Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Picture Gallery' started by br.avery, Mar 31, 2009.
Tell me what you guys think...
whose the girl?
Is this something you did? And if this is fashion photography, what are you selling? What is the context?
Actual fashion photography usually has clothing to show off.
This reminds me more of Abercrombie & Fitch or something. More like using sex to sell the brand.
It could also be for a fragrance or something else other than clothing. I'd like to know the context here as well. I don't get it.
Very impressive photos, but like the others say, think these shots sell sex rather than clothing...
and sex sells.
To the OP- I'm a Senior Art Director in advertising. If you need any advice, let me know.
I think they are selling water, or sand.
She is cute, and he is too, I guess, for the Gay crowd.
I'll buy what she's wearing in the first photo.
Great-looking pics. The female model has a bit of a bored look in her eyes in the first one, though. The guy's expression is much better, imo.
Photo 1: The first photo has a nice look, but there's no clothes, and unless you're shooting for one of the VERY few brands that have poor ads (I include Abercrombie), you see clothes on the models. Sex sells, but sexyness from people wearing cool clothes will sell clothes. It's all about cool people wearing cool clothes, and doing cool things. The clothing can be messy, covered in sand, and wet just like the models you used. However, the clothes should be there.
I think you should grab a copy of GQ or.....one of the other men's fashion magazines (honestly don't know their names......Esquire, maybe?) and look at the ads. The only magazine I've read over the past while is an Esquire magazine while waiting for an appointment, and the 2009 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. I didn't see any clothing advert that didn't have the product somewhere in the photo.
Photo 2: It's also photographed well, but what I dislike is their stare. It looks like they're posing. It makes the photo seem ingenuine. If the girl were looking at the camera, while the guy was looking at her face (or vice versa), I think it would be better. EDIT: What I said is not as applicable for the first photo, but you could still apply the same thing. You see ads all the time where one person is staring at the camera, and the other person is staring at his/her face. I think it's good the way it is though.
Also, like I said to you in your first thread, I personally hate it when people cut off hands at the wrist, and feet at the ankle. It's just my opinion. In the 2nd photo, you cut her hand where her wrist is.
I think it's absolutely OK to cut off a person's arm mid-bicep, or part-way down the fore-arm. For hands, it's OK to include only part of the hand while leaving out the rest, such as in your 1st photo. For legs, it's OK to cut it off mid-thigh or at the knees. It's even OK to cut off most of one foot but include the other.
I'll admit that it's an old-fashioned rule in photography (although I'm only 28). Since most people feel that there are too many rules in photography to begin with, you may not want to follow it. However, I believe the majority of photographers have very strategic points on the body where they're willing to cut off a limb, and it's not at the ankles and shins.
Look at the GQ links again. Even the photos where the hands or feet are cut off, they're partially visible.
(look at the guy's hand on the left)
(look at the guy on the left, and the little boy)
Otherwise, I like the look.
possibly a NSFW in the title, (or school in my case )
May I ask what they are for? Very good, but I agree on the comment above me about the cut out arm/feet thing, I never noticed it in pictures before, but when they pointed it out, it really seems like its sticking out now. (although don't listen to me, I know nothing about photography)
Very nice. It looks very Abercrombie & Fitch to me. Your photograpy skills are good.
I hate to go against everyone here but Im not a huge fan of these.. Not because of the lack of clothing or any of that mumbo jumbo. With the models looking at the camera and the lighting, it has a feel of them getting busted by the cops, not a feeling of passion and sexiness that should be portrayed in a G&N shot. IMO they should be engaged with each other and if you were to have them look at the camera I would for sure have her drop her chin in hopes to draw the attention to her eyes.
Harsh lighting doubled by levels/HDR look. Is there a reason for it? What are you trying to convey besides voyeurism and surprise?
Trite, overdone and unaesthetically pleasing poses and models. This kind of stuff comes with so much baggage these days (notice the mention of Abercrombie more than once) its not worth using half naked "good looking" people unless there is a reason. Sex sells only works when you are selling something.
No fashion. Change title of thread?
No direction. Again...whats the point? There are so many things done creatively here, but I see no rhyme or reason other than biting off a familiar style which "sells".
When someone says "reminds me of..." unless you are going for that look, you should use that as a reason to tweak the idea.
Dunno about it being "fashion" photography…but it looks perilously close to "glamour" photography…
I agree. Looks like they were trying to have sex on the beach and all of the sudden a cop shined their light on them. The guy also looks constipated in the 2nd picture. Aside from the partially naked chick, it doesn't have much going for it. I'm not an advertising/fashion/photography major... just a consumer. Thats my 2 cents.