geetee1972 – Member
I will give you two really good examples:
The BW image taken by an “up and coming NY based fashion photographer”.
… yet it’s execution clearly shows the photographer to be a skilled studio shooter.
Huh? It’s an available-light street portrait.
I struggle to see what this has to do with fashion photography. It reminds me of those ‘Apprentice’ TV shows where they are tasked to make a commercial and end up trying to be Cecil B. DeMille without any shots of the product.
To me, it looks like a poor man’s Tom Daley who’s lost his shirt and covered himself with a piece of 1980’s bedlinen.
The Pink dress photo you juxtapose “This image however is not art” was never intended to be ‘art’.
From the info of your posted image:
Winter collection – Formals and casual wear 2014 release! (scroll down 7 photos)
It is an image intended to show-off and ‘sell’ the dress – which it does well.
I.e. this dress covers the bust / has straps but is backless / will swirl out if the wearer dances at a party.
I do like your own image ‘Brighton Front’.
However, FYI, whenever you post images on STW, they always look too dark on my monitor.
I am well aware of this curious effect (put it online and it appears darker) with my own images. So, whenever I have finished PP, if the photo is going online, I will usually tweak it a bit (E.g. increase gamma).
colournoise – Member
I post-process according to the Spinal Tap mantra…
Applause 🙂