On 17-12-2012 18:17, Ive wrote:
> Note that I'm not concerned about photorealism, it is the inconsistence
> that bothers me.
> Given the shadow on the back wall gap and the sharp shadow line in the
> face the scene suggest to be lit by direct sunlight. But in this case
> the dynamic range between the lit/unlit parts of the face is way too
> low. The shadowed face parts are also too bright compared to the
> shadowed wall gap. In other words, the shadows in the face are way too
> bright - or the lit parts way too dark, depending on the exposure
> setting of your camera.

OK, fair enough. I know that this is a simple scene setting for testing 
the look of clothing in particular, and /not/ intended for fashion 
photography outdoors ;-) So the scene should not be judged in that 
light. In the present case, the contrast with the dark cloth is too 
revealing apparently.

> The only way to make the face look as soft within direct sunlight would
> be by adding a lot of reflectors as done e.g. for outdoor fashion
> photography, but in this case the veil would also look very different.
> As the clothing is now it looks more like within an old master painting.
> This inconsistence creates this copy'n'paste impression for me.
> I think your setup for testing poser people/clothing is a bit
> unfortunate. Personally I do use two different setups for *quick*
> indoor/outdoor testing and textures are *good* when they pass both tests.

In time, I shall look into a better setup for the testing ground, but I 
must say that I am not as demanding as you are on this matter ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message