# Criticize my most recent photoshoot



## Bryant (Nov 5, 2009)

Hey so I posted yesterday about getting tips on using hotlights for a photoshoot portrait and here is the results!







I did a shoot for an up and coming ski apparel company based in Burlington Vermont and now moving out west to Boulder Colorado. Feel free to check out their site AR§ENIC APPAREL 09|10 - Home as these pictures are for their new product line that is going up for preorders within the next few days.

Cheers!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 5, 2009)

Ok, I checked the link, because I wanted to see more of this crazy ski apparel.



> *Yo, welcome to the site!*
> Arsenic Apparel, that's the name. This is our first year, so we are gonna keep the operation small. Its just two kids from UVM tryna make some fly t-shirts to rock on and off the mountain. Tall Tees and Regular Tees will be available. We have design ideas coming out the dome like rhymes from the Wu so expect some options. Also, if you have some suggestions feel free to hit us up with your ideas whether its a color you are looking for or whatever else.


 
Ok, aside from that [insert adjective here] introduction which made me LMAO. T-shirts. That's it? T-shirts?

The model looks fat (not with a 'ph') and pear shaped, which is the last thing your customers want to look like. The lighting seems pretty harsh. This has the effect of making the doods face look deformed and rather off putting. Not good if you want people to buy this stuff.

You might want to look into optimizing your website as well, http://www.bryanthughesphotography.com/ took forever to load, so I clicked away.


----------



## battletone (Nov 6, 2009)

I didn't grasp why he was holding his jacket open at first.  I guess I figured it was to show off all three items....shirt, jacket, and pants.  But if all they are selling is t-shirts, I don't know if this is effective.


----------



## fokker (Nov 6, 2009)

This photo needs a lot of work before it should be put into any sales/advertising position. It makes me really really not want to own any of the clothes that guy is wearing.

Things to work on:

-Lighting
-Pose of model
-Background (floor in particular)
-Rest of clothing/apparel


----------



## Shutter_to_think (Nov 6, 2009)

fokker said:


> It makes me really really not want to own any of the clothes that guy is wearing.



LOL especially the hat!

EDIT: Is the dude standing on a bed sheet? 
Tacky, very tacky.

_


----------



## caroldeandaphoto (Nov 6, 2009)

his body looks weird for sure...
In my opinion if you don't have a studio/real studio equipment....
like a seamless in particular 
Why not just try to go outside and use open shade in some cool urban spots vs what you have going on there...although im not sure the best photographer in the world would make that t-shirt look attractive lol


----------



## RancerDS (Nov 7, 2009)

The perspective might have looked better from a bottom-right angle?  The shadow on his neck made his face look really long.  To my eye, that made those pants legs look really short.  That could have been the style of wearing them too far down on his hips.  Kinda throws the dimensions off from first-glance.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 7, 2009)

Quote:Yo, welcome to the site! 
Arsenic Apparel, that's the name. This is our first year, so we are gonna keep the operation small. Its just two kids from UVM tryna make some fly t-shirts to rock on and off the mountain. Tall Tees and Regular Tees will be available. We have design ideas coming out the dome like rhymes from the Wu so expect some options. Also, if you have some suggestions feel free to hit us up with your ideas whether its a color you are looking for or whatever else.

Yo, bro, photos look like Arsenic, which is deadly poison,bro. Your weak photos will keep you small, fer sure. it looks like two kids, tryna' make some coin for some sticky icky. You need more than design ideas comin' out' th dome--you need ideas INSIDE the dome bro, know what I'm saying? Fer realz. Hit you up with ideas? howza bout getting to some slopes--shoot the pics on the slopes bro, not on a sheet from ya Momz bed. Out! (And stay off the pipe till the shoot's over and ya back at the crib, ya know what I'm sayin'?)


----------



## Dominantly (Nov 7, 2009)

^^


----------



## jealous (Nov 7, 2009)

all ya'll giving fashion advice right now is like an american giving a kiwi tips on how to play rugby. you don't understand the culture and that is fine, so just lay off the critique of the clothing and help out with question asked, which was about photography.

man Id say get rid of the sheet, keep the poses simple (as is) and keep the background simple. you're selling apparel, take a leaf out of the american apparel style - they keep it simple and colourful. simple starightforward communication is best in this situation.


oh and Derrel my man, good work on the sarcasm broski - keeping it all american as usual.


----------



## Dominantly (Nov 7, 2009)

jealous said:


> all ya'll giving fashion advice right now is like an american giving a kiwi tips on how to play rugby. you don't understand the culture and that is fine, so just lay off the critique of the clothing and help out with question asked, which was about photography.
> 
> man Id say get rid of the sheet, keep the poses simple (as is) and keep the background simple. you're selling apparel, take a leaf out of the american apparel style - they keep it simple and colourful. simple starightforward communication is best in this situation.
> 
> ...


What is this suppose to mean?


----------



## CCarsonPhoto (Nov 7, 2009)

Baggy ski clothing? This looks dangerous to wear on the slopes....oh wait? He's just modeling the shirt? Then maybe he should just be wearing...the shirt? Which also looks dangerous for sports. But that is my opinion, and I'm entitled to have it.

The photo itsself....looks awful. The lighting is harsh, he's got these shadows distorting his face, and the background....I think you could have worked a little harder on your background. His pose reminds me of the little boy who gets wrapped in layers of bubble wrap from "A Christmas Story", very akward. Some props might help, but I think you need to focus on having shots that would represent an athlete, or at least, some street homie trying to look like an athlete, if that's what the Arsenic label is going for.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 7, 2009)

jealous said:


> all ya'll giving fashion advice right now is like an american giving a kiwi tips on how to play rugby. you don't understand the culture and that is fine, so just lay off the critique of the clothing and help out with question asked, which was about photography.


 
Can we give business advice? You know, one business man to another?


----------



## Shutter_to_think (Nov 7, 2009)

jealous said:


> oh and Derrel my man, good work on the sarcasm broski - keeping it all American as usual.



You don't like clothing critique, but you SLAM America. (BTW, you forgot to capitalize it.. I fixed it for ya)
I like American sarcasm. You guys need to buy helmets, you're way too sensitive.
Your user name fits you.

_


----------



## JIP (Nov 7, 2009)

Opinions on the content of the photo aside thsi thing needs alot of work.  The background for this type of item is completely inappropriate.  I agree with the poster that suggested this kind of thing would be better shot in some outdoor location, possibly something urban or even near a ski slope.  A white background with a wrinkled sheet on the ground does nothing for the clothing and I think it has done alot to elicit the previous posts as the out of place nature of his expression and pose stands out when there is no context.  I also think if you want to accentuate the shirt your model might want to take off his bibs as it gives him that "pear shape" that others have referred to.  I understand folding it down to show the entire shirt but the puffiness just makes him look fat.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Nov 7, 2009)

I wouldn't shop there and wouldn't let my kids either. If that guy got near my daughter.....well.....it wouldn't be pleasant.
That shot for advertising? The business  would go broke with photography that bad and a worse image.
Tell him to pull his pants up, get rid of the shadow on his face.....too much to list for the time I have today.
BTW, we have family involved with a large, successful ski shop and they NEVER would use an image like that. Their models look good.


----------



## KmH (Nov 7, 2009)

The photograph is poor on a number of levels:

lighting
set
composition
overexposure
poor focus
choice of model
model's wardrobe
camera angle/height


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 7, 2009)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> You might want to look into optimizing your website as well, www.bryanthughesphotography.com took forever to load, so I clicked away.


Also, I can't can't web address that are 100 letters long and have a bunch of words mashed together.  To me it looks like it says www. Bryan Thug, He's Photography .com.


----------



## KmH (Nov 7, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > You might want to look into optimizing your website as well, www.bryanthughesphotography.com took forever to load, so I clicked away.
> ...


Wow, that is a slow website. I love'd watching the countdown... till it got to about 10%, then I bailed.


----------



## Plato (Nov 7, 2009)

Bryant said:


> Hey so I posted yesterday about getting tips on using hotlights for a photoshoot portrait and here is the results!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is a joke, right?


----------



## jealous (Nov 8, 2009)

hehe my bad for SLAMMING the ol' yanks, i was just doing what everyone else does. Sorry bout that - bit sheepish of me!
getting back to the image though, I cant help but ask why people who dont understand a culture would be so disrespectful towards it? YES snowboarding is different from skiing, and no just because they wear 'baggy trousers' this does not make them stupid ok? 
and to then claim that you are giving advice from one business man to another (very noble) I would still ask why you would stick your ignorant face in the matter of clothing style instead of sticking to something you are actually aware of (or atleast claim to be aware of) which is photography yes? cool , great stuff.

so, I hate to get all defensive but I must ask those who are not aware of the meaning and even traditions within a given culture, to bite thier tongue and simply offer helpful advice. afterall, no one likes it when some dude from an un-important country somewhere outside of gods favoured land points out the blindingly obvious 'bad' traits of its culture and people. This is fair enough too, for what would an outsider truely know? now i know nothing about the land of the free and so i bite my tongue, I argue that you should do the same, be respectful and try to help out. 

this dude has explained that he is starting out, so why would you openly mock and discourage the man who is trying to make something out of nothing, building from the ground up is how business works. while you are masturbating over your 9th canon lens he is actually trying to get something out there.

what i am trying to say is, if its bad, be constructive. it helps alot, afterall one is more likely to take advice from a considerate and fair man over a bitter man. 

And how come you are so quick to jump on a guy in this instance, yet when someone posts an awful photo of some kid you all go "ooohhh nice TRYYY!! maybe try this and that then re post and we are happy to hold your hand alllll day long! xxoxoxox"

I mean c'mon, it has become obvious that a large portion of why you dislike the image is because of its content. This has happened on several occasions, you have let yourself become blinded by prejudice and as a result have come across as a bunch of... well frankly...Americans.

no no no _that's_ unfair, Im sorry, more like a bunch of Nazis.

oh and one more thing, if read properly you will notice that the first post explains that the photographer is not the t-shirt designer. good on ya from 'slamming' him for that.



god speed and all that ****.


----------



## PHILLIP MAC (Nov 8, 2009)

Listen man the lighting is s**t it should be a lot softer and come from a lot higher I f I were you I'd let god do the difficult bit and shoot outside on a big boulder or something.


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 8, 2009)

There is nothing in this picture that would sell the target product- t-shirts. The subject looks like he's about to get his ass kicked outside the Apollo Theater for dressing like that.


----------



## robdavis305 (Nov 8, 2009)

I can sum it up in one word *CRAP*


----------



## TJ K (Nov 8, 2009)

jealous said:


> hehe my bad for SLAMMING the ol' yanks, i was just doing what everyone else does. Sorry bout that - bit sheepish of me!
> getting back to the image though, I cant help but ask why people who dont understand a culture would be so disrespectful towards it? YES snowboarding is different from skiing, and no just because they wear 'baggy trousers' this does not make them stupid ok?
> and to then claim that you are giving advice from one business man to another (very noble) I would still ask why you would stick your ignorant face in the matter of clothing style instead of sticking to something you are actually aware of (or atleast claim to be aware of) which is photography yes? cool , great stuff.
> 
> ...



I'm a snowboarder and quite aware of the culture. Most snowboarders don't talk around with 4XL jackets and pants touching their knees when they're the size of a crackhead. My gear is a bit baggy but that's where most people leave it. I just think overall it's a bad picture. Bad lighting, bad model, bad choice of clothing yes overdoing this so called culture that you know so much about. If you're advertising a shirt I recommend maybe just the boarding pants of some jeans and the shirt. Loose the jacket and all the other crap that completely gets people lost and they don't even know what your product is because you don't make everything he's wearing just the shirt.
tj


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 8, 2009)

jealous said:


> hehe my bad for SLAMMING the ol' yanks, i was just doing what everyone else does. Sorry bout that - bit sheepish of me!
> getting back to the image though, I cant help but ask why people who dont understand a culture would be so disrespectful towards it? YES snowboarding is different from skiing, and no just because they wear 'baggy trousers' this does not make them stupid ok?


I like how you throw this "culture" thing around. I do like how you defend a culture that was borrowed from another group of people.


> and to then claim that you are giving advice from one business man to another (very noble) I would still ask why you would stick your ignorant face in the matter of clothing style instead of sticking to something you are actually aware of (or atleast claim to be aware of) which is photography yes? cool , great stuff.


I wasn't offering advice on clothing style. The ONE design offered is pretty cool. The photo is very unflattering. Isn't that the constructive criticism the OP was looking for? On that, I wasn't sticking my "ignorant face" on the matter of clothing style. I was sticking my experienced face on something that I AM aware of, and that would be marketing. You are making the assumption that because I am on a photo forum, that that is all I know, or that is my business. Guess again.





> so, I hate to get all defensive but I must ask those who are not aware of the meaning and even traditions within a given culture, to bite thier tongue and simply offer helpful advice. afterall, no one likes it when some dude from an un-important country somewhere outside of gods favoured land points out the blindingly obvious 'bad' traits of its culture and people. This is fair enough too, for what would an outsider truely know? now i know nothing about the land of the free and so i bite my tongue, I argue that you should do the same, be respectful and try to help out.


 I don't know why you are all defensive about this "culture" thing that YOU brought to the table in the first place, and then proceeded to put down others. Yeah, that's class, man. Try to remember to be above the very thing you abhor, or you come off as a hypocrite.



> this dude has explained that he is starting out, so why would you openly mock and discourage the man who is trying to make something out of nothing, building from the ground up is how business works. while you are masturbating over your 9th canon lens he is actually trying to get something out there.


 Can you go into detail about your knowledge of how business works? What actual experience do you have in starting a business? 



> what i am trying to say is, if its bad, be constructive. it helps alot, afterall one is more likely to take advice from a considerate and fair man over a bitter man.


 I could offer a ton of constructive criticism from a business stand point but something tells me it would go unheard. Judging from your responses, you would be the first to turn a deaf ear.



> And how come you are so quick to jump on a guy in this instance, yet when someone posts an awful photo of some kid you all go "ooohhh nice TRYYY!! maybe try this and that then re post and we are happy to hold your hand alllll day long! xxoxoxox"


 Product photography is very different from artistic expression. 
Plenty of advice was given in this thread. Don't know what more you want. I'd suggest the OP start browsing the web, and really look at fashion/apparel product photography, and compare his own images to what he sees proffessionally done, and then try to emulate what he sees.
A lot of learning can be done on ones own just by looking at the very thing one is trying to achieve.




> I mean c'mon, it has become obvious that a large portion of why you dislike the image is because of its content. This has happened on several occasions, you have let yourself become blinded by prejudice and as a result have come across as a bunch of... well frankly...Americans.


Prejudice? Really? That's the card you are going to play in defense of a terrible fashion photograph? Name calling too? 



> no no no _that's_ unfair, Im sorry, more like a bunch of Nazis.


This is epic fail, and you know it.
You ran out of ammunition and are reduced to scraping the bottom of the barrel to pull out Nazis? ROFLMFAO.



> oh and one more thing, if read properly you will notice that the first post explains that the photographer is not the t-shirt designer. good on ya from 'slamming' him for that.


Who was knocking the T-shirt design? What was slammed was the website (which the OP volunteered the link) which states the entrepreneur has ideas "coming out the dome", yet only has one item for sale. From a business standpoint, you don't launch a site promoting ideas that have yet to come to fruition. You launch the site when you actually have a line of products to sell.







> god speed and all that ****.


What do you know about God?


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

Wow.  Some of you are quite a bit ridiculous.  Small wonder the OP hasn't revisted this thread.  Where are the mods to clean up nonsense when you need them?

OP, if you even care to wade through the miasma of bull**** and ego-stroking to get to this point. . .don't.  You already got the best advice within the first couple of posts.  Take the model OUTSIDE, and place them within the context of the product's intended audience.  Also the model is quite obviously NOT a model, so don't have him (or her if there are hers available) try to act like one.  I find people who don't know how to model clothes do better when they aren't modeling, but rather acting goofy or bringing their own character to a photo-"scene" - do that here.  Get some of his buddies, put them in the clothing and let them go loose. 

And on to the clothing.  From this photograph, I don't know what your company actually sells: the t-shirt, the cap, the jacket?  The t-shirt is lost in the mountain of clothing.  You obviously have access to slopes and what not, so take a brave soldier there, put him in nothing but jeans and the t-shirts and have him do some I dunno, kids on snowboard type moves - accentuate the t-shirt alone: "Snowboard.  Arsenic Apparel.  What else do you need?" - or something like that. You guys are college kids surely you can come up with something cheeky like that.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 8, 2009)

Get an account on Model Mayhem.  Find a pretty model willing to word for a tear sheet/trade.  Put her in your shirt, outside with a thong bottom on.  Use a strobe like a speedlite to get things looking bold and crisp.  Come in tight on the shot, focusing not on her full body, but the upper half and the shirt.  Put a crazy stocking cap or goggles on her to give it a snowboarding feel.

Looking at the pic I would have no idea what part of the clothing he's wearing is your product.  Coat?  Pants?  Or the shirt?  Well, I know it's the shirt but the point is that it would be lost on the viewer.  Isolate the shirt and put it on someone pretty... you know, like most other advertisements in this world.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

Well that would be a wonderful way to alienate half the buying populace. . .not to mention being cliche and cheesy.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 8, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Well that would be a wonderful way to alienate half the buying populace. . .not to mention being cliche and cheesy.


You've been working in advertising for how many years now?

That's what I thought.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

Good to know your reliance on logical fallacies is alive and well. 

And the idea is still cheesy.  If there were any irony meant in the description, then sure I can see how it would work - however I think you meant that completely serious; you surely see where the cheesy and cliche label comes from.  Its an advertisement for (one would presume) gender neutral snowboarding t-shirts, not a photograph for the Chi Delt's annual tits and ass calendar.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 8, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Good to know your reliance on logical fallacies is alive and well.
> 
> And the idea is still cheesy. If there were any irony meant in the description, then sure I can see how it would work - however I think you meant that completely serious; you surely see where the cheesy and cliche label comes from. Its an advertisement for (one would presume) gender neutral snowboarding t-shirts, not a photograph for the Chi Delt's annual tits and ass calendar.


So, once again, please tell the class how many years you've worked in advertising.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

Sad that your response to criticism is still the same tired defensive posturing.  Tsk.  

In any case, I'm sure the OP (and most people in general) is wise enough - without having the benefit of these mythical "years in advertising" you've developed a Hard Johnson for - to recognize the ridiculousness of a tits and ass ad for a T-shirt company  looking to sell product to the entire population.  

I would also hope you do NOT have any advertising experience as such a suggestion would seem to indicate a total lack of understanding of your craft.


----------



## o hey tyler (Nov 8, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> not a photograph for the Chi Delt's annual tits and ass calendar.



Link plz?


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

o hey tyler said:


> ANDS! said:
> 
> 
> > not a photograph for the Chi Delt's annual tits and ass calendar.
> ...



Private forum.  I'm so so sorry. . .


----------



## o hey tyler (Nov 8, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Private forum.  I'm so so sorry. . .



My heart! She is broken! :cry:


----------



## inTempus (Nov 8, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Sad that your response to criticism is still the same tired defensive posturing.  Tsk.
> 
> In any case, I'm sure the OP (and most people in general) is wise enough - without having the benefit of these mythical "years in advertising" you've developed a Hard Johnson for - to recognize the ridiculousness of a tits and ass ad for a T-shirt company  looking to sell product to the entire population.
> 
> I would also hope you do NOT have any advertising experience as such a suggestion would seem to indicate a total lack of understanding of your craft.



Ahh, more of your childish personal attacks.  How ironic given your first post in this thread.  

I would love to answer your taunts in the same childish manner, but I have something you lack - common sense.


----------



## o hey tyler (Nov 8, 2009)

Them'r some fightin' words!


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Nov 8, 2009)

jealous said:


> hehe my bad for SLAMMING the ol' yanks, i was just doing what everyone else does. Sorry bout that - bit sheepish of me!
> getting back to the image though, I cant help but ask why people who dont understand a culture would be so disrespectful towards it? YES snowboarding is different from skiing, and no just because they wear 'baggy trousers' this does not make them stupid ok?
> and to then claim that you are giving advice from one business man to another (very noble) I would still ask why you would stick your ignorant face in the matter of clothing style instead of sticking to something you are actually aware of (or atleast claim to be aware of) which is photography yes? cool , great stuff.
> 
> ...




He asked for criticism and got it. Treatment of the subject is part of photography. Getting a proper job done is also part of photography. That picture, if published, especially as an ad, could be fatal to a business.
And, yes, wearing pants that way is only done by someone very stupid.
Check the advice of the great photographers. What makes a photograph is the subject. Content is everything.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 8, 2009)

o hey tyler said:


> Them'r some fightin' words!


Oh, that crazy ANDS! just loves a good flame war.

You see, my comments about the ad to pimp the t-shirts was actually made somewhat tongue in cheek.  I wasn't being all that serious.  But I *knew* if I suggested something like that, ANDS! absolutely couldn't resist making a snarky comment or two directed at me.

What cracks me up is the direction in which he took his rebuttal.  He's actually saying that sex in advertising doesn't work or is the product of an inept advertising campaign.

Really?  Such a notion is so amazingly ignorant it's staggering.  Pretty women have been used throughout modern history to sell things, with great effectiveness.  I thought he was kidding at first.  While I know he's often argumentative just for the sake of being a jerk, I didn't think he was actually this out of touch with reality.

I mean, would someone use sex to sell a hand bag?  Certainly not!  How ignorant!  Any advertising exec who would propose such a ludicrous concept should be fired for being inept at his craft!

That would be almost as bad as if someone used a pretty girl to advertise a computer product.  What kind of moron would do that?

God only knows sex has never been used to sell clothing.

Seriously, it would be kind of like using a pretty girl to sell candy or something.  

ANDS! couldn't resist making snarky comments about my profession when I never said anything about what I did for a living.  I simply asked what experience he has in advertising that would qualify his opinion that using a pretty girl in an ad targeting 20-somethings was off base.  His rebuttal was to attack me.

ANDS! is always good for a good chuckle, this one just happens to be better than most.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 8, 2009)

Oh crud inTempus---I just bought my wife a fancy new purse and a new Mac OS computer,and ordered a carton of Pez candy,thanks to those doggone links you just provided.

As far as my earlier post in the thread--I offered some advice, in the same vernacular and tone as the Arsenic dude was using. The shot of the guy standing on a white bed sheet, wearing a ski jacket, bibs, boots, and an oversized T was *awful*. If they are going to sell ski wear,and shoot advertising photos, they need to shoot the photos professionally. Or even semi-professionally!

To my Kiwi detractor and anti-American taunter--I did give the kid some advice. Namely, that the photo looked very amateurish, and he needs to THINK deeply, inside his head, and not go with the ideas just poppin' out of his dome. And he needs to have quality photos, or his two-man operation will indeed stay "small". It's very easy to shoot fashion shots outdoors on the slopes; the lighting is good, and there's plenty of fill light. Ski wear looks good shot on the slopes, but it looks like cvap when lighted with one eBay light plugged in and stuck near the subject.

There are probably five or six easy ways to approach the T-shirt market. A simple "pack shot", with the T-shirt shown flat on a white seamless sweep would look better than some horrible,atrocious shot of a kid standing on top of a coffee table with a bedsheet thrown over it...a cute girl wearing the shirt, a la Snorg Tees would be a winner...a handsome looking 20-something male model wearing the T-shirt while standing next to a cute girl who happens to be *looking at him* in a "good way" would make the orders come piling in--but the shot of a kid in a jacket,bibs,and boots, looking like a dork is a serious, grave mistake--a deadly poisonous advertising shot. Like Arsenic,bro.


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 8, 2009)

Sex sells everything... even Disney products.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

> You see, my comments about the ad to pimp the t-shirts was actually made somewhat tongue in cheek. I wasn't being all that serious. But I knew if I suggested something like that, ANDS! absolutely couldn't resist making a snarky comment or two directed at me.



So basically - your posting habit is dictacted by the response of others.  Fabulous.  And of COURSE you weren't being serious; how convenient for your crass, cliche, objectifying suggestion.



> Sex sells everything... even Disney products.



They at least have the common sense to do it with some bit of subtlety.  As soon as they start sending out Miley Cyrus in a t-back thong, then we can start worrying.  Until then, sex/sensuality in advertising is not equivalent to simple minded T&A shots.  



> He's actually saying that sex in advertising doesn't work or is the product of an inept advertising campaign.



Only you are saying that kid.  Your suggestion isn't sexy.  It's a cheap go-to for someone without any ideas.  Please though, continue to think otherwise - I'm sure you're going to go far.  Most people I'm sure are possessed of enough common sense to recognize the difference between an edgy fashion shoot and a bloody T-shirt ad for local college students.  If the OP was going for the crass, boorish   T&A crowd then I'm sure his first choice wouldn't have been Mr. Sausage In My Pants to begin with; see those are the things one susses out when we actually READ.



> I simply asked what experience he has in advertising that would qualify his opinion that using a pretty girl in an ad targeting 20-somethings was off base. His rebuttal was to attack me.



My rebuttal was actually to point out the, continued, use of a logical fallacy.  But then you'd consider running into a red-light on a busy street a personal attack against yourself.


----------



## jealous (Nov 8, 2009)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> jealous said:
> 
> 
> > hehe my bad for SLAMMING the ol' yanks, i was just doing what everyone else does. Sorry bout that - bit sheepish of me!
> ...





i know nothing of god, i dont study/follow things that have thier grounding in fairytales.

I do however agree with your points and thank you for pointing out how stupid I am. my goodness I had not considered the idea of someone not considering my arguments and just telling me im wrong. 
However that IS the classic trait of the western god-fearing man so I should have guessed.

I have no problem with the Americans really, you fellas are just too easy to take pot shots at because you bite back so quick. I actually work with a few yanks and they are top fellows indeed.

I shall stop the argument, you can say its because i have no arguments left or something and Ill give you that satisfaction.

though i must say i was rather entertained by the use of "epic fail" and ROFLLAMNSO or whatever that was, you'd make quite a clown my good man.

oh and the nazi thing, well thats subjective and depends on your view of what the term nazi means. though the similarities between the american persecution of Islam and the german persecution of the jews are very ....scary. BUT history is written by the winners so as long as the brits and the yanks win in the mid-east we shall not need to make such a comparison. vietnam was bad enough.. but all that is another topic on some other forum.


back to photography!


oh wow i just noticed the comment about the way pants are worn and how that dictates a mans intellect. brilliant!
we all know from experience that the best way to judge a man is on appearance. rifleman - when's your next cross burning?


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

Oh wow.  Did you just generalize the supposed American attitude on Islam (as if somehow we all take our cues from a single book) with the persecution of the jews (and others) in Nazi controlled Germany.  Wow.  

Up to this point I saw most others responses as reading too much into a joking poster - but with the childish potshot at organized religion and the "you'd make quite a clown" statement - I see you're totally convinced of your position and are quite serious.  What is truly scary, is that your posts now read as the same tired "I'm a progressive student of history" impressionable just out of high-school atheists screeds.    

Well done sir or madam.  Well done.


----------



## SrBiscuit (Nov 8, 2009)

holy **** this thread is ****ed. lol

the op looks like he did a pretty decent job of shooting what would likely be considered low-budget advertising shot. it looks a bit homemade.
im not going to crit the style or the clothes or the "culture".
the shot is sub mediocre. as said before, the lighting is a bit flat, the pose needs improvement, and the setting leaves much to be desired.
i agree with intempus that you should take this shot outside...i wanna see the clothing in its element...blue skies, snowy mtn sides, boards, bindings, and yes...babes. grab a mtn dew and get out there and get EXTREME!

and as far as religion goes...i'd steer clear on the forum if you;d like to maintain your membership. jus' sayin'.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 8, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> So basically - your posting habit is dictacted by the response of others.  Fabulous.  And of COURSE you weren't being serious; how convenient for your crass, cliche, objectifying suggestion.


You got the tables turned on you and now you're going to be snotty.  How predictable. 



> They at least have the common sense to do it with some bit of subtlety.  As soon as they start sending out Miley Cyrus in a t-back thong, then we can start worrying.  Until then, sex/sensuality in advertising is not equivalent to simple minded T&A shots.


Your insistence that my suggestion was a "T&A" shot is funny.  Let's take a closer look at the suggestion, shall we?



> Put her in your shirt, outside with a thong bottom on. Use a strobe like a speedlite to get things looking bold and crisp. Come in tight on the shot, focusing not on her full body, but the upper half and the shirt. Put a crazy stocking cap or goggles on her to give it a snowboarding feel.


Now, he's obviously not selling belly button length shirts, the shirt pictured in the OP will hang well past the "A" on a model.  I assume it will also cover her "T".  I also say focus not on her whole body, but the upper half - you know, the face and well... the shirt.  This really isn't all that suggestive, certainly not in the way you keep pretending it is.  I don't know about you, but I don't personally find t-shirts to be particularly revealing.



> Only you are saying that kid.


I'm 41, how old are you?



> Your suggestion isn't sexy.  It's a cheap go-to for someone without any ideas.  Please though, continue to think otherwise - I'm sure you're going to go far.


Little ANDS! is all riled up and now he wants to play school yard bully.  Well, the ugly truth is you play the school yard bully in just about every thread you pollute.

Am I going far?  A lot further than you apparently.  I see your bland little office cube in your Flickr port.  You certainly look big time.

As for someone without ideas, that's funny.  On Tuesday I'll be with the rest of the executive management team of my advertising agency at the client site in LA going over the ad campaign for their 2010 model year.  This client is an auto manufacturer.  Apparently I'm creative enough to warrant their retainer.

I can't wait to see what sophomoric comments you come up with regarding my job now.  This should prove to be entertaining.



> Most people I'm sure are possessed of enough common sense to recognize the difference between an edgy fashion shoot and a bloody T-shirt ad for local college students.


Judging by your port I would say you know little to nothing about fashion shoots.  



> If the OP was going for the crass, boorish   T&A crowd then I'm sure his first choice wouldn't have been Mr. Sausage In My Pants to begin with; see those are the things one susses out when we actually READ.


For someone that thinks he's so amazingly literate, you certainly fumbled the ball reading my comments.



> My rebuttal was actually to point out the, continued, use of a logical fallacy.  But then you'd consider running into a red-light on a busy street a personal attack against yourself.


Logical fallacy... now THAT'S ironic coming from you.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 8, 2009)

SrBiscuit said:


> i agree with intempus that you should take this shot outside...i wanna see the clothing in its element...blue skies, snowy mtn sides, boards, bindings, and yes...babes. grab a mtn dew and get out there and get EXTREME!


Apparently you know the target demographic better than ANDS!, and anyone else who has been at that age.    I mean, what 20-something who's into extreme sports would care about pretty girls?


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 8, 2009)

My god but you're dense.  See that there - that could be construed as a personal attack.



> Your insistence that my suggestion was a "T&A" shot is funny. Let's take a closer look at the suggestion, shall we?



Your suggestion is empty-headed T&A for the sake of T&A.  That "sexy" to you translates to a thong and a pretty girl, is sad without need for explanation.  



> Now, he's obviously not selling belly button length shirts, the shirt pictured in the OP will hang well past the "A" on a model. I assume it will also cover her "T". I also say focus not on her whole body, but the upper half - you know, the face and well... the shirt.



And yet you seem to think a thong is somehow the best way to osculate the idea of this company with the GENERAL public.  Now if the thong isn't the point, why suggest it in the first place?  Or did you forget what you were typing halfway through?



> Am I going far? A lot further than you apparently. I see your bland little office cube in your Flickr port. You certainly look big time.



Big time for what?  Going far where?  Oh my this is getting good.  It's sad how much you internalize these message boards.  Is your self-esteem so low that every thread becomes a matter of pride to you?  Are you so devoid of confidence that no small amount of criticism can be taken, and refuted, with a modicum of partiality on your part befitting a so-called "professional"?  No.  I didn't think so.  That you would go so far as to troll through someones personal photographs for something - ANYTHING - to use as an insult speaks far greater about your failings than what you suppose are mine.  



> Logical fallacy... now THAT'S ironic coming from you.



Do you KNOW what a logical fallacy is?  I'm genuinely asking.  Because you realize an ad hominem attack (which you just did) is a fallacy, as well as your (supposed) appeal to authority (and the reverse, demanding someone demonstrate their own).  Nevermind.  Wasted on you old foggies.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 8, 2009)

Holy crap.  This thread sucks.  Sure brought out the worst in everyone...


----------



## inTempus (Nov 8, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> My god but you're dense.  See that there - that could be construed as a personal attack.


One of several.



> Your suggestion is empty-headed T&A for the sake of T&A.  That "sexy" to you translates to a thong and a pretty girl, is sad without need for explanation.


What's sad is that even when the obvious is explained you *still* don't get it.



> And yet you seem to think a thong is somehow the best way to osculate the idea of this company with the GENERAL public.  Now if the thong isn't the point, why suggest it in the first place?  Or did you forget what you were typing halfway through?


A thong that's in essence invisible, covered by the t-shirt.  You go from massive baggy pants (OP's pic) which are distracting to nothing but a pretty face and the item for sale - this shirt.  And here I am, once again, explaining something you would *think* you would get the 3rd or 4th time around.



> Is your self-esteem so low that every thread becomes a matter of pride to you?  Are you so devoid of confidence that no small amount of criticism can be taken, and refuted, with a modicum of partiality on your part befitting a so-called "professional"?  No.  I didn't think so.  That you would go so far as to troll through someones personal photographs for something - ANYTHING - to use as an insult speaks far greater about your failings than what you suppose are mine.


Touchy about how much of your personal life you put on the web?  I found your office pics many moons ago when I first visited your Flickr profile.  If you don't want it shared, well, don't share it.  Is everyone insecure that visits your Flickr page?  Until a moment ago, you were quite proud of it with your signature line and all.  



> Nevermind.  Wasted on you old foggies.


I went from "kid" to an "old foggie". I guess something good comes from this latest insult... If nothing else, it proves you can at least glean something from the text you read.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 9, 2009)




----------



## fokker (Nov 9, 2009)

I tend to agree that a pretty girl mostly naked bar a t-shirt would help in the selling of said t-shirt. Apparently advertisers have been using this little known fact to sell us consumers their wares for like 100 years.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 9, 2009)

> Touchy about how much of your personal life you put on the web? I found your office pics many moons ago when I first visited your Flickr profile. If you don't want it shared, well, don't share it. Is everyone insecure that visits your Flickr page? Until a moment ago, you were quite proud of it with your signature line and all.



Oh dear.  Way to take that and make it about me Kyle.  If I didn't want it shared why would I have a huge ass banner in my sig linking to my personal Flickr page?  Be aware, not everyone takes everything as a personal insult as you do.  I am unsurprised however that you would miss the fact that you were being called out on the lameness of YOUR attempt at an insult - one which still has little meaning.  I work/worked in an office.  Heavens.  With cubicles in them - why I never!  

So congratulations, you didn't troll through it recently - you remembered it "moons" ago and so powerful was the image that it stayed with you.  Why - I'm quite honored actually.  Thank you.



> A thong that's in essence invisible, covered by the t-shirt.



Great.  Then why not just put her in a trash bag covered in banana peels and orange rhinds?  Essentially serves the same purpose.  To recap, you made the suggestion (the easy, trite and tired suggestion) to advertise "sexy" by taking the model outside and putting them in a snowboard/ski environment doing snowboard/ski-things.  Of course that was what how many people already suggested to do - Oh wait.  I forgot your tweak.  Make it "sexy" - slap a thong on the ass of that lass - an INVISIBLE THONG!&#8482;  Fabulous.  Ad campaign saved.  Perhaps the reason you are reexplaining yourself, is because much of what you type is a meandering mess meant to maintain your ego on a message board?


----------



## jealous (Nov 9, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Oh wow.  Did you just generalize the supposed American attitude on Islam (as if somehow we all take our cues from a single book) with the persecution of the jews (and others) in Nazi controlled Germany.  Wow.
> 
> Up to this point I saw most others responses as reading too much into a joking poster - but with the childish potshot at organized religion and the "you'd make quite a clown" statement - I see you're totally convinced of your position and are quite serious.  What is truly scary, is that your posts now read as the same tired "I'm a progressive student of history" impressionable just out of high-school atheists screeds.
> 
> Well done sir or madam.  Well done.





thankyou!!

ok, thanks everyone for the responses and taking the time to add their opinion (of which we are all entitled to!)

now can I please ask all those involved to give me verbal permission to use written statements, quoted as a part of my uni paper? you may not even feature but just in case. I am researching the effect that distance and relative safety and anonymity has on ones judgement when confronted with one who are in disagreement. The purpose is to discover if the anonymity of the net is a positive or negative thing for the progression of scoiety. my theory is that people feel safe enough to not only disagree, but to completely ignore other, conflicting ideas, thus making these sorts of internet discussions completey negative and almost unhealthy. Face to face one is more likely to, at the very least, listen.

anyway it goes deeper, im trying to to put unneccesarily egocentric philosophical vocab in here so as not to confuse the matter (and indeed, myself).   

sorry to do it this way but if i told you this months ago no one would say how they really felt.

this current verbal fist-fight between ANDs and inTemp..something (sorry) is most revealing indeed! hope you guys are
able to get over the feeling of betrayal and allow me to quote you (in context ofcourse).
the constant attempts to 1up eachother is a psychological minefield! im sorry i really shouldnt say that, but it
is the internet and I can insult whomever i like correct? 
NO! thats the point of this whole thing...


anyway, apologies to those who Ive upset, but as i said, you're American (JOKING! my final hurrah)



peace kids!


----------



## inTempus (Nov 9, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Oh dear.  Way to take that and make it about me Kyle.


It wasn't hard, Bob.  



> If I didn't want it shared why would I have a huge ass banner in my sig linking to my personal Flickr page?


I was wondering the same thing.



> Be aware, not everyone takes everything as a personal insult as you do.


Oh, it's just me.  I've never seen you play similar games with anyone else on the board.  I mean, just look at all the times you've been thanked by your fellow members in some 2k posts.  Your snarky comments are always quite welcomed by your peers on the site, as we can clearly see.



> Thank you.


You're quite welcome.



> Great.  Then why not just put her in a trash bag covered in banana peels and orange rhinds?  Essentially serves the same purpose.  To recap, you made the suggestion (the easy, trite and tired suggestion) to advertise "sexy" by taking the model outside and putting them in a snowboard/ski environment doing snowboard/ski-things.  Of course that was what how many people already suggested to do - Oh wait.  I forgot your tweak.  Make it "sexy" - slap a thong on the ass of that lass - an INVISIBLE THONG!&#8482;  Fabulous.  Ad campaign saved.  Perhaps the reason you are reexplaining yourself, is because much of what you type is a meandering mess meant to maintain your ego on a message board?


I suspect you're only pretending to be this dense.

Let me try to explain this to you one more time.

We have an OP with a picture of a guy with baggy pants, huge ski jacket and lost somewhere in between a t-shirt he's trying to sell.  There are too many distractions in his image to clearly convey, without words, what's being sold.

Solution:  Isolate the product and put it in a savory light.  Draw the viewer in and bring their attention to the product.  You can accent this with a pretty face, as marketers often do.  Open just about any print catalog and take a gander if you doubt this.

Now, the thong wasn't meant to be sexy as you keep pretending. It was meant to be neutral.  That's why I said to focus on her upper half.  The shirt would hang over it.  What little you saw below the shirt would be legs - which are neutral and not distracting.  Sexy?  Perhaps, in a very subtle way.  However, the focus would be on the shirt.  As a side note, you did look at the shirt in the OP's pic, right?  Just how much of a thong do you think you would see under a shirt that hangs to someones knees?  LOL

Hopefully it sunk in this time, but I know it didn't.  You're incapable of having a normal conversation.  All you can do is pretend to be better than everyone else and to talk down to people.  Even when cornered on your complete lack of marketing/advertising experience you continue to pretend you know more about it than a guy who's done it for 15+ years.

I haven't meandered all over the place.  To the contrary I've remained quite consistent.  You, on the other hand, are desperately looking for an angle to further attack my "concept"... 

As for egos, .  When is the last time you apologized for your part in one of these flame wars?  When is the last time you admitted you were wrong *about anything*?  You don't have it in you.  

Let's not mention your frail little ego won't allow you give someone else the last word.  When is the last time you walked away from a thread such as this without having the last word?  

...and you want to talk about egos.  

Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 9, 2009)

On a final note, as ANDS! will continue this non-sense until the thread is locked, I'll further illustrate my point about ANDS!'s ego by making this my last post on the subject.

Who wants to bet ANDS! won't be able to resist urge of firing a parting shot?  Will he be able to walk away?  Or will his ego get the best of him?


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 9, 2009)

Do you 2 think you're moving the original discussion forward? Your little flame wars should be taken to PMs and off the public forums. This kind of activity turns off a lot of people... especially newcomers. 

You 2 don't like each other... we get it. Use the forums ignore feature. It works.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 9, 2009)

DennyCrane said:


> Do you 2 think you're moving the original discussion forward? Your little flame wars should be taken to PMs and off the public forums. This kind of activity turns off a lot of people... especially newcomers.
> 
> You 2 don't like each other... we get it. Use the forums ignore feature. It works.


Did you catch my last post?


----------



## DennyCrane (Nov 9, 2009)

inTempus said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> > Do you 2 think you're moving the original discussion forward? Your little flame wars should be taken to PMs and off the public forums. This kind of activity turns off a lot of people... especially newcomers.
> ...


Honestly, no... so, if you decided to end it, my bad. I've been disregarding these flame war post in my subscribed threads out of hand. I don't want to put you on ignore... I think your photography is very good. I'm just tired of wading through middle school fights just to see it.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 9, 2009)

DennyCrane said:


> inTempus said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, no... so, if you decided to end it, my bad. I've been disregarding these flame war post in my subscribed threads out of hand. I don't want to put you on ignore... I think your photography is very good. I'm just tired of wading through middle school fights just to see it.
> ...


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 9, 2009)

> I mean, just look at all the times you've been thanked by your fellow members in some 2k posts.



Oh my.  This is twice that someone has brought up this "Thanked" as some barometer for board positioning.  Anything to quantify your worth I suppose.



> I suspect you're only pretending to be this dense.



Blast!  Now I regret using dense. . .you're just going to run it into the ground aren't you.  Do be a dear and make sure you're using it properly.  



> Let me try to explain this to you one more time.



Pins and needles!



> We have an OP with a picture of a guy with baggy pants, huge ski jacket and lost somewhere in between a t-shirt he's trying to sell. There are too many distractions in his image to clearly convey, without words, what's being sold.
> 
> Solution: Isolate the product and put it in a savory light. Draw the viewer in and bring their attention to the product. You can accent this with a pretty face, as marketers often do. Open just about any print catalog and take a gander if you doubt this.



Oh damnit:



> Take the model OUTSIDE, and place them within the context of the product's intended audience. Also the model is quite obviously NOT a model, so don't have him (or her if there are hers available) try to act like one. I find people who don't know how to model clothes do better when they aren't modeling, but rather acting goofy or bringing their own character to a photo-"scene" - do that here. Get some of his buddies, put them in the clothing and let them go loose.
> 
> And on to the clothing. From this photograph, I don't know what your company actually sells: the t-shirt, the cap, the jacket? The t-shirt is lost in the mountain of clothing. You obviously have access to slopes and what not, so take a brave soldier there, put him in nothing but jeans and the t-shirts and have him do some I dunno, kids on snowboard type moves - accentuate the t-shirt alone: "Snowboard. Arsenic Apparel. What else do you need?" - or something like that. You guys are college kids surely you can come up with something cheeky like that.



Well you tried I suppose.



> It was meant to be neutral.



To 51% of the population.



> Even when cornered on your complete lack of marketing/advertising experience you continue to pretend you know more about it than a guy who's done it for 15+ years.



How many films has Roger Ebert made again. . .I keep losing track.


----------



## o hey tyler (Nov 9, 2009)

Just for the record, I only buy products in supermarkets that has half naked women on the label. It just feels "right" to me. 

Needless to say, I normally eat/drink Saint Pauli Girl.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 9, 2009)

o hey tyler said:


> Just for the record, I only buy products in supermarkets that has half naked women on the label. It just feels "right" to me.
> 
> Needless to say, I normally eat/drink Saint Pauli Girl.



That might get limiting when it comes time to buy diapers. . .  Bam!  I got it.  Toss a baby-thong and a Papmers tee on that newborn.  InTempus Advertising 101.  My god.  A revolution is starting.  Can you feelz its?


----------



## o hey tyler (Nov 9, 2009)

I can feel it in my loins. Just like when I look at a National Geographic specials on nude aborigines.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 9, 2009)

inTempus said:


> On a final note, as ANDS! will continue this non-sense until the thread is locked, I'll further illustrate my point about ANDS!'s ego by making this my last post on the subject.
> 
> Who wants to bet ANDS! won't be able to resist urge of firing a parting shot?  Will he be able to walk away?  Or will his ego get the best of him?



At risk of perpetuating this ridiculous thread, I have to say that that is among the lamest closing arguments I've ever heard.  It's all classic 5th grade arguing technique.

For one, you decide you want out of the conversation, so you decide to call it non-sense and and act as if you're above it and ANDS! is so full of non-sense, trying to act like you're above this foolishness, even though you're 50% of the problem.  Like, 'This game is stupid, I didn't want ot play anyways.'

Then, you lay out this lose/lose ultimatum for ANDS! while at the same time proving that you are no different than he is.  You try to call him out saying that he can't resist posting back in response.  But what this really means is that you in fact want the last word that you're accusing him of egotistical to let go of.  Either he doesn't take the bait, and you get the last word, satisfying your equally sized ego; or he replies, to which you get to say, "Oh ANDS!, couldn't let it go, huh?  Looks like you and your big ego had to get the last word."

Then lastly, trying to rally everyone to your side of things, so that you can have majority rule, and then goading on the response you pretend to decry, but are in fact hoping for.

To be honest, I didn't read much of the flame war, but it was pretty obvious that you spent most of you time using the classic dirtbag lawyer technique of, make personal attacks on the witness and trying and make them look bad, then no one will care if what they say is in fact true or not.  I think your photography is really good, but I have to say, threads like this make me lose a lot of respect for you.


----------



## syphlix (Nov 9, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> Holy crap.  This thread sucks.  Sure brought out the worst in everyone...



:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:


----------



## inTempus (Nov 9, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> At risk of perpetuating this ridiculous thread, I have to say that that is among the lamest closing arguments I've ever heard.  It's all classic 5th grade arguing technique.


Talk about your typical "5th grader" type excuse for inserting yourself into a thread that everyone here would like to see drift to the bottom of the stack.   "I don't really want to do this, but darn it, I can't resist".

I thought it would be appropriate to move this little gem up to the top.



GeneralBenson said:


> To be honest, I didn't read much of the flame war,


That's obvious.



> For one, you decide you want out of the conversation, so you decide to call it non-sense and and act as if you're above it and ANDS! is so full of non-sense, trying to act like you're above this foolishness, even though you're 50% of the problem.  Like, 'This game is stupid, I didn't want ot play anyways.'


I will admit I was part of the problem.  I apologized for my part in it.  Yet in you stroll to try and fan the flames all the while you pretended like you're above it all. 

Again, talk about your classic "5th grader" excuses for poor behavior.



> Then, you lay out this lose/lose ultimatum for ANDS! while at the same time proving that you are no different than he is.  You try to call him out saying that he can't resist posting back in response.  But what this really means is that you in fact want the last word that you're accusing him of egotistical to let go of.  Either he doesn't take the bait, and you get the last word, satisfying your equally sized ego; or he replies, to which you get to say, "Oh ANDS!, couldn't let it go, huh?  Looks like you and your big ego had to get the last word."


One little problem with your assessment, I saw ANDS!'s posts right after he made them yet I didn't "gloat" or say anything about his posts.  So, you're wrong. Oops.

As for the whole ego thing, in your haste to post without reading the thread (by your own admission) you over looked the fact it was ANDS! that called my ego into question initially.  I simply responded in kind.  I realize I shouldn't have, but hey... I'm only a human bean.  <--- that's a joke



> Then lastly, trying to rally everyone to your side of things, so that you can have majority rule, and then goading on the response you pretend to decry, but are in fact hoping for.


You obviously have no idea how these things work.  I could couldn't care less what you, or anyone else thinks about my conversation with ANDS!.  It was between me and ANDS! as far as I'm concerned.  I wasn't trying to win anyone over.  I've been posting here long enough to know something you don't - rarely do people insert themselves into these little battles and take up sides.  It would be a fools errand to engage in such a debate for the purpose of trying to win people over to your side of the argument.

***Poof!***

Now, can we let this thread die already?


----------



## kundalini (Nov 9, 2009)

Gee-zah-hus-krist.  What a load of bollucks.  It&#8217;s precisely threads such as this that keeps my skinny little ass away from TPF.  Have I read every single response in here?  Hell no&#8230;. I don&#8217;t need or want to.  It&#8217;s the same old dribble just coming out of a different stream of spit.  Talk about oversized, pompous and arrogant egomania and having to get in the last word, much like a 5th grader.  This happens all too often and I find it extremely boring, not adding any value to the forum in general and usually derails so bad that the OP probably never gets their questions answered because two or three people can&#8217;t be adults.  And I ain&#8217;t talking about ANDS!.  If some actually paid attention, he has nuggets of truth (and humor) that go beyond some people&#8217;s ability to comprehend.  

If someone gets offended from what I just wrote&#8230;. Good, write me off and then grow a pair.  This is not up for debate.


To the OP, I don&#8217;t say this lightly and I don&#8217;t say this often.  For a commercial photo, the one you posted really does suck&#8230; big fat hairy ones.  I have a bucket load myself.  I don&#8217;t know how the rest of your portfolio looks so this isn&#8217;t a slam on your photography in general, but glean from the obvious crits that will help you on your re-shoot.  You are going to re-shoot, right?


----------



## inTempus (Nov 9, 2009)

kundalini said:


> Gee-zah-hus-krist.  What a load of bollucks.  Its precisely threads such as this that keeps my skinny little ass away from TPF.


...yet you swoop in for this little nugget of a post.  Take a quick poop and leave, eh?

Brilliant.  Glad you could join us.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 9, 2009)

I'll just go ahead and say that I apologize for posting what was an unnecessary extension of this thread.  I also apologize that my comments were needlessly caustic and shouldn't have been focused on any single person.  And in so doing, I was no different than any others involved.  I mean that.  We all suck.  The internet is a horrible horrible place, filled with very bad people.


----------



## inTempus (Nov 9, 2009)

GeneralBenson said:


> I'll just go ahead and say that I apologize for posting what was an unnecessary extension of this thread.  I also apologize that my comments were needlessly caustic and shouldn't have been focused on any single person.  And in so doing, I was no different than any others involved.  I mean that.  We all suck.  The internet is a horrible horrible place, filled with very bad people.


Hehe.  I think we need a support group.


----------



## o hey tyler (Nov 9, 2009)

Hug it out guys... Hug it out.


----------



## GeneralBenson (Nov 9, 2009)

o hey tyler said:


> Hug it out guys... Hug it out.



That's what I'm saying.  Let's all just share an experience in our lives when felt vulnerable, then each say something encouraging about the other person.  Then we can all stand in a circle, holding testes of the person to your left, while all singing She's a Maniac from Flashdance, accompanied with group interpretive dance.  

Or maybe we can just lock this thread and never speak of it again.


----------



## kundalini (Nov 9, 2009)

My point has been made crystal clear. Thanks.

BTW, I swagger instead of swooping. I also take a man sized dump rather than a quick poop. 

Kumbaya.


----------



## ANDS! (Nov 9, 2009)

I'm pretty god damn amazed at home some people can be historical revisionists - on **** that happened like 24 hours ago.


----------



## Hooker771 (Nov 10, 2009)

inTempus said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > Gee-zah-hus-krist. What a load of bollucks. It&#8217;s precisely threads such as this that keeps my skinny little ass away from TPF.
> ...


----------



## Inst!nct (Nov 10, 2009)

Without judging the subject, the lighting is poor, and the backdrop is distracting, if you need some tips


----------



## kundalini (Nov 10, 2009)

Hooker771 said:


> Says the guy with 6300 posts.


No offense, but with less than 30 days under your belt, I'm afraid you don't have enough history to make such an assertion.  And I consider myself as a short-timer.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 10, 2009)

You've seen better days, haven't you kundalini?


----------



## RMThompson (Dec 9, 2009)

Man how did I miss this thread? Damn.

Anyway, as a teeshirt photographer, I have a bit of experience in this field and I agree with the fact that the photograph itself needs some work. It's technically poor.

However, I also want to make a comment on the composition. I've learned through thousands and thousands of tshirt shots that you have to MINIMIZE what you're not selling. You can't show off all the other clothing in the way you are doing without people assuming you're selling them as well. The jacket is too much. Never have something OVER the item your selling, only under.


----------

