Pixtus - Photography Forum, Photographers, Photo Tips

carrbowl · **golfer -** 10-14-2011, 03:33 PM

OK...I quit putting pics up because they look like crap on here...but I got a request..so here it is Donna...feel free to cc it girl!!! : )

auddii · 10-14-2011, 03:51 PM

His eyes aren't crisp, but looks more like a compression problem (and I guess what you meant when you said they look like crap on here). Really like the idea of this one, and I think it was executed pretty well. (Please take my critique with a grain of salt as I don't have much experience with portraits.) I wish I could see his hands, but I understand also wanting to stop at the waist. Maybe if he had raised his hands up further and held the club further out in front of him to keep the head in line with where his face is? Not really sure.

Also, the right side of his face has a touch too much shadow for me (I realize the hat will cause a shadow). Maybe a little bit of a reflector to his right?

But, these are fairly minor - really like the photo.

KenJulio · 10-14-2011, 04:13 PM

The hands being cut out of the shot is odd for sure. I've seen Golf Digest do this with a number of golfers and if I'm not mistaken done from a low angle. Which will make him look more imposing.

Also, *IMO* if it was shot outside with the sun behind him with a fill, that would work more instead of the black background.

Just my .02

StevenGWebb · 10-14-2011, 05:02 PM

For sure the black background conflicts with the golf motif. Most times golf is played outdoors in the daylight and golf clubs are normally not swung indoors. The cropped hands and the angle are different than traditional portraiture; however, using a golf club as a prop is challenging, like shooting a guitar player with his instrument. A little fill from below to open that shadow would be a welcome addition.
Steve

swanny338 · 10-14-2011, 06:49 PM

The black background doesn't bother me. A portrait in the studio is a very different thing than an environmental shot and shouldn't really be compared. If he was outside on a golf course posing like this, that would throw me off, it would have to be an action shot.

Lighting: I personally would have brought the key in from the left or change the position of the subject so he is short lit.

As for the pose, a good way to solve the hands problem would be to change it up. This example shows broad lighting like in your photo but if it were me taking the picture, I would have short lit him. I feel its more dramatic.

StevenGWebb · 10-14-2011, 08:39 PM

And of course a product ad shot is camparable to a portrait.

swanny338 · 10-14-2011, 08:50 PM

And your point is?

Those examples are strictly showing lighting and pose. I just happened to look for a relatable example.

groovyone · 10-14-2011, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevenGWebb

And of course a product ad shot is camparable to a portrait.

Why wouldn't it be?

auddii · 10-14-2011, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by groovyone

Why wouldn't it be?

Because they are shot with commercial shoot lights. Duh. How could you ever figure that out if you've bought portrait lights?!

Steve Balderrama · 09:14 PM

The Tiger shot is a great example. In the OP, I'd move his head and body left ( good time to use the rule of thirds), club more to the right so it isn't blocking his face, hands up so they arn't chopped off even if you have to back up a bit and shoot with a different lens. I also agree that the lighting is a bit flat for my tastes.

I like the concept. I don't have an issue with the black background personally.

StevenGWebb · 10-14-2011, 09:17 PM

The implication was made that a portrait couldn't be made outside because somehow environmental connotes action shots and could not possibly be used for a static posed shot. And since action and formal posed are dis-alike they cannot be compared.

What was shown as examples were not portraits but commercial ad shots. Ad shots are not portraits either, they are created to highlight a product. Check the size of Tiger Wood's hands in that first example and the size of that watch. Would anyone really want a wall portrait with such distortions? Since ad shots and portraits are dissimilar I assert that they are equally not comparable.

No, they are not shot with commercial lights. That remark was out of line and speaks of your attitude.

Commercial, action, or portrait with implied action the examples weren't on black backgrounds either. The visual presence of a background establishes an environment, be it a studio or formal library. A black background implies nothing but dark empty space. Thus I said the black doesn't add to the impact of the image the ad agency for the watch didn't choose black either.

Steven

swanny338 · 10-14-2011, 09:41 PM

After re-reading my initial post, I could see how I may have worded what I was trying to say incorrectly. I apologize for that. Basically I was trying to say if she wanted to shoot it outside, I bet she has the means to. It's obvious to me, thats not what she was after so I wanted to critique a studio shot for a studio shot.

Again, my examples were just showing examples of short lighting and pose. Whether or not they are portraits or an ad is inconsequential to my point. Lighting is universal. The examples closely relate and show exactly what I mean as far as position of the light to make for a more flattering pattern on the face.