Is blown hair bad photography? [EXIF data available. Click here

Wow this board is ded as fuck lel

>>2752830

When it looks like this, yes

To elaborate, the real problem is how it's basically a big white blob

>>2752830
it's useful if your model is dark hair and is in front of a dark background.
and it's okay when it is not too much.
but in this picture, yes, its shit.

>>2752830
Yeah it's bad. There's no detail in the hair.

>>2752875
Yes, that's why he called it "blown"

>>2752833
/p/ is a slow board, anon.
It took us three years to write a million posts while /b/ can do that in two days.
It's not always about quantity.. it's more about qual- nevermind. /p/ was never good :^)

File: Sin título-1.jpg (146KB, 580x387px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 580x387px

you can always enhance it to fuck, OP.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:25 12:21:58
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	580
Image Height	387

File: 2014-Short-Hair-Trends-Spiked-Short-Haircut-for-Women.jpg (64KB, 503x671px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 503x671px

>>2752830
Blown highlights are not always bad. This pic is terrible though. It looks like she has hair pic related from the thumbnail.

is hair the main subject of the photo?
if not, give no fucks.
yea its blown, but most people dont give a god damn shit. if it has some good shit in it, keep it. fuck the blown highlights.

I think it looks good

Did you intend on blowing the hair?

> No
Bad photography

> Yes
Not bad photography

>>2752939
lol

>>2752830
DESU I think its kind of cool in that example. They were clearly going for that "look"

but regularly, no.