|
Zoowick posted:Had another promo session today. I wish I could do these full time. Favorite image from this thread so far. Everything is so clean in this shot I love it. Haven't shot too many bands recently, just tons of weddings and people. I did get to shoot the AP tour back in May though so I'll post some shots:    
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2009 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
I normally go to the same small local hipster bar for concert shots. This last time I went, Everyone and their mother showed up with a DSLR. There was a guy with a D100, a different guy with a D1, and third guy with a D80. Everyone brought hot shoe flashes, and blinded the gently caress out of the place. The dude with the D80 had 2 sb-28s clamped high side stage with pocket wizards. He was cool enough though, because he let me try out his 10.5mm fisheye! The other two dudes were awkward as hell blinding people. My shots came out real crappy, because I felt all self conscious and didn't push myself, for fear of getting lumped in with the blinding crew.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2009 20:36
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:My shots came out real crappy, because I felt all self conscious and didn't push myself, for fear of getting lumped in with the blinding crew. gently caress it. Go buy an old Graflex 4x5 press camera or something. You'll win that dick-waving contest in no time flat. Believe it or not, I actually saw some woman using one at a show once. That was cool as hell. I wish I could have seen the photos she came up with. Part of the reason I started shooting concerts on film is because it gave my photos a different look to make them stand out from everyone else's. It also made it so that I didn't have to worry about red lighting anymore and noise became a plus rather than a minus because people dig film grain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2009 20:53
|
|
|
gently caress you, lighting technicians. Also gently caress you pro gig photographers making my dick look small with your fast lenses and off=camera flashes and battery grips and big Domke bags. Also gently caress you Zurich for forgetting to charge your batteries. Just going to put two up, not particularly proud of the rest of the set.   Got asked to do some promo photos for one of the bands from the other night - not really sure what to do other than borrow my friend's 10-22 and hope for the best, always been crap at directing 'models'. Also going to go to the bands from this gig's next shows to do some proper photography at a venue with good lighting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 14:58
|
|
|
That shirt is pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 15:00
|
|
|
Ha, this is gonna be badass; a friend of mine is in a "yacht rock" band (don't ask) and wants me to do photos while they're shooting a video. The fun part? They've got one boat already, and they're trying to get another so we can have some true Rio-type poo poo happening. The best part is, even if the photos suck, I'm still hanging out on a boat drinking beer all drat day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2009 15:16
|
|
|
Has anyone experimented with getting the crowd in the shot. I mean like, really getting the crowd in the shot. Shooting from a couple of rows back so you get bits of hands and hair in the corner of shots. Not caring about mic stands or speakers obscuring musicians. It might be that my photography in general is heavily influenced by street photography, it might be that I was quite drunk last night or it might be that I was tired of fighting with the 'proper photographers' for position but I thought it might put an interesting spin on things. More relevant for underground bands at small clubs than Barbara Streisand but I think there's a time and a place for perfectly composed photos and a rock gig isn't it. The fans don't get a perfect view of the band with perfect lighting so why should you? Just a thought, we'll see how last night's photos came out (still importing).
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 09:52
|
|
|
It really depends on the crowd's behaviour. If they're all just standing there bobbing their heads there's not much to shoot in the first place. Punk/hardcore gigs on the other hand tend to be a loving blast. For all the drugs and bitches and sinning we're supposedly renowned for, Dutch crowds tend to be pretty civilized.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 10:28
|
|
|
Yeah I meant pretty much shooting from the middle of the pit at a metal gig.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 11:54
|
|
|
Zurich posted:Yeah I meant pretty much shooting from the middle of the pit at a metal gig. It tends to look really amateur for the most part, but the hardest thing is getting an exposure like that. The stage light at most venues doesn't really hit the back of people in the crowd so you'd just end up with a really underexposed crowd and a lit stage or a blown out stage and exposed crowd. That and have you ever tried it? It's loving hard as hell. I've shot a few non-barricaded shows that were pretty sizable, maybe 1500 people and fighting your way to get shots and guard your gear in a metal crowd it ridiculously tough and nerve-racking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 12:47
|
|
|
Zurich posted:Yeah I meant pretty much shooting from the middle of the pit at a metal gig. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 15:43
|
|
|
Zurich posted:Yeah I meant pretty much shooting from the middle of the pit at a metal gig. I did that while shooting SNFU. I used an AF film camera and a 50mm prime. http://www.flickr.com/photos/31391300@N04/sets/72157620989730175/
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2009 16:08
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Wow, this debate has gotten ridiculous, when it's really not a real debate, everyone is arguing different things. I know I'm a few pages late on this debate, but I would just like to chime in to say that If I can under-cut and drive people out and get myself more business, why wouldn't I want to do that? I'm new so I can't fathom charging for more than donations, but I'm shooting the bands that get like 10-30 people at their shows, so I don't think I'm really hurting the "big-boys", there really isn't a whole lot of competition in the scene though, and there's maybe 10 bands in town that wouldn't laugh in your face if you asked for $250, regardless of how good you were. However, as a musician, I do agree that $250 is a tad silly when you consider that musicians themselves are often artists to some degree and can be pretty creative. If the band can get someone with a DSLR to just push the button when they ask, they can usually get some decent pictures. In other words, if you ask a band what ideas they have and they say "Shoot us on a gritty Stair-well!" feel free to charge $250 because they're obviously uncreative douche-bags. I think at the end of the day, the argument is that me and Johnny are musicians and are used to doing our thing for peanuts or less. Why can't you be the same? Saying that knowing full-well that in music Skill=/=Profitability. Some of the best guitar players I've seen have played to a crowd of ~20 while uncreative poo poo-heads that are carbon copies of popular bands have opened the College World Series. IF you can look at your photography the same way me and Johnny look at our music, you might understand why we feel as we do, and either you will be able see our point, or you won't, there's really no sense in arguing about it. My feelings about pricing aside, I am curious how you shift gears from shooting people for free for experience and exposure to asking for money? Do you shoot your friends for free and when they bring in other people charge them $20-$50 just to cover gas and stuff or what? I don't think I'd ever charge anyone $250 unless Saddle creek asked me (I live in Omaha, Nebraska), but only because I know they would be using the photos to a much greater extent. Even if I got as good as some of you guys I don't think I'd charge more than $50ish for a day of promo shooting. Then again, I don't see this as a career path, just a hobby that could bring in some extra money in "hard times" and maybe get me into shows for free. The other question is How do you deal with bands you don't like? I say this as a musician, I've met plenty of uncreative douche-bags that I had to be pleasant around, because we're "Friends" with them. There's also bands out there whose music is just god-awful. Do you guys just up the charge or pass on them? As was said "Lots of people have cameras/lots of people have guitars". I figure it's a bit trickier for me because you can't just be like "No you guys suck lol" because it reflects poorly on my band and could hurt our opportunities to get gigs. AtomicManiac fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jul 21, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 20:42
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Anyway, I'm done with the de-rail. Back to reading the thread. This has seriously over taken the last day of my life. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 21:04
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:The other question is How do you deal with bands you don't like? I say this as a musician, I've met plenty of uncreative douche-bags that I had to be pleasant around, because we're "Friends" with them. There's also bands out there whose music is just god-awful. Do you guys just up the charge or pass on them? As was said "Lots of people have cameras/lots of people have guitars". I figure it's a bit trickier for me because you can't just be like "No you guys suck lol" because it reflects poorly on my band and could hurt our opportunities to get gigs. As a photographer, I'd rather have a bad-sounding band that's more fun than a barrel of monkeys on stage than a bunch of great musicians that just stand there. That's part of the reason I'm not huge on photographing acoustic shows. Great sound but man, three photos and you're done. As long as the band is a bunch of decent folks that are easy to work with, I don't care how bad they sound on stage. Besides, you can use the old cop-out "Eh, they're okay, but they're not really my cup of tea".
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 21:47
|
|
|
There's a reason punk/hardcore shows are the most fun to shoot  Still, some bands just don't take themselves too seriously and give it the best they've got, and that tends to show 99% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2009 21:55
|
|
|
This thread is awesome. My favorite thing to shoot is live music. I have poo poo for gear right now--XTi with the kit lens and body flash--and am trying to save for something better. I've mostly done local punk/hardcore bands and a few bigger things but am really concentrating on getting a separate flash and a better lense [and a loving battery charger, since I lost mine..]. Locally, bands seem to throw themselves at you if you're willing to shoot just for shots. Here's a few of my favorites..nothing super, but I'm proud.    
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 01:10
|
|
|
Get yourself a f/1.8 50mm - they're pretty drat cheap at around US$100. People complain about the build quality, but I've had mine 3 years and have not had a problem with it, it's sharp and fast and brilliant. Once you have one you'll be able to drop your ISO down a bit and avoid all that noise. I took this photo with it a couple of years ago, and it's still one of the best concert shots I've taken. 
psylent fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 05:44
|
|
|
HPL posted:As a photographer, I'd rather have a bad-sounding band that's more fun than a barrel of monkeys on stage than a bunch of great musicians that just stand there. That's part of the reason I'm not huge on photographing acoustic shows. Great sound but man, three photos and you're done. As long as the band is a bunch of decent folks that are easy to work with, I don't care how bad they sound on stage. The problem around here is so few of the bands move around, and there's 2 types of bands around here: Cookie-cutter "Pop-Rock" (who call themselves pop-punk, but they aren't loving fooling me) and "loving EXTREMEEEEEEEE" Death bands that forget that they're playing music and just make noise. There are a few exceptions. Those 4 bands pretty much make up all the local bands I would actually love to shoot. So it goes. AtomicManiac fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 07:54
|
|
|
Quick question for any boston based music photographers or really any large outdoor music photographers. I've posted some of my shots in this thread before but they are mainly local shows. I got a photo pass for the WNFX/Boston Phoenix Best Music Poll at Boston City Plaza because one of my favorite bands (The Gaslight Anthem) is playing. Now my question is this: what lens should I rent. I know that for shows like Warped Tour a wide and fast lens is good if you are in the photo pit. I have a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 but I think that is too wide and too slow. I was thinking of renting a 16-35L MKII (it's like 100 bucks for a week). Any other suggestions? Of course I'll bring along my 10-20 and 24-70 as I have no idea what the stage conditions will be like. I'm also bringing along my flash. This is my first legitmate show so i'm a bit nervous. *edit* I shoot on an XTi w/ battery grip. I would love a 5D MKII though pr0digal fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 15:35
|
|
|
Wow, finally getting around to uploading some of the shots from the other night. This is taking forever, still got 2 bands to process     Oooh, I was handing out my card at the gig and got asked to do freelance work for a music magazine
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 15:58
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:Quick question for any boston based music photographers or really any large outdoor music photographers. I've posted some of my shots in this thread before but they are mainly local shows. I got a photo pass for the WNFX/Boston Phoenix Best Music Poll at Boston City Plaza because one of my favorite bands (The Gaslight Anthem) is playing. Now my question is this: what lens should I rent. I know that for shows like Warped Tour a wide and fast lens is good if you are in the photo pit. I have a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 but I think that is too wide and too slow. I was thinking of renting a 16-35L MKII (it's like 100 bucks for a week). Any other suggestions? I'm a newbie so take my advice with a grain of salt, but it seems like everyone is suggesting a f/1.8(?) prime lens that you can pick up for ~100 bucks to start with. If you're gonna drop the $100 why not just upgrade to something you can continue to use?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 18:06
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:Quick question for any boston based music photographers or really any large outdoor music photographers. I've posted some of my shots in this thread before but they are mainly local shows. I got a photo pass for the WNFX/Boston Phoenix Best Music Poll at Boston City Plaza because one of my favorite bands (The Gaslight Anthem) is playing. Now my question is this: what lens should I rent. I know that for shows like Warped Tour a wide and fast lens is good if you are in the photo pit. I have a Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 but I think that is too wide and too slow. I was thinking of renting a 16-35L MKII (it's like 100 bucks for a week). Any other suggestions? A couple things. 1. Don't expect to be able to use that flash your bringing. Most shows, well most that require a photo pass have a strict no flash policy. And they mean it. The four words you will hear the most if you become a concert photographer is "Three songs, no flash." That being said, bring it with you just in case. 2. For most outdoor shows, lens speed isn't a big issue. I typically shoot most outdoor stuff around f4, so don't focus on needing a super wide aperture. It's outdoors, there is light. If the show does go late, typically the lighting at those type of venues is pretty solid too, so even then you probably won't need f2.8. That's not to say you shouldn't go that route. 3. If you have a 10-20 and a 24-70, why would you rent a lens that is pretty much covered by what you already have? If you're set on renting an extra lens, I'd rent a 70-200. Never underestimate a good drummer photo. They are harder to get and not a lot of people take the time to shoot the drummers. Realistically speaking, your 24-70 is probably what I'd say to use the most. It covers a good gamut of focal length for concert shots. I tend to use my primes for concerts more than anything, but that's mostly at indoor shows where I like the fast glass. My two most used lenses for any show are my sigma 20mm f1.8 and my canon 50mm f1.8 The 20mm is wide enough to get some close to head to toe shots and gives a cool perspective if I want to get right up next to them as well. It's easily cropped in for a slightly tighter shot too. And the 50mm is great for shots of the singer or some side angle shots of the other members. Enjoy the show. Outdoor shows can be fun, but they can also lead to some really lackluster photos if you don't put some effort into it. A nice expsosure and cool lighting can save an indoor shot, but that same shot in natural light could be extremely sleep inducing. My biggest tip is to use your angles and focus on expression.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 18:20
|
|
|
rockcity posted:A couple things. Thanks for the advice! It's a Sigma 24-70 that is rather soft so I might rent the Canon 24-70 instead of the 16-35 so I can get a bit more range in my shots. I'm just wondering if wider is going to be better because of how high the stage is going to be, location of photo pit, etc. I already have the 50mm 1.8 which I will bring along but I want to reduce switching lenses as much as possible. Thanks for the advice everybody.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 18:50
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:Thanks for the advice! It's a Sigma 24-70 that is rather soft so I might rent the Canon 24-70 instead of the 16-35 so I can get a bit more range in my shots. I'm just wondering if wider is going to be better because of how high the stage is going to be, location of photo pit, etc. It's soft even at f4? I have the 24-60 and it's plenty sharp at f4, it's only a little soft at 2.8, but still not awful. Also wide lenses tend to be worse for tall stages, it makes the stage seem even taller and bigger. Oh and the best tip for changing lenses is do it during song changes. As soon as a song ends, that's when I swap lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 19:05
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I'm a newbie so take my advice with a grain of salt, but it seems like everyone is suggesting a f/1.8(?) prime lens that you can pick up for ~100 bucks to start with. If you're gonna drop the $100 why not just upgrade to something you can continue to use? A 50mm f/1.8 should be a regular lens that you keep in your kit forever. Theres no reason to not have one, you will find use for it in a ton of situations, not just concerts. It's not like you buy the 50 and toss it later. Almost every other modern lens you will look at is easily 4 or 5 times more expensive, its not a small jump to "upgrade".
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 19:08
|
|
|
rockcity posted:It's soft even at f4? I have the 24-60 and it's plenty sharp at f4, it's only a little soft at 2.8, but still not awful. I need to do some more tests with it, it seems to be soft no matter what I do with it. I probably got a lovely copy. What I'll end up doing is renting the 16-35 (and if I really feel up to it the 24-70 as well) and doing what you said: shoot one song with the wide lens and then switch it up during the song change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 19:08
|
|
|
That's how I do it. I usually start with my 20mm, change to my 50mm for the second song, then the third I usually try for drummer shots and maybe toss on my 8mm fisheye for some interesting shots. It all depends on the band though, sometimes you just have a hunch what lens is going to work best at what times. Helps if you've seen them before too. Some of my best live shots are of bands that I've gotten to know over the years and that I've shot a dozen times over and they'll look my way and give me a nod when they're going to jump or something so I know how to time it. Like this shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 19:13
|
|
|
rockcity posted:Helps if you've seen them before too. Some of my best live shots are of bands that I've gotten to know over the years and that I've shot a dozen times over and they'll look my way and give me a nod when they're going to jump or something so I know how to time it. Like this shot. Yeah, getting to know the bands helps a lot. If you tell them how cool jumping shots or whatever are and how much people dig them, they'll probably tell you straight up "yeah, well we usually like to jump around during the chorus of (insert song name here) a lot" or something like that if they have a fairly established stage show. The way I work is that if it's crowded and there's no pit, I usually cycle through my lenses for each shooting position I settle in to. I don't want to have to work my way around the crowd and then have to work all the way around it again with a different lens. For a photo pit situation, I work the other way around. Usually I start out with my 50mm (30mm on crop) because that's my money lens and no matter what the lights are like, I'll get something useable out of it. If the lights are good enough, I'll switch to my f/2.8 zooms after or stay on fast primes if the lights are crappy. If you're shooting a local small show, give the band a song or two to warm up before starting to shoot. You generally don't get the best photos right from the start. Usually the light/sound guy also takes about half a song or so to finish fiddling around with the sound levels and get down to operating the lights and about a full song before the lights settle down to regular patterns. SoundMonkey could probably fill us in more on that aspect of the show. Also, get to know your sound guys so that you'll know what to expect as soon as you walk into the venue. Different sound guys have different lighting styles. There are one or two sound guys around here that I know will put on a good show so when I walk in and see them messing around behind the board I know I'm in good hands. HPL fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 19:22
|
|
|
I'm rather thankful in this situation that I'm still new at this that I am not shooting for a newspaper or a magazine because I would hate to completely gently caress it up and make a fool out of myself. I want to shoot warped tour but I wasn't able to make it this year. I'm trying to get a photo pass for a show on Saturday but I keep running into dead ends. The venue told me to talk to the bands, so I did. The one band that got back to me would love me to shoot for them, but they don't have a guest list so I shot an e-mail back to the venue and have received nothing back. Making the leap from local shows to bigger venues is a rather big one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 19:26
|
|
|
rockcity posted:...My two most used lenses for any show are my sigma 20mm f1.8 and my canon 50mm f1.8... Is the sigma easy to focus for you? I had never heard of it until you mentioned it just now, and a quick google turns up slow autofocus in low light. It also seems really big.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 19:31
|
|
|
pr0digal posted:Making the leap from local shows to bigger venues is a rather big one. Check on the web to see if there are any local music blogs or zines that need photogs. Believe it or not, I see a lot of blog photographers in pits. With the way that traditional print media is shifting to online-only, the distinction between news media and blogs is becoming very, very blurry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 19:34
|
|
|
HPL posted:Check on the web to see if there are any local music blogs or zines that need photogs. Believe it or not, I see a lot of blog photographers in pits. I never really thought of that...I'll dig around the web for some that operate in my area and see if I can't do some freelance work! Thanks! *edit* I have both a domain name and a blog, though I haven't really updated the blog in some time though. pr0digal fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 19:40
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Is the sigma easy to focus for you? I had never heard of it until you mentioned it just now, and a quick google turns up slow autofocus in low light. It also seems really big. It's quick enough. Most of the time you're not making huge jumps in focal length when you're that wide anyway. Sure if you're focused on something 10 feet away and then bamn, you're 2 feet away, sure it's gonna be slow, but you're usually not making that big of a change. It is definitely a big lens for a prime, but it's not overly heavy either. To be fair the large filter size is a little misleading as the actual hood/filter ring is wider than the rest of the lens, probably to allow clearance for the hood. Also another thing to note is that that lens has shot up a ton in price. I got it maybe 3 years ago brand new for I think $330 from a website at their regular price. It's near $500 now from that same site. pr0digal posted:I never really thought of that...I'll dig around the web for some that operate in my area and see if I can't do some freelance work! Start your own once you get some content. You'd be surprised at how little of any form of media you need to get approved for most shows. A lot of it just depends on the publicist. Some of them will approve drat near anyone with a domain name. rockcity fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jul 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2009 19:44
|
|
|
Alright, did some promo shots the other day for a friend who is a solo artist. This is my first time shooting not only a musician, but also someone who WANTED their picture taken (as opposed to me shooting anyone within my sight to practice metering). Needless to say it was a great learning experience. The photos didn't turn out as great as I'd like them to have, but people that have seen them on facebook like them, and since I put most of my artsy pictures up and no one says anything I guess that's a good sign. Still don't have a tripod yet (I'm getting one tomorrow, honest!) so they're a bit blurry and noisy. I was just trying a bunch of different settings to see what worked. Let me know what you like:    
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 08:34
|
|
|
Not trying to sound too harsh here, but those need a lot of work. The main issue with them is that you shot him in essentially dark places with no source of additional light other than what was ambient, which you can see is clearly not sufficient. If you're going to do portrait type shots in dark areas, you either need to use a flash, strobes, or situate them to where they are directly in an existing bright light source, like right under it pretty much. Really though, my biggest tip if you're not using flash or strobes is to not shoot at night. It's just going to be blurry and grainy. I don't think I tripod is going to solve all the issues with these photos, they just need more light in them, plain and simple. You can still get darker looks when shooting during the day and not have to worry about grain or blurriness near as much. Try shooting in shadows or partially enclosed areas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 13:05
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Alright, did some promo shots the other day for a friend who is a solo artist.  These are like all the others you've posted: too blurry, and dark to the point of losing all meaningful detail. Take the first one again at sunset (or earlier - it'll work I swear!), it'll be a pretty cool "local boy hangin on his stoop" shot. You might even have him pose playing a guitar, I don't know. A tripod is nice, but it wouldn't have saved these; you'd need an exposure so long that your friend would be a blurry mess by the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 14:21
|
|
|
jackpot posted:What the hell do you do for a living that leaves you no free time during daylight hours? This one was actually last minute, I was taking him home from a party and was like "gently caress it, hey man let's do that photoshoot now". There are a few more from his apartment, but in general I feel that the low-light out-door shots are more interesting. Here's a few others with proper light, of course they're also blurry and kind of lovely.    And an out-door one with some "proper" light: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 18:31
|
|
|
I dunno, you're shooting with a point & shoot in low light at a low shutter speed, what do you expect? You need to sort out your light but I'm not sure how far you'll get with that camera. For the home pictures you could probably just get a load of desk lamps and hide them off camera. Also fix your white balance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:This one was actually last minute, I was taking him home from a party and was like "gently caress it, hey man let's do that photoshoot now". There are a few more from his apartment, but in general I feel that the low-light out-door shots are more interesting. Again, I don't mean to sound crude, but have you ever learned how to edit a photo before? Your colors are all really bad. Take a look at the skin tones. Also indoor lighting is nowhere near proper. I'll echo again what we're going to tell you. Shoot outside, shoot during the day. Trust us. It may look more interesting in low light, but it's making it look really amateur and unplanned. And please don't let him wear what he's wearing. it accentuates his ummm girth. For the most part, so do your angles and positions. Don't shoot a chubby guy from waist height. It is never, never going to look good. rockcity fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jul 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2009 19:26
|
|