Is blown hair bad photography?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2010:07:06 16:09:22 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 580 Image Height 387
Wow this board is ded as fuck lel
>>2752830
When it looks like this, yes
To elaborate, the real problem is how it's basically a big white blob
>>2752830
it's useful if your model is dark hair and is in front of a dark background.
and it's okay when it is not too much.
but in this picture, yes, its shit.
>>2752830
Yeah it's bad. There's no detail in the hair.
>>2752875
Yes, that's why he called it "blown"
>>2752833
/p/ is a slow board, anon.
It took us three years to write a million posts while /b/ can do that in two days.
It's not always about quantity.. it's more about qual- nevermind. /p/ was never good :^)
you can always enhance it to fuck, OP.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:25 12:21:58 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 580 Image Height 387
>>2752830
Blown highlights are not always bad. This pic is terrible though. It looks like she has hair pic related from the thumbnail.
is hair the main subject of the photo?
if not, give no fucks.
yea its blown, but most people dont give a god damn shit. if it has some good shit in it, keep it. fuck the blown highlights.
I think it looks good
Did you intend on blowing the hair?
> No
Bad photography
> Yes
Not bad photography
>>2752939
lol
>>2752830
DESU I think its kind of cool in that example. They were clearly going for that "look"
but regularly, no.
