>>4233095Neat, thanks for the info.
>the second image is when I got to play with expensive gearBut was it you who edited that one, and if so did you smooth out the skin in post?
>expensive gear is why the image looks betterI disagree, the second picture looks more like a fashion magazine cover because of the pose, the skin texture, the softer lighting, the stronger separation between subject and background, the more muted and dramatic colors, and the fact that all of the subject's tack sharp.
The first, in comparison, looks more like a fragrance ad, there's more emphasis on on the whole scene rather than the subject, the lighting looks more natural since there's much less brightness difference between the subject and everything else and there's much more contrast between different parts of her skin, and the pose doesn't even allow for all of her to be in focus; she's quite literally immersed in her surroundings rather than the surroundings being no more than a backdrop.
The lighting is obviously a big contributor, and certainly more important than the camera.
Also Phase One color science is beyond Canon's if you ask me, as limited as my experience with Phase One gear is, but skin color, texture, contrast and what have you can very well be fixed(made to look more similar to a fashion magazine cover picture) in post.
>strobes with diffusersAre you thinking of softboxes/octaboxes?
Also, out of curiosity, how were the strobes being powered?
>>4233116>I have some shots taken with my R5 and the same lights I can dig upPlease do.
>>4233120Whatever makes you say this is art while the other two shots you posted aren't?
