How's this product shot?

[gsgary]

(man you need an easier name to type LOL)

Josh is easy enough - you can use that, I don't mind.

Cool Josh!

So I was thinking of using this picture somewhere in "about" section of my website. Would that make sense or should I just post a picture of me instead?

I'm not photogenic person like my wife though :meh:

This is a self portrait I was working on last night for the hell of it

Very harsh lighting, lost detail in the jumper, you have to be very careful with light placement when shooting people with glasses

 

[MohaimenK]

Very harsh lighting, lost detail in the jumper, you have to be very careful with light placement when shooting people with glasses

I respectfully disagree with you but I don't blame you because it does look so in that image. But it was also the intention to get that look through PP.

Here's the original image.

Also, this is my first self portrait. If you have any suggestion for me, do share. Thanks

Original shot

 

[doziergraphic]

original of you looks much better. just add a LITTLE exposure to the face, but the edited one is too much.

 

[MohaimenK]

original of you looks much better. just add a LITTLE exposure to the face, but the edited one is too much.

Thank you sir! Yes I was going for that whole dave hill effect Figured it might come out a little....can't think of the right word....but "rough" looking because I hadn't shaved :mrgreen:

 

[Derrel]

"Shave, ya' bum!"

I actually think the shot looks kinda' cool....just needs a bit of brightening...the Dave Hill type look goes well with the expression, glasses, and the stubbly face. My biggest gripe is that there are no fingers visible on the one hand...

 

[MohaimenK]

"Shave, ya' bum!"

I actually think the shot looks kinda' cool....just needs a bit of brightening...the Dave Hill type look goes well with the expression, glasses, and the stubbly face. My biggest gripe is that there are no fingers visible on the one hand...

Why Derrel? You don't find me sexy w/ my unshaved face??? :mrgreen:

You know what, I thought of that too! But didn't pick it because it had the glare. I wish I could be behind the camera and infront of it at once

 

[LightSpeed]

Needs more light from the front side. The blacks are too dark.

I was just about to type a quick reply when I saw this. Took the words right out of my mouth. I recently did a lens shoot and had EXACTLY the same problem until I corrected.

 

[MohaimenK]

Better?

 

[Josh66]

I like the B&W portrait best so far. I do think a picture of you would be a lot better for the about section than a picture of some lenses too.

If that's a self portrait - pretty good!

 

[MohaimenK]

I like the B&W portrait best so far. I do think a picture of you would be a lot better for the about section than a picture of some lenses too.

If that's a self portrait - pretty good!

Thank you sir! Yes, I kindda cheated. I had my wife stand and then I set the focus then she was gone. Then by trial and error. But pretty much all of the pictures, I was able to fit in the screen and worked out well.

I used the 24-105 with for these shots. I'll probably use one of these or possibly one w/ me holding my camera.

I meant to put this one up instead I saw that I put the same pic up twice above.

 

[kundalini]

This is a self portrait I was working on last night for the hell of it

Since you have now posted the original, I feel I can comment. This edit gives the impression that you have a medical condition.... much like Michael Jackson with the pigment loss. I know because I have a similar situation, although it's reversed because I'm caucassion. Notice the left jawline, up to the ear. You have more issues IMO with the way your iris is set (left eye) and the shadows created by your eyewear. The original is much better.

Since this is supposed to be about product shots, your blacks are still too black. There is a link I've used a few times before from Scott Kelby about product photography to enhance the product. Pretty simple and quite effective. I'll see if I can run it down.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

First, I agree that a portrait would be better in the about section.

I much prefer this one. The missing fingers do not bother me and you could push the PP a bit without going as "extreme" as in the first one.

In the B&Ws you look a bit stiff compared to the previous one. Also, because you are shooting from a lower angle and probably from the wide angle side of the lens in this one, your head looks a bit too small. In sculpture, when working on a large one that is going to be seen mostly from below, the head is made bigger than normal to compensate for that problem. Hard to do in photography but still something to keep in mind.

 

[Ron Evers]

I'm not photogenic person

You got that correct!

Joking, but you left that door wide open.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Mo, here's what I think...I worry that the portrait would intimidate guests if it were not part of your gallery of portrait styles. In other words I think this style of portrait is not a good business card of/for you for your business. Its much too dark and ominous, seriously sharp, and otherwise unwelcoming.

Think about a mom with babies or a bride looking for soft shots...it seems to me to be at cross purposes for advertising a broad style business.

I'm sorry to sound so harsh, I don't mean to come off strong, I just don't think it fits for your calling card.ale:

 

[MohaimenK]

Thanks Kundalini, yeah after looking at the original now, ehh the PPed one doesn't look all that great to me. I guess I'll scrap the whole product shot since people say my picture would be better to put in about section. But I'd be interested to learn some stuff about it. I'll do some more research. Thanks for the suggesion.

C.C thanks! I will most likely use that or I may just end up taking a totally new picture with me holding my gear. I do have something in mind, lets see when I get around to actually taking it.

Ron, its cool. I am not even trying to be as sexy as you my friend. I am just happy at least my better half got the looks