|
My 2 cents:
My guess for "regular people" looking at portraits: They don't pay attention. But if one or both highlights in the eyes are missing, they might have an immediate reaction that something looks off, odd or lifeless. Or they realize that this was "available light" and there was shadow on the face and that would make it acceptable. To notice if a catch light is round, square or coming from multiple sources (such as overhead lights in an arena or other artificial sources, such as multiple strobes or an LED panel in a studio setting) you usually need to zoom in on the screen or look closely at a big print. My second guess would be, the folks that actually do that are mostly other photographers. If you want to go for a "natural look" - ask lady sun for her recommendation. If not - all bets are off. Boris Karloff made it without much high-lighting ... Klaus www.fotoklaus.com 773.495.4600 > Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 02:59:30 +0000 > From: andpph@xxxxxxx > Subject: One, two or more highlights in the eyes of portraits > To: photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > I was pondering if there is a general consensus at to the number of highlights in the eyes of a person that make for an effective or ineffective portrait. Or does it matter? How about the shape of the highlight? Its location in the eyes? Opinions?? > > Andy > |
