It's because I shot it so low down. The flash has lit the underside of the shoes, removing any shadow.
Upvote
0
It's not photoshop, just bad flash techniques more like on camera flash (sorry, no offense even if it sounds harsh).Yes, I shoot the same style of photos. It's her feet that look layered. But if it's one image and you shot it, then it is.
Harry Muff said:Daniel Flather said:Harry Muff said:I've been persevering, and I have to say that romance is blossoming. It does take some work and creative to make this lens work for you, but when you realise what it's for (and not for). Then the results start coming. Knowing how to tweak the images in PP helps too.
The lens is rather good and deserving of its L title.
Here's one of mine from a couple of days ago:
Melissa Zebra by Marked Improvement Photo
Also, here's one of the threads discussing it and the EF17-40 f4L:
EF 16-35 f2.8L Vs. EF 17-40 f4L Thread
My eyes tell me she's shopped into the photo. Yeah, my glasses are clean.
Well give them another wipe. It's one image. That's what flash in daylight looks like. Especially when you mess with both the exposure and flash compensation.
Do a Google search for Canon 16-35 f/2.8II review and you'll have enough reading matter for a full 24 hours.Harry Muff said:Can we have a 16-35 2.8L II review next please?
Umm... That's it really.
Please!!
dgatwood said:Can anyone compare the 16-35 lens on a full-frame camera to the crop-body-angle-equivalent EF-S 10-22 on a crop-body camera? Similar sharpness? Better? Worse?
Harry Muff said:Umm... That's it really.
Please!!
M.ST said:In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.
M.ST said:In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.
Replacement of 16-35 II L = 16-35 III Lcandyman said:M.ST said:In my opinion we need a fast replacement for the 17-40L and 16-35 II L with an image quality like the 24-70 II L.
And that would be 12(14)-24 f/2.8?
Harry Muff said:It's just that when I zoom in, the images just seem to have a lot of noise and don't seem that sharp.
I suppose I just need to learn how to use it after using a 100L constantly for months.