DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16549378
But using good lighting and posing techniques, you set unrealistic expectations by making a picture that's better than reality. You really should stop doing that.
Well, I don't shoot models if that is what you mean. I do wonder sometimes at the unusual composition I see here and there.
What you're implying is very grey too. How much lighting is considered ok? How much body language is considered "not posing"?
I don't agree with ultra fake looking photographs either. However, supplementing existing natural light is crucial, like using a reflector somewhere to lighten up the shadows in the name of getting more detail on the sensors. These are all due to how the current sensors handle contrast.
All these not only make a good photograph, it makes it pleasing to the eye too. Whether or not I manage to make the model look "better" than how she really looks like, is open to subjective discussion but I'll really try not to make her look worse than she really is.
I try not to use assistive lighting as much as possible but sometimes getting that shot is more important.
This somehow bring back the age old debate of creative vs. purist photography. Nothing's change much except that in digital photography we just have more control over the "dark room" process compared to when we were shooting film. That's assuming you're not developing the film yourself.
I can appreciate both creative and purist approach. They produce marvelous results when done right and for the right purposes.