Rainblo- Headshots

[DanOstergren25]

The eyes actually aren't fuzzy orbs.

Ah, looking at it on my monitor as opposed the tablet, I can see the sharpness in the left eye. I think the lack of focus on the eyelash of the right eye was throwing me off. Still it's very well done, and as I said earlier the catchlights really add the extra touch.

It's amazing the difference a little bit of reflection from the right angle can make in a portrait.

 

[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.

Wooow! These are amazing! I am but a humble noob; so this probably doesn't mean much, but I honestly wouldn't have noticed the right eye fell ever so slightly out of focus (if it wasn't pointed out) because I was drawn in by how sharp the left is. (My eyes typically run left to right over images as though I'm reading.) Overall, I think these are fantastic.

Eventually your eyes will start picking up on small details. The trick though is to also teach yourself to let imperfections just be imperfect sometimes.

 

[mmaria]

oh wonderful world of tpf....


Dan, these are beautiful and you know it.
Actually... I don't believe you're able to f.ck up something even slightly... and even if you are I really wouldn't care about it or I would think that's just added value to your work. Your photography has soul, which is extremely rare and far more difficult to achieve.

The trick though is to also teach yourself to let imperfections just be imperfect sometimes.

What's perfect? I don't like perfect. Perfect is sterile. Perfect is easy.

 

[rexbobcat]

.. 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.

Many people in these forums enjoy blowing smoke more than they enjoy taking photos. I wouldn't think too hard on it.

They're good photos. I don't see the point in having half-hidden tattoos in focus since you can't even tell what they are at that focal length.

I mean, it's not even like the tattoos are blurred to mush in the background. Not everything has to be so clinical and explicit. The subject knows the tattoos are there. I can see they're there, and I can see the patterns.

We aren't children who need to have every visual aspect of a photo spoonfed to us.

 

[DanOstergren25]

.. 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.

Many people in these forums enjoy blowing smoke more than they enjoy taking photos. I wouldn't think too hard on it.

They're good photos. I don't see the point in having half-hidden tattoos in focus since you can't even tell what they are at that focal length.

I mean, it's not even like the tattoos are blurred to mush in the background. Not everything has to be so clinical and explicit. The subject knows the tattoos are there. I can see they're there, and I can see the patterns.

We aren't children who need to have every visual aspect of a photo spoonfed to us.

[emoji119]


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[DanOstergren25]

oh wonderful world of tpf....


Dan, these are beautiful and you know it.
Actually... I don't believe you're able to f.ck up something even slightly... and even if you are I really wouldn't care about it or I would think that's just added value to your work. Your photography has soul, which is extremely rare and far more difficult to achieve.

The trick though is to also teach yourself to let imperfections just be imperfect sometimes.

What's perfect? I don't like perfect. Perfect is sterile. Perfect is easy.

Thanks Maria. I can definitely screw up a photo sometimes; I'm still trying to find a good balance of retouching and keeping a natural look, and admittedly I overdo the retouching sometimes. I have a few shoots booked this month and I'm planning to really try finding that balance. It's usually the first thing I point out in other people's photos yet I still have problems with it myself.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[runnah]

I like the first one better then the BW. I think its because the head tattoos compliment the profile pose.

Also if you could ever convince him to shave his head bald and do the same pose with strong contrast lighting i'd look pretty cool.

 

[FITBMX]

That is a lot of ink! Ouch!!!

Really love these, and there isn't much else to say about it.

 

[DanOstergren25]

I like the first one better then the BW. I think its because the head tattoos compliment the profile pose.

Also if you could ever convince him to shave his head bald and do the same pose with strong contrast lighting i'd look pretty cool.

Thank you. He's a hair stylist, so I don't think that would ever happen lol.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[DanOstergren25]

That is a lot of ink! Ouch!!!

Really love these, and there isn't much else to say about it.

Thank you!
I've been thinking about getting more ink lately, but getting tattooed is probably my least favorite feeling, even though I have almost 50 hours of tattoo work done on myself.


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[FITBMX]

Thank you!
I've been thinking about getting more ink lately, but getting tattooed is probably my least favorite feeling, even though I have almost 50 hours of tattoo work done on myself.

I have no problem at all with tattoos, but they're just not for me.

 

[nickgillespie]

.. 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.

Just because he feels one way doesn't make it true. Photography is subjective. Personally, I totally disagree with him. There are plenty of other photographers that shoot thin dof portraits. Check out Martin Schoeller's work. He shoots wide-open with an 8x10 view camera... talk about razor thin dof.

Please do not post images to which you do not hold rights. You may post links.

 

[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.

Just because he feels one way doesn't make it true. Photography is subjective. Personally, I totally disagree with him. There are plenty of other photographers that shoot thin dof portraits. Check out Martin Schoeller's work. He shoots wide-open with an 8x10 view camera... talk about razor thin dof.

Cool image. Thanks for sharing.

 

[DanOstergren25]

.. 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.

Just because he feels one way doesn't make it true. Photography is subjective. Personally, I totally disagree with him. There are plenty of other photographers that shoot thin dof portraits. Check out Martin Schoeller's work. He shoots wide-open with an 8x10 view camera... talk about razor thin dof.

Please do not post images to which you do not hold rights. You may post links.

I've always been partial to shallow depth of field. I just take issue with people making comments that discredit my hard work by saying my clients only like my work because I "sell" my "style" to them, and that is a direct quote. Differences in opinion are perfectly fine and I welcome them.

 

[DarkShadow]

Exactly what I expected,Excellent as usual and your subject or subjects of people are always interesting.