# Rainblo- Headshots



## DanOstergren (Mar 4, 2017)

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 (Mar 5, 2017)

Awesome shots! Love it!


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 5, 2017)

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


----------



## Designer (Mar 5, 2017)

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


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 5, 2017)

Designer said:


> #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 (Mar 5, 2017)

.


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 5, 2017)

Designer said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...



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 (Mar 5, 2017)

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 (Mar 5, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> .. 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 (Mar 5, 2017)

Designer said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > .. the thin depth of field is what locks the viewer into the image.
> ...


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


----------



## Designer (Mar 5, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2017)

Designer said:


> . 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 (Mar 5, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > jcdeboever said:
> ...


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 (Mar 5, 2017)

tirediron said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...


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


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 5, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> 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.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 5, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


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


I'm pretty certain it's a chosen name. Thank you.


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 5, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


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


Oh? Interesting. Wonder what the meaning is?


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 5, 2017)

I'm just going to make a general comment in regaurd to Designer's usual stance in my threads, which is to often tell me I don't know what I'm doing, I break rules I don't know how to break, that my photos are usually failures due to one certain technical flaw, and that the only reason my clients could possibly like the image is because I'm good at selling it to them (I should point out that I'm not good at selling anything). This has been his usual opinion in my threads and attitude towards me, I expect it, moving on.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 5, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> 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.


Haha, thank you! It didn't come without a lot of hard work and getting in close with the right people. The eyes actually aren't fuzzy orbs. One is completely tac sharp in focus, however the other one does begin to slightly fall out of focus, but just barely. I wish it didn't and that I did have a slightly wider depth of field in this shot, but I certainly don't think it spoils the shot so I kept it. In hindsight I could have shot at f/5 instead of f/3.5, but I'm not hung up on it.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 5, 2017)

As most of you are aware, shallow DOF portraits are not really my bag... 

That being said...
I have to agree with tirediron here. Both of these shots are well done, and the DOF works for these with the tight crop. 

I don't think these shots are about following or breaking any "rules" of photography. To me, they are just portraits tailored to one person's preferences. 

I have learned to look at other people's work with the same open minded subjectivity that I would like my own work viewed with. It's not a bad way to go really. 

Sent via Synchronized Cardioversion


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 5, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> I'm just going to make a general comment in regaurd to Designer's usual stance in my threads, which is to often tell me I don't know what I'm doing, I break rules I don't know how to break, that my photos are usually failures due to one certain technical flaw, and that the only reason my clients could possibly like the image is because I'm good at selling it to them (I should point out that I'm not good at selling anything). This is his usual stance in my threads and attitude towards me, I expect it, moving on.


Your images are magnificent in my eyes.  I have been shooting for a little over a year (not many portraits though) and I try to learn as much as I can. I got really confused when I read his quick critique. So a few chimed in, including you, so I am back on track. Man, I wish I could shadow you for a day.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 5, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> I have learned to look at other people's work with the same open minded subjectivity that I would like my own work viewed with.


This is such a significant statement, I'm surprised I've never come across it before. I could work on taking this outlook myself. Thank you.


----------



## Designer (Mar 5, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> This is his usual stance in my threads and attitude towards me,


Au contraire.  If you think I pick on you for no good reason, then you're not seeing my critiques for what they are.  Nothing personal, but I do see flaws occasionally, and not only in your photographs.

To me, not capturing a subject's essence when it would have been quite easy to do is a critical error, so I point it out in an effort to help you grow.  

Nothing more.  

Carry on.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 5, 2017)

Designer said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > This is his usual stance in my threads and attitude towards me,
> ...


OK, I failed to capture his essence and the only reason my client likes the image is because I "sold" it to him, carrying on now...


----------



## Designer (Mar 5, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> OK, I failed to capture his essence, carrying on now...


If it would make you feel better, I will refrain from offering any critique in the future.  Lots less typing for me, so I'm o.k. with that.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 5, 2017)

Designer said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > OK, I failed to capture his essence, carrying on now...
> ...


That's up to you.


----------



## smoke665 (Mar 5, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> 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.


----------



## bumkicho (Mar 5, 2017)

Dan, great shots!! Your works speak for themselves.


----------



## beccaf91 (Mar 5, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> 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.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 6, 2017)

bumkicho said:


> Dan, great shots!! Your works speak for themselves.


Thank you.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 6, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > The eyes actually aren't fuzzy orbs.
> ...


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


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 6, 2017)

beccaf91 said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Mar 6, 2017)

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.



DanOstergren said:


> 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 (Mar 7, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > jcdeboever said:
> ...



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.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 8, 2017)

rexbobcat said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...



[emoji119]


Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 8, 2017)

mmaria said:


> oh wonderful world of tpf....
> 
> 
> Dan, these are beautiful and you know it.
> ...



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 (Mar 8, 2017)

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 (Mar 8, 2017)

That is a lot of ink! Ouch!!! 

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


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 10, 2017)

runnah said:


> 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


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 10, 2017)

FITBMX said:


> 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 (Mar 10, 2017)

DanOstergren said:


> 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 (Mar 13, 2017)

jcdeboever said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > jcdeboever said:
> ...


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 (Mar 13, 2017)

nickgillespie said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...


Cool image. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 26, 2017)

nickgillespie said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...


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 (Mar 26, 2017)

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


----------



## frommrstomommy (Mar 27, 2017)

Nice. The  texturing of the skin is amazing.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 28, 2017)

DarkShadow said:


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


Thank you.


----------



## DanOstergren (Mar 28, 2017)

frommrstomommy said:


> Nice. The  texturing of the skin is amazing.


It's his actual skin, I just evened the tones out by dodging and burning.


----------

