13 replies to this topic

[dankatron]

Shot this at the bike track behind Oakley headquarters. How do you guys feel about it?



Bigger

[dankatron]

does nobody critique in everything else or is it just my shit

[Ethan13]

Well I know why it isn't popular in here, and that is because it's pretty stock. Their seems like a slight hotspot on his face, but otherwise it is a good portrait, even with the challenge of the glasses.

[dankatron]

Well I know why it isn't popular in here, and that is because it's pretty stock. Their seems like a slight hotspot on his face, but otherwise it is a good portrait, even with the challenge of the glasses.

Thanks for actually givin me something. I had a strobe on a boom stand right out in front of his face, maybe 2 feet away, so that's what caused the hotspot. Probably should have placed it further away. Maybe if i shot some portra 160 pushed to 3200 of reflected light on the street I'd get some god damn internet cred. Only half kidding.

[d runk]

Thanks for actually givin me something. I had a strobe on a boom stand right out in front of his face, maybe 2 feet away, so that's what caused the hotspot. Probably should have placed it further away. Maybe if i shot some portra 160 pushed to 3200 of reflected light on the street I'd get some god damn internet cred. Only half kidding.

Hating on film is a real cop out dude. The portrait feels superficial and way too composed. It also lacks a style, which is necessary in todays photography, anyone can figure out technical aspects of taking a good image. What makes a good image is shooting 160 film pushing it to 3200 and try to include some reflected light of some sort. But in all seriousness Just look at some historical photographer's and see what they did to take images to the next level, that will set you on the right track.

[dankatron]

Didn't mean to come off as though I was hating on film. I was hating on the quite common, be it conscious or subconscious, belief on these boards that if something is shot on film it is inherently better than the exact same thing if it were to be shot digitally. Basically getting caught up in praising process over content. Obviously this isn't anything avant garde, it's a standard portrait meant to show all of the sponsors' equipment and logos. Nothing more, but it could still be critiqued as what it is.

Personally I really don't like shooting contrived portraits like this, but we had to for class and I felt like I did a decent job of lighting it and making sure everything that was supposed to be visible was, in fact, visible.

[Beach_Bum]

Personally I really don't like shooting contrived portraits like this, but we had to for class and I felt like I did a decent job of lighting it and making sure everything that was supposed to be visible was, in fact, visible.

I think if you would have included this in your original post, you may have received more critique.

Anyways, as said it's a pretty stock portrait. The logos on his helmet stand out pretty nice (the one with the flag is hard to read), but the logo on his shirt is covered by his arms. I think you did a good job with the glasses, but his face is a little over exposed and there's a halo around him.

[apatterson]

This is just kind of uninteresting. I think it could be a lot cooler with a different background and maybe some more subtle lighting. His face is really shiny which is not something you want in this kind of shot, so i would say definitely pull that flash back 4 feet or so. Maybe another flash would help as well, as his right foot has no light. Also there is a noticeable halo around him. Also there is something weird going on with the shadow in the bottom left.

On the other hand, I think if you're going for a bright sunlit approach to this, then you're on the right track. I can't tell if you are or not though. If you are trying to make it look like bright sunlight, then maybe still pull that flash back a little bit.

[Alex Mo]

For what it is it's pretty good. Lighting on his head is a bit hot.

Not much to say. As others mentioned there is no artistic merit but clearly that wasn't your aim. Not sure what you want feedback on tbh.

[moleman]

I sold my Hasselblad and my Epson V700 Scanner and bought a 5d mark ii.

Could not be happier with my decision. I Hate film.

[dankatron]

Damn I was hoping that I was just noticing the halo because I was staring at the screen in photoshop for so long.
Moleman as I said I wasn't hating on film. I still shoot with my Bronica on occasion but I rarely scan anything as I don't have a scanner. Thanks for the critiques it's good to hear what you're doing wrong.

[Ethan13]

I sold my Hasselblad and my Epson V700 Scanner and bought a 5d mark ii.

Could not be happier with my decision. I Hate film.

No one asked you, but thanks for stopping by.

[midwestshred]

I sold my Hasselblad and my Epson V700 Scanner and bought a 5d mark ii.

Could not be happier with my decision. I Hate film.

Dont see why anyone would "hate film". Maybe its just me, or maybe your ignorant as fuck.

[Alex Mo]

moleman isn't necessarily ignorant for preferring digital. We all have our preferences. Maybe part of the reason he hated film is because he had a digital workflow.