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. PhilW

    PhilW Well-Known Member

    And...

    If you check you will see that I didn't say there was anything wrong with the lighting in and of it's self. In fact i'd go so far as to say i quite like it.

    What I pointed out was that the lighting on the photograph of the model, and the lighting on the photograph of the background are inconsistent. As I point out above, the light on the model would have hit the wall if it was real, and then additionally, the streetlight on the background would have given a rim light effect on the model.

    As I said above, I have had a go at this sort of thing, and it is tricky to do convincingly. My most successful is below, but even to me I think this is pretty obviously a fake (if I did it again I'd warm up the WB on the studio shot for starters)

    [​IMG]

    It was put together like this:

    [​IMG]

    It was an interesting experiment, and i really enjoyed putting it together. But I did do it in 2009 and have never felt the urge to try it again, even though with 8 years to think about it I can think of several things I could have done much better.



    To your other point about sales. Quite apart from the comments above pointing out we don't tend to sell our pictures here, so it's a rubbish method of establishing quality. There is a much bigger problem with using sales as a measure:

    The vast majority of the buying public are not very good photographers, and so are usually unable to assess the quality of a picture they are thinking of buying. My observations from seeing pics my friends and relations have bought of themselves or their families is that any pic that is a bit better than they could take with their camera phone is deemed "good enough" to buy.

    We amateur photographers have a much higher benchmark when assessing professional pictures!
     
    frank1 likes this.
  2. Terry534

    Terry534 New Member

    Not saying all photographers should have the same opinion.

    PPA is Professional Photography Association. However, I do understand this forum is not for professionals. I simply mentioned it to prove that award winning photos can be created using Virtual Backgrounds.

    Google searches aren't too difficult these days, but I'll be happy to help provide a few links about the Simones.
    http://www.simoneportrait.com/biography.html
    https://imagingusa.org/speakers/louise-simone

    Equipment is one part of many needed to be a good photographer in addition to everything you mentioned. I never said that you don't need any of that.

    I provided info all of which is true. If you are offended then I feel bad, but I would question your sensitivity. If you are offended with my lack of introduction, then I am sorry but I would really question your sensitivity. Would it have been more polite to have a simpler introduction? Yes. Do you really care though? I think you will be ok.
     
  3. Terry534

    Terry534 New Member

    Its called controlling the direction of light to make it match the background. We all agree it is important and difficult. However it is much easier with VB because you can see the direction of light in the background before capture the photo and expose light to your subject.
     
  4. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    But what's the blooming point - I can see it saves an advertiser a fortune in going on location and is probably cheaper than paying a graphic artist to photoshop a background in but it is less genuine than setting up a seaside cutout and snapping folk sticking their heads through the holes and a lot less fun.
     
    Andrew Flannigan likes this.
  5. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

  6. Terry534

    Terry534 New Member

    You mentioned a blooming point, it is cheaper. Also much easier to create genuine photos in a controlled environment. Don't have to worry about others getting in the shot, or weather, etc. Also I think cutouts with people poking their heads through was a short lived so called "fun" experience. That time has come and gone long ago.
     
  7. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Genuine? It's fake!
     
  8. PhilW

    PhilW Well-Known Member

    Nor mine - way too twee!

    To their credit though none of those seem to be trying to pass themselves off as straight photos. They are all obviously and deliberately montages. Add in the faux paint effect on many and they are far from photographs.

    I'm not sure Terry's assertion that it's easier to eliminate inconsistent lighting is borne out either in the lying woman in the woods shot the strong down light on the subject would surely have placed her in a pool of light in the grass, and the top of the big branch above would have been more strongly lit. The next one (leaning ah=gains wall in beam of light) is more convincing, But I'd probably expect some faint rim light on the RH side of her dress from reflected light off the wall.
     
  9. PhilW

    PhilW Well-Known Member

    And very obviously so
     

Share This Page