1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

how good n effective is Digital Virtual Background System for Portrait and Fashion Photography???

Discussion in 'Beginner's Corner' started by VISHAL JAIN, Jan 18, 2017.

  1. VISHAL JAIN

    VISHAL JAIN New Member

    How good is Digital Front Projection Background system for Portraits, Pre-Wedding and Fashion Photography??

    Any user, who can submit their work and describe their views and comments??
    I am a enthusiastic perspective buyer and would like to install the system, but wanna hear your comments and suggestions, before reaching any conclusion.
    Please guide!!
     
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Used in film special effects isn't it?
     
  3. Fishboy

    Fishboy Well-Known Member

    I had a quick hunt around the internet and it seems that there's a version that can be used for still photography (principally portraiture) as well.

    It looks like a classic case of just because you can do something, it doesn't mean that you should.

    The examples - on the website of a company that manufactures and sells what looks to be quite an expensive system - were, without exception, truly awful.

    Cheers, Jeff
     
  4. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    Well... before I clicked on your link, I expected these examples to be fairly bad - but I certainly didn't expect them to be quite THAT bad! :eek:
     
    Roger Hicks and Fishboy like this.
  5. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Bit OTT indeedy. I suppose you could do the same thing in photoshop ( not that I know how to use photoshop) as it is basically the same thing as faking a sky by merging bits of two pictures.
     
  6. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Wasn't there a bloke who used to advertise very big cotton prints of "exotic" locations for backdrops in one of the magazines? It was decades ago and all I can remember is that he always used the same picture in his advert of a girl in front of an out of focus Taj Mahal.
     
  7. El_Sid

    El_Sid Well-Known Member

    Not sure about truly awful... Tasteless?... possibly. Contrived?... certainly but the technical quality, of the larger examples, suggests at the size shown that the method works. Of course how much post processing has gone into getting image-as-shot to image-as-example we don't know. With restraint and an appropriate background image the system could well be an effective alternative to printed or other physical backdrops - and a lot more portable.
     
    beatnik69 likes this.
  8. PhilW

    PhilW Well-Known Member

    No, the technical quality is poor too. The lighting on the subject doesn't match the background on any of them.

    I have played with dropping in false backgrounds and it is very hard to do convincingly. There are two problems - the cut out, and the lighting.

    Cutting out your subject without it looking obvious is very hard to do, even with all the fancy selection tools now available. An matching the lighting is a job for a skilled studio craftsman.

    The proof of the pudding is in the easting - and I could spot the false background instantly on all of the pics on that site.
     
  9. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    Even on these two? o_O

    Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 19.53.25 copy.jpg

    Screen Shot 2017-03-17 at 19.53.03 copy.jpg
     
  10. PhilW

    PhilW Well-Known Member

    Maybe not the first one*, but for sure on the second (anylight hitting her face like that would surely hit the wall 'behind' her.

    *It is very well done but the background is so surreal I'd always guess drop in graphic art over an amazing set.
     
    peterba likes this.
  11. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Peter,

    Quite, "Mediocre" would be flattery, The dropped in image must at least be lit similarly to the"background".

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    peterba likes this.
  12. frank1

    frank1 Well-Known Member

    As an exercise it can be challenging and more often than not not worth it. Hair is a major pain and I've never got it right in photoshop. Haven't tried any other software. You'll find lots of tutorials on the web and most will drive you mad.

    Here's one example of mine. The hair is the kind of hair you want to work with.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. Terry534

    Terry534 New Member

    This is a perfect example of what is wrong with photography these days. Some photographers say these samples are awful and some disagree. Some photographers say projected backgrounds is difficult to work with and some don't. Everyone grades the quality of a photo based on their "professional" photography opinion. There is no real standard, the only thing that comes close to a standard is grades in PPA photography contests. Considering many well known professional photographers have won many awards using Virtual Backgrounds I don't see how could says all the samples are awful. Phil claims one of the photos above has poor lighting. Phil do you know who took that photo? The Simones did, who just so happen to be the best and most well known photographers in the world.

    Personally, I grade the quality of photos based on whether it sells or not. If your customer purchases the photo then it must be good. I don't care how bad or good any professional photographer thinks the lighting is, as long as it sells. I've heard of several photographers that claim they use Virtual Backgrounds for every shoot and would have been out of business a long time ago without it. The equipment is actually very simple and easy to use but everyone is scared of change. Cameras have gotten so much better that anyone can take a decent photo, you need equipment that makes you stand out, something that not all photographers can recreate.

    Also, I think some of you are getting Virtual Backgrounds confused with green screen. Virtual Backgrounds is front projected backgrounds. You plug in your iPad and whatever background image you have pulled up is projected onto the background screen. When you look through your camera you can see the subject and the background live. You can easily use your iPad to adjust the size or placement of the background before you take the photo. There is no post production with Virtual Backgrounds. Green Screen is all the post production and cutting out which causes it to look fake.
     
  14. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member


    What a waste of a tirade. The title of this site is "Amateur Photographer" and I think you'll find that only a very few active members are interested in selling their pictures. :cool:
     
    Brian likes this.
  15. Fishboy

    Fishboy Well-Known Member

    Gosh. That's quite a first post. There are a couple of points I'd like to make:

    "This is a perfect example of what is wrong with photography these days. Some photographers say these samples are awful and some disagree. Some photographers say projected backgrounds is difficult to work with and some don't."

    You quote the fact that different members of this forum have differing opinions as an example...nay, a perfect example...of what's wrong with photography. Are you seriously suggesting that we should all have the same opinion? I'm going to take a bit of a leap here and speculate that the opinion we should all be sharing is the same as the one that you have?

    "Everyone grades the quality of a photo based on their "professional" photography opinion. There is no real standard, the only thing that comes close to a standard is grades in PPA photography contests."

    I don't have a "professional" photography opinion, since I'm not a professional photographer. The name of the site should give you a bit of a clue as to my status as a photographer. After having admitted that I'm not a professional photographer I'm not too ashamed to admit that I've not sure who the PPA is and why they should have any right to judge the standard of my photography. A quick internet search suggests that it may be a foreign photographers' association - I think I'll stick with my membership of the Royal Photographic Society if that's OK with you - unless this is another example...sorry...perfect example...of what's wrong with photography.

    "Considering many well known professional photographers have won many awards using Virtual Backgrounds I don't see how could says all the samples are awful. Phil claims one of the photos above has poor lighting. Phil do you know who took that photo? The Simones did, who just so happen to be the best and most well known photographers in the world."

    I'm unable to dispute your claim about the number of professional photographers who've won awards. What I can dispute is your comment to Phil. Phil says that the lighting is poor and you say that the picture was taken by the "best and most well-known photographers in the world" - the two things aren't mutually exclusive. Also, having already admitted to not being a professional I can, again, happily admit that I've never heard of "The Simones". This may be a failing on my part, but the name means nothing to me. An internet search reveals a wedding photographer based in Cardiff of that name but I suspect that it isn't him that you're referring to.

    Your entire second paragraph relates almost entirely to professional photographers. I'm not one of those. Despite that, your comment "I grade the quality of photos based on whether it sells or not" jars with me a little. I work in an office and photography is my hobby, yet I would never dream of putting what I considered to a sub-standard picture up for sale to see whether it sells or not.

    The last sentence of the second paragraph sounds as if you're suggesting that buying better and more expensive equipment can make you a better photographer. You say "you need equipment that makes you stand out" - I'm going to call that out as being utter and total bollocks I'm afraid. What about creativity, imagination, perspective, experience, storytelling, technique and a host of other things that you can't buy in a box off a shelf?

    Your final paragraph is all about how to use virtual backgrounds which, you'll be happy to hear, I cannot dispute.

    A word to the wise - a first post on the forum is usually used to introduce ones-self, not to launch into an ill-targeted tirade.

    Cheers, Jeff
     
    AndyTake2 and Brian like this.
  16. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member


    I can't argue with the rest of it but I sort of think that last paragraph was all that was required. ;)
     
  17. Fishboy

    Fishboy Well-Known Member

    But Andrew, where's the fun in that?

    Cheers, Jeff
     
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  18. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    I read the post and I was looking for the link to some product or other that would have turned me into ....you know the best and well known photographer in the world...what's his name?
     
  19. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I'd forgotten this post from last Jan. I recall being amazed that anyone would want to do such a thing these days.

    I've no idea who Simones is.
     
  20. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Let's be honest, it's not exactly memorable!

    Neither have I!
     

Share This Page