How did the effect of these two sets of photos come out?

First, correct the above statement. The light spots of the second group can be seen at a glance from the ps. Normal lens glare can't show such a perfect mottled pentagon-there will be hexagonal glare on the focal plane, but the fuzzy spots behind it should also be hexagonal, and the background spots are round; As for the first group of light spots, it is unlikely to form naturally. The spot area of an ordinary lens is unlikely to be so large and scattered, and the color and outline should not be out of control. In addition, some vague parts seem to have traces of smearing, which can basically be considered as late effects.

The first group took a side shot and a big back shot. Judging from the brightness of the bouquets and green leaves, there is a lamp to fill the light in front, which seems to be a reflective umbrella effect in the field of vision. In the second group, natural light actually has a high projection, so the "backlight" effect, "natural light source" and facula are done later, and the front is also filled with artificial light.

I am not proficient in this piece in the later period, but I can basically see it. From the later level, the first group is higher, which should not be as simple as color gradient. It must be that the color block has been carefully adjusted and the use of natural light in the early stage is more appropriate, so the overall performance is more natural. In the second group, besides adjusting the color tone, it mainly produced pentagonal glare, created a hypothetical natural light source and brightened this part, but overall it was somewhat ingenious, and with the flaws in composition and lighting for photography, it was regarded as a studio-level work.