Rainblo- Headshots

[DanOstergren25]

A couple days ago I was hired to do headshots for this guy named Rainblo. Really loved working with him. I only have these two edited for now, but I'll likely share more later.

All natural light with a silver reflector.

 

[Destin]

Awesome shots! Love it!

 

[jcdeboever]

Who names their kid Rainblo? Nice shots. Surprised he is not all scared up...

 

[Designer]

#1 is good, #2 you missed the DOF, so not good.

 

[jcdeboever]

#1 is good, #2 you missed the DOF, so not good.

??? What are you talking about? that shot looks perfect to me, please explain so I understand what I am missing.

 

[Designer]

.

 

[jcdeboever]

#1 is good, #2 you missed the DOF, so not good.

??? What are you talking about? that shot looks perfect to me, please explain so I understand what I am missing.

Since I mentioned the DOF, I think it should be self-explanatory. With such a shallow DOF, the subject's ears and chest are WAY OOF, creating nothing but distracting elements.

I have no doubt that Dan's ability to "sell" this "style" to his client made for a happy client, but the photo is not good, IMO.

OK, I know what DOF is..............but the thin depth of field is what locks the viewer into the image. The viewer can slowly take in the image and make it their own, it forced me to slow down and enjoy it. I don't know, you seem to be critical of this image technically, when in fact, it may me something else. I seriously got out my John Hedgcoe portrait book and it hit all the marks. Your response is baffling as much as your original comment.

 

[smoke665]

I wish I had half your talent. No 1 is great though all the skin art is distracting. I keep exploring it instead of the facial features. Not saying that's bad thing, just the way my eyes work. No 2 I might have to agree with @Designer , were it not for the catch lights the eyes would be fuzzy orbs, though in the context of the whole image those catch lights add a whole other element to the scene, an almost sinister look.

 

[Designer]

.. the thin depth of field is what locks the viewer into the image.

The thin DOF has locked me OUT. The skin art defines this man, so why would the photographer intentionally blur it? When I attempt to see his ears and chest ink, I am completely locked OUT, because it is intentionally blurred OUT. I don't know what you're looking at, but I don't see how you can say the image invites the viewer into the image, because it simply doesn't.

 

[jcdeboever]

.. the thin depth of field is what locks the viewer into the image.

The thin DOF has locked me OUT. The skin art defines this man, so why would the photographer intentionally blur it? When I attempt to see his left ear and chest ink, I am completely locked OUT, because it is intentionally blurred OUT. I don't know what you're looking at, but I don't see how you can say the image invites the viewer into the image, because it simply doesn't.

Well, I get more confused by the day with this medium. Just when I think I understand something, I am completely wrong. Frustrating.

 

[Designer]

No 1 is great though all the skin art is distracting. I keep exploring it instead of the facial features.

As I wrote in another post, the man's skin art defines him in so far as he has chosen to decorate his skin with those designs. Without judgement, his skin art is as much of his personality as his eyes, nose, chin, facial hair, and all the rest. Looking at his tattoos is part of looking at the man's face, so you should just look at it and admire the tats in whatever capacity you can. Why do you think you have to confine your gaze to only the man's undecorated facial features?

My reasoning in the above paragraph outlines my reasons by inference for disliking the second photograph.

 

[smoke665]

. Why do you think you have to confine your gaze to only the man's undecorated facial features?

Didn't say it was bad nor there was any need to confine gaze. The fact there is so much to look at other than facial, made my eye wander around taking it all in. You took my statement out of context without benefit of the sentence that followed.

 

[tirediron]

.. the thin depth of field is what locks the viewer into the image.

The thin DOF has locked me OUT. The skin art defines this man, so why would the photographer intentionally blur it? When I attempt to see his left ear and chest ink, I am completely locked OUT, because it is intentionally blurred OUT. I don't know what you're looking at, but I don't see how you can say the image invites the viewer into the image, because it simply doesn't.

Well, I get more confused by the day with this medium. Just when I think I understand something, I am completely wrong. Frustrating.

That tattoos are definitely important to the image, but IMO, nothing is ever more important in a portrait than the face, which is tack sharp. The tattoos are just enough out of focus not to compete, but not so much as to be unrecognizable. IMO, this is the perfect DoF for this image.

 

[jcdeboever]

.. the thin depth of field is what locks the viewer into the image.

The thin DOF has locked me OUT. The skin art defines this man, so why would the photographer intentionally blur it? When I attempt to see his left ear and chest ink, I am completely locked OUT, because it is intentionally blurred OUT. I don't know what you're looking at, but I don't see how you can say the image invites the viewer into the image, because it simply doesn't.

Well, I get more confused by the day with this medium. Just when I think I understand something, I am completely wrong. Frustrating.

That tattoos are definitely important to the image, but IMO, nothing is ever more important in a portrait than the face, which is tack sharp. The tattoos are just enough out of focus not to compete, but not so much as to be unrecognizable. IMO, this is the perfect DoF for this image.

OK, good. I thought I was reading things wrong.

 

[smoke665]

Well, I get more confused by the day with this medium. Just when I think I understand something, I am completely wrong. Frustrating.

I wouldn't worry to much about it. You are forgetting that the comments made herein are opinions and there are always differences in opinion when discussing artistic expression. What you find pleasing may not be to someone else. That doesn't make you wrong. Frankly the only thing that matters here is - the opinion of the OP as its clearly evident that he is well qualified in producing excellent work.