Why are PS vendor jewelry photographs so terrible?
Almost every vendor is bad, but Brian Gavin and WhiteFlash are particularly egregious with contrast so blown out that almost all contour is lost. You can't get a good feel for the piece. Sometimes I can't even tell if something was completely computer generated or if it's an overly manipulated photo. I'd say 30% of all amateur PS photos are more helpful than what vendors supply. And they pay someone to do that.
Seeing Erika Winter's marvelously photographed pieces got me thinking about just how bad PS vendor photography tends to be. Admittedly, she is extremely skilled and her photos are upper echelon good, but this is no excuse for PS vendors to be so bad. Customers don't want 10 bad photos. We want 3 very good, representative photos.
My plea:
1. Eliminate CAD's on consumer facing sites. They should only be used for design purposes.
2. Reduce your reliance on and use of photo manipulation software. I'd even prefer an untouched photo to an overly manipulated one. For instance: 1) white balance the camera 2) set desired aperture 3) shoot a couple angles 4) crop if necessary. Done. For me, this is much preferred to a poorly-done glam shot.
3. Shoot in lighting that mimics natural light (better yet, use natural light). Capture the details. Have at least one representative hi-res photo for each setting. Seeing a photograph should be almost as good as seeing the setting in person.
I know this isn't trivial, but particularly for online vendors, I think it's critical for capturing customers who would otherwise much prefer to shop in brick and mortar stores. I have multiple friends who passed on shopping online because of this issue. Even mediocre wedding photographers can do a decent job, and I think vendors would do well to hire one on a very limited, part-time basis.
Almost every vendor is bad, but Brian Gavin and WhiteFlash are particularly egregious with contrast so blown out that almost all contour is lost. You can't get a good feel for the piece. Sometimes I can't even tell if something was completely computer generated or if it's an overly manipulated photo. I'd say 30% of all amateur PS photos are more helpful than what vendors supply. And they pay someone to do that.
Seeing Erika Winter's marvelously photographed pieces got me thinking about just how bad PS vendor photography tends to be. Admittedly, she is extremely skilled and her photos are upper echelon good, but this is no excuse for PS vendors to be so bad. Customers don't want 10 bad photos. We want 3 very good, representative photos.
My plea:
1. Eliminate CAD's on consumer facing sites. They should only be used for design purposes.
2. Reduce your reliance on and use of photo manipulation software. I'd even prefer an untouched photo to an overly manipulated one. For instance: 1) white balance the camera 2) set desired aperture 3) shoot a couple angles 4) crop if necessary. Done. For me, this is much preferred to a poorly-done glam shot.
3. Shoot in lighting that mimics natural light (better yet, use natural light). Capture the details. Have at least one representative hi-res photo for each setting. Seeing a photograph should be almost as good as seeing the setting in person.
I know this isn't trivial, but particularly for online vendors, I think it's critical for capturing customers who would otherwise much prefer to shop in brick and mortar stores. I have multiple friends who passed on shopping online because of this issue. Even mediocre wedding photographers can do a decent job, and I think vendors would do well to hire one on a very limited, part-time basis.
300x240.png)