I'd crop this closer to him. That would take the shoes out of it. Maybe even cut off his feet. For portfolio shots, don't think about the rules of photography too much. What you are really after is putting ALL emphasis on the subject. I think the toning is really warm and is very appropriate.
I don't know a whole lot about doing portfolio shots except for what I've read. That putting all the emphasis on the subject thing really makes a whole lot of sense. If I were doing it, I'd approach the shoot as a marketing endeavor as much as I would a photographic endeavor.
Maybe even cut off his feet. For portfolio shots, don't think about the rules of photography too much.
Not sure if it's true, but I think I remember reading somewhere one shouldn't generally chop hands/feet off.. Interested if anyone can confirm or deny that.
Well I was sorta figuring if one is already cut off, chop 'em both to get closer. I wouldn't say do that as a rule or anything. But for this particular photo, I don't think it will seriously dimish the quality of the photo. But no, don't cut them off on purpose... I didn't mean to make it sound like that is an acceptable thing to do.
I agree about the head shots. I've seen so many head shots that go so far as to cut off the top of the head. Right, wrong or otherwise, it happens a lot.
Not sure if it's true, but I think I remember reading somewhere one shouldn't generally chop hands/feet off.. Interested if anyone can confirm or deny that.
hmm, in the UK its illegal!
Agree will all the above, have you tried the pic in B & W?
Thanks everyone. Some really good suggestions. Gonna go back to the darkroom & make some of them happen. Will hit you guys back with the final version(s).
Sorry, I hope the reconstructive surgery is covered by your insurance.
Seriously(?), either get the foot back in the frame or take off more. I've been cropping a lot of pictures to a square when it doesn't fit a standard aspect ratio. Try a square crop ending just below his hands, keeping the shoes out, but the top of his head (and as much above it as you can) in.
The shot would be great if the shoes weren't in it and the subject was further up in the frame. The shoes are a distraction but what distracts me more is the amount of space above his head while at the same time his foot is cut off.
Okie dokie! I remade the original shot, vintage Baz, following the the suggestions given on this thread. It was really good advice & I am pleased with the results. Here they are;
Black and white, a little more contrast and if you like the shoes, keep 'em! I like them, shows his character and if you flick through great magazines [Vanity Fair has some of the best photographers in the world] they usually incorporate objects like that. I say keep them but redo the pic to include his entire foot. Think about it okay? :-)
Okie dokie! I remade the original shot, vintage Baz, following the the suggestions given on this thread. It was really good advice & I am pleased with the results. Here they are;
How are they & which one is better?
I like the Black and White one better, and I think close up is much better to, I also like the shoes too, to bad you can't redo the shot! Even if you had him holding the shoes would be cool.
I like the new-and-improved, cropped version better also. I really don't have much preference on the sepia or B&W, but if forced to choose would probably pick the B&W. Fine portrait work, IMHO.
I've seen so many head shots that go so far as to cut off the top of the head. Right, wrong or otherwise, it happens a lot.
Bob
It's right. When done properly and proportionately it's very flattering. I tried inserting an image from my weekend shoot but it ain't happening so I can't even give you an example here.
