to show products accurately).

Fashion magazines seem to love high contrast, contrived colors (even skin colors), flare, and of course there's grainy, motion-blurred, & out-of-focus images. The idea is to catch your attention, capture a style, and maybe give you a view of the fashion product itself.

I gave up studying fashion magazines for photo techniques a long time ago. Most of them are just not my style.

--
Darrell
 
looks like they painted white or screen moded sections of the background to accent the models I found it distracting and blotchy myself but they made a lot of money off of it. That is what matters
 
Well I'm glad that I'm not alone when it comes to identifying just what the photographs are about - and that's not very difficult - at least even some 'Joe Public' have a modicum of that sensibility:

on the blog insertSobriquet wrote:

I LOVE these new ads! Emma looks STUNNING! I love how chic these ads are. They let the clothes and the models do the work instead getting crazy with set design and special effects like some other designer brands. Love them!

I might have a different opinion if the ads were for Lowes, B&Q or Wickes to sell paint, door furniture and plaster mouldings, however even on that judgement they'd still be pretty good.

As a matter of interest, if anybody could be bothered to download an image and check it, there's only a specular highlight at the 255 mark (for 8 pixels !!). Is this the bit that's causing concern?

--
Ian.

Samples of work: http://www.AccoladePhotography.co.uk
Weddings: http://www.AccoladeWeddings.com
Events: http://www.OfficialPhotographer.com

Theres only one sun. Why do I need more than one light to get a natural result?
 
I am in my mid 70s, and I love fashion photography. I just wish I was better at it.

As already mentioned, the technique of lightening the background does focus one's eyes on the subject of the photo, which fashion photography is all about.

A lot of fashion shots are taken with white, gray, or black seamless paper backgrounds to prevent distraction from the subject being sold. However, I like the background and also the post processing used in the image shown.
--
http://www.blackcanyonsystems.com

--
Lawrence
 
Yeah, it's called creative license. Fashion photography is not supposed to be about capturing a scene as accurately as possible. It's about capturing a mood to highlight an item of clothing. In my opinion many visual techniques originate with fashion photography and trickle down to other mediums.
 
I think stuff like that is GREAT!

Yeah, ok I'm in my mid-40's and not their target...but guess what..? I don't care!

Then again, I have really long hair and don't look like the typical 40-year old... ;)

Anyway, I do shots like this all the time. It's what sets me apart from the masses around me that shoot "traditional" portraits...and the people I shoot can't get enough of them. They come back again & again...and tell their friends...and they come back...and... Anyway, "fashion" portraits have been a HUGE part of my work for several years now.

If somebody is looking for "matching polo shirt & jeans" (or ANY matched outfit) or "handpainted/mottled" background type stuff I send them on their way to someone else...because I'm simply NOT interested at all! And they wouldn't be happy with what I do I'm sure. Those that understand it though...think it's brilliant. The closest I ever get to a traditional portrait is an actors headshot!
 
Thanks you. I am very fortunate to be able to shoot "hot babes", but there is a lot I have left to learn about studio photography.

The reason I shoot all the hot babes is because it makes my learning process much more fun than shooting stuffed animals. :-)
chadderuski said:
You're always shooting plenty of hot babes :p
Click to expand...
--
http://www.blackcanyonsystems.com

--
Lawrence
 
The photos are OK. It's fashion, and they are showing it with Emma and her assorted girlfriends :P
 
thesurfdog said:
Anyway, I do shots like this all the time. It's what sets me apart from the masses around me that shoot "traditional" portraits...and the people I shoot can't get enough of them. They come back again & again...and tell their friends...and they come back...and... Anyway, "fashion" portraits have been a HUGE part of my work for several years now.

If somebody is looking for "matching polo shirt & jeans" (or ANY matched outfit) or "handpainted/mottled" background type stuff I send them on their way to someone else...because I'm simply NOT interested at all! And they wouldn't be happy with what I do I'm sure. Those that understand it though...think it's brilliant. The closest I ever get to a traditional portrait is an actors headshot!
Click to expand...
Where can see any of these ?

--
Ian.

Samples of work: http://www.AccoladePhotography.co.uk
Weddings: http://www.AccoladeWeddings.com
Events: http://www.OfficialPhotographer.com

Theres only one sun. Why do I need more than one light to get a natural result?
 
You're not likely to ever get it
Peace On Earth said:
Do not understand why they want some background to be overexposured like that ?

Dodgy post processing ?

Thanks

http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/marie-claire/fashion/news/article/-/6647967/
--
http://www.holeepassion.com .. photo gallery coming soon
Click to expand...
--
The blog: http://www.michaelsessionsphotography.com/blather/

commercial: http://www.michaelsessionsphotography.com

families and personal work: http://www.largelifephotography.com

 
I'll contact you...eh...with some conditions. ROFL

I maintain a "low"profile (read: don't disclose my identity) on here because I feel that it allows me a chance to say things that I might not say if that weren't true... I've been involed in a few "heated" debates and sadly, I've said a few things that, if taken out of context, might seriously come back to bite me. (The "ugly things" thread comes to mind as the most recent.)

OK...since ya got me started...

I tend to view this forum as a sort of bar/club were most of the people are "members." The problem is...sometimes there are people listening in on the conversation. Now quite often that's not an issue...and frankly at worst will become a "he said vs he said" sort of thing. The difference HERE, as I see it, is that there IS a record and it can be printed... I've had clients show up at the studio and the guy schlepping gear will start yacking on about his new DLSR and then asks, "Have you ever been to/seen the DPR forums?" I have to admit, that sends CHILLS up my spine. I LOVE to talk with other professionals about the daily grind. What I don't want is some of my comments getting back to the people that pay my bills...
 
I forgot to add...

As you're from the UK, here's an interesting little factoid for you.

MANY years ago I had one of the only TWO Nikon F4s cameras in the entire country!

I had one & Nikon UK had the other. Gray Levett got a chance to look over mine before his was delivered. If you don't know Gray, he's the owner of Grays of Westminster. THE place for Nikon gear in the UK. (And a heck of a nice guy.)

I still think that was one of the best looking cameras ever made. Th D3x is right up there as well. Even though I switched to Canon when I moved to digital I can't help but look at the top shelf Nikon stuff and think..."yeah, what the heck let's go for it."
 
I like them but am a bit confused as to why there is such a magenta cast in the grey shadow areas. The fleshtone looks neutral and natural.
--
BigPixel / Hawaii
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top