File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Did a photo shoot for a local band.
Photos modified with Fireworks.
Camera used was a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX07.

I'm an amateur photographer. Any constructive criticism would be appreciated.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Too much empty space in both, and can't see enough of their faces. What I can see makes them look pretty damn bored. Which is what the photos do to the viewer.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Did they pay you?
>> Anonymous
needs a lot less flash
>> Anonymous
WHY IS THE FILESIZE SO HUEG
>> Anonymous
>>137011
because png is amazing for web viewing
>> Anonymous
>>136985
Get a tripod for this shit and DO NOT USE A FLASH
>> Anonymous
holy shit this is garbage
>> Anonymous
rofl

this has got to be a troll

if you're serious, it's just really fucking sad
>> Anonymous
>>137187

I LOL'd.
>> Anonymous
To give some constructive criticism:

• No no no blitz. Rather bring with you a lamp or something, at least you can adjust the direction and the amount of light better than auto flash.

• Find a more suitable place to take pics; a yellow house just does not look right. You must keep in mind that the smallest of elements can draw a viewer's eyes away from what you really want to show in the picture, so be very aware of where you take the photos.

• Close-ups should be done, heh, "voluntary", not just random snapshot. I'm thinking they want these pictures for their website or something?
I suggest photographing them in a studio (possibly an improvised studio, if there is none accessible).

• Don't forget to think about the composition in the photo; the third rule might work very well since there are three members in the band.
You'll just have to experiment a bit, and do not be afraid to give them orders of how to stand/sit/pose (too many pictures is better than too few).

I am no professional, but I do believe this will help.
>> Anonymous
>>137205
go fuck a donkey retard.
>> Anonymous
>>136985
Not HUGE into photography myself, however I am a musician so I'll give you my opinions from that perspective.

-I agree with everyone else, No flash.

-Have the band members all facing the camera, I realize you're probably going for that "candid camera" look, but It'd still be nice to see everyones' faces. Mind you they shouldn't be looking at the camera and saying cheese either.

- I don't know where this>>136992was taken, but it looks like some kind of gig. It would have been awesome to see the entire band playing here.

- The setting just doesn't seem right. I can't put my finger on why (I think it's how busy the house is), but it distracts from the band.

- Try photographing them playing wherever it is that they normally practice/jam at. Ask them what their favorite song to perform is, and take pics during that song. As another poster said, if the band looks like they're enthused and having fun, the viewer will react the same way.
>> Anonymous
Oh my dear god.
Pure garbarge. Learn to see before you learn to shoot. Or in your case, "shoot".
>> Anonymous
Don't listen to the flaming, OP. We all started bad.

You've got the right idea, but you need to keep practicing and drop the flash. Shoot in manual mode, learn to see and use the light.

Look into the great photographers and music photographers in particular. Jim Marshall, David Bailey are the big names in music photography. In photography in general, look at David Alan Harvey, Henri Cartier-Bresson, James Nachtwey, Josef Koudelka, Garry Winogrand, Robert Frank, Sebastio Sagaldo... well, that'll get you started.

Oh, and Robert Capa (another great photographer) said "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough." This is true with photography in general and photography of people especially. Get right up under the stage.

And FWIW, I think>>136986is actually pretty good. Learn to edit your photographs, though- I don't mean "edit" like "Photoshop," I mean "edit" like people edit a book: only include the photographs that add to what you want to say. Tell a story with them. Your first three are too similar and take away from>>136986.
>> Anonymous
>>137643
Fuck me, I botched Sebastiao Salgado's name.
>> Anonymous
fuck the "no flash" or "no direct flash" stuff. in a situation like this, outdoors, and you don't have the option to use multiple or studio strobes/lights, direct flash is fine. no one wants a shitty photo with wacky colour, blurriness, and all that crap.

direct flash is fine. just learn how to compose. winogrand used direct flash, and he kicks ass.

get their faces in there, step back a bit, try to tone down the flash a bit, still use it, though.

strobist/available light assholes don't know shit.
>> Anonymous
>>138079

P.S. stop with all the editing.
>> Anonymous
>>138079
Outdoors with only on camera flash and no flash power control still needn't be direct. This is what a paper reflector or diffuser is for.

Yeah, you can't always have a studio setup, but you don't have to give up immediately. Direct flash almost always looks like shit, and it is never hard to find an alternative.
>> Anonymous
>>138113


yeah, but some photographers have pulled it off. winogrand, arbus, even stephen shore's early stuff.

i guess they weren't really into band photography though. and i guess bands want a certain look.

i guess a slower shutter speed can make direct flash look a lot better too, get more ambient light in there and a bit of blur, it helps things.
>> Anonymous
I'm sorry.. Usually I give good CC.. but this is really shitty