Guitarist

[Sebastian]

A friend and fellow PhotographyREVIEW member.

What do you guys think?

[Hightree]

This is a great shot, Seb! I really love the serene b/w. Good job.

Cheers,
Frank

[shesells]

I do like the shot but I have problems with some of it. I think the guitar neck should be a little more brought out. Someone that didn't know the title might think it is some kind of device wrapped around his head. LOL! like S&M or something .heh It's also an awkward way of holding a guitar and seems too set up. Don't get hurt, it's still a good shot and I could only hope to take one like that. I'm sorry but I've been ruined on guitar shots since I saw Amanda's series. I can't get those shots out of my head. Some depth of field would have been nice.
Kit

[Tuna]

Very Nice. I like the placement of the guitar and the perfectly angled subject face where we see just enough of the left eye. Good DOF as too much in portrait shots like this becomes too technical and reduces the expressive element - in fact, in my opinion, it could have used a slightly shallower DOF losing a bit of focus in the left eye. The exposure looks to be pretty good with a hint of blown out whites but not quite - decent tonal range. Beautifully lit - especially the subtle lighting of the guitar contrasting with the main light.

Overall, good work.

Tuna

[Lara]

Hi Seb. I like the pose. A couple of things are distracting me though. The glare on his right eyeglass lens, and I can't see the higher frets. Do either of those bother you?

[opus]

I think you've captured the spirit of Segovia. Well, except for the "electric" guitar part.


It's a nice jazz/classical mood. Very nice shapes you've created with lighting.

[another view]

I had dinner with Sebastian last night, as well as the subject here. You guys should have seen the Olympus dye-sub print that he had of this image! The image here just doesn't do it justice, it doesn't have all the subtleties to it - which is what makes the shot. There's just a little detail missing here and there that does show up in the print. I don't know if it's possible to get all that detail on a monitor though. Looking only at the image on screen here I'd agree with the other comments.
The little bit of dodging that you did looks great. 2:42 a.m.?!

[Elysian]

Although I like the image, I have to admit that the first time I looked at I felt like something wasn't right. I feel that there is too much contrast, or in other words, lack of a broad spectrum of grays. A look at the histogram only confirms this; it's rather flat. If this is what you're after, that's ok with me, but I myself prefer a more dynamic range, for me this looks a bit too artificial.

It is a well balanced composition though and I do like it.

Thanks for sharing.

[Chunk]

A friend and fellow PhotographyREVIEW member.

What do you guys think?

This is great Seb. Just enough of the guitar elements - I like the line of frett ends going down the neck and the elegant line at the edge of the stock.

[Lara]

I had dinner with Sebastian last night, as well as the subject here. You guys should have seen the Olympus dye-sub print that he had of this image! The image here just doesn't do it justice, it doesn't have all the subtleties to it - which is what makes the shot. There's just a little detail missing here and there that does show up in the print. I don't know if it's possible to get all that detail on a monitor though. Looking only at the image on screen here I'd agree with the other comments.
The little bit of dodging that you did looks great. 2:42 a.m.?!

I'm very jealous that you got the chance to meet Sebastian, Steve! I wish I could have seen this photo as you did. My monitor isn't doing it justice.

[Lava Lamp]

A friend and fellow PhotographyREVIEW member.

What do you guys think?

Guitars can be goofy props - placed in the portraits to be artsy but really taking focus from the subject. (I know because I've done it.) Your inclusion of the guitar isn't like that, though. The shadow leaves just enough of the guitar's form to let us know what it is and that's enough. It's sharp lines contrast strangely with the man's relatively soft profile, but it echoes his profile at the same time.

My first thought was that the out of focus eye was a problem, but now I don't think so. If you look at a painting from one of the old masters, you'll see eyes of differnt sizes and slightyly different shapes in the same face. Absolute symmetry isn't real and isn't neccesary in a portrait like this. Looking at it, I realize that you've moved though being able to control your lighting for professional-looking portraits to now creating the portrait you want ot make. This is the sort of soul-catching portrait we're all lokking for, but it might not be mainsteam enough for many.

[Sebastian]

First, for those that are curious, I posted the stup in the lighting forum here.

Second, a bit of info about this shot. I had just been inspired by an article talking about portraits of musicians. The author stated that the first thing he does is take a photo of the musician, and only includes the instrument as a subtle symbol of music's influence of the person. The shot has to be primarily about the person, with the instrument coming in a distant second. So to those suggesting to see more of the guitar, I really didn't want that. It's 100% meant to be subtle.

Shesells,

Relax, I'm not hurt.

Tuna,

Thanks. Regarding the DOF, the lens makes it seem as if his eye is out of focus. A large print shows that is not the case, it all is evenly in focus. The image here is a bit deceiving in that regard. I can see where the shallower DOF might have worked though. For whatever reason, I wanted deep DOF. Now I wish I had tried both just to have a comparison. I'm glad you mention the angles of the face and the guitar. I put a lot of thought into that and it's nice to see it get noticed.

Lara,

The glare, it doesn't bother me. In the past I have not been able to make out lenses without reflection, so since then I have been leaving little reflections that aren't too ditracting. Thouch several people have mentioned this to me, so I think I will try both next time. What re frets?

Kelly,

I had to look up Segovia. Thank you, I learned something new.

Steve,

We didn't get back from the party until 2:30 or so... Did youcatch your friend's band?

Elysian/Joe,

Yes, the contrast was intentional. I was trying to go for a look I got from pushed Ilford films in school. Sort of emulating some of my images from the past.

Chunk,

Thanks as always.

LL,

Thanks. I feel your pain. This image was actually several years in the making after a very dismal attempt at shoting my roommate with his guitar a few years ago. Ever since then I have been waiting for an idea to do something that I felt was different from the rockstar jamming with his axe cliche... After reading that article and being inspired by some lighting in the movie "Minority report" I decided to give this a try.

Thanks everyone. Hopefully this one-post response to everyone makes some sense....

[Lara]

"Lara,

The glare, it doesn't bother me. In the past I have not been able to make out lenses without reflection, so since then I have been leaving little reflections that aren't too ditracting. Thouch several people have mentioned this to me, so I think I will try both next time. What re frets?"

Thanks for the response Seb. I guess eyeglasses can be a big problem, but as you said, you felt the little bit of glare wasn't too distracting. It didn't seem to bother anyone else either.
Frets = the bars that go across the finger board. What I really meant to say, duh! me, was the strings, not the frets. I don't see them on my monitor. But as Steve mentioned, your finished photo is awesome. I'm sure the upload doesn't do it as much justice as it really deserves.

[gahspidy]

My first impression when looking is that I liked it alot. And as I continue to look , I still like it alot The angle is right, the lighting and shadows are what really stands this one out, and the fact that we only see a sort of glimpse or impression of the guitar neck and headstock is effective IMO
As for the eye thing, I think it may have to do with the way the lens of the subjects glasses are showing the eye. It would be different from the closest eye as the light and angle is not quite the same and if you just look at the eye area just over the top of his eye glass lens, you can see how much sharper it would be. This is not at all a problem or distraction for me. . . just seems natural. When I look at any photo, including the professional shots in major publications, it seems there is always something that can be nit pik about. . .but I think the imperfect is where most of the elements of interest and character come from. Great shot, Sebastian

[gmen]

This shot has a style all of its own... it's timeless. Very, very good stuff. I look forward to more of your portraits Sebastian.

[mtbbrian]

I think it is a great portrait. It shows some character, which is a good thing! And from the best I can tell, the sitter is quite a character! ;) Couldn't resist Steve!
I would love to see a print of this.
The reflection dosen't bother me too much.
Brian

[Lara]

I think it is a great portrait. It shows some character, which is a good thing! And from the best I can tell, the sitter is quite a character! ;) Couldn't resist Steve!
I would love to see a print of this.
The reflection dosen't bother me too much.
Brian

Steve? That's not Steve!

[mtbbrian]

Steve? That's not Steve!

Check "another view's" reply..
His name is Steve too!
Who is this if it isn't Another View then?
Brian

[Sebastian]

Brian,

Another View had dinner with me AND the subject...the guy in the photo is Pasqual12.

[Sebastian]

This shot has a style all of its own... it's timeless. Very, very good stuff. I look forward to more of your portraits Sebastian.

Gmen,

Portraits are few and far between here for me, but hopefully that will change soon. It's hard to find the room in a tight apartment with three people...

Thanks for your comments, always appreciated.

[mtbbrian]

Brian,

Another View had dinner with me AND the subject...the guy in the photo is Pasqual12.

I know Steve is into music so I thought it was him!
DOH!
Can I go home now?
Brian

[Sebastian]

My first impression when looking is that I liked it alot. And as I continue to look , I still like it alot The angle is right, the lighting and shadows are what really stands this one out, and the fact that we only see a sort of glimpse or impression of the guitar neck and headstock is effective IMO
As for the eye thing, I think it may have to do with the way the lens of the subjects glasses are showing the eye. It would be different from the closest eye as the light and angle is not quite the same and if you just look at the eye area just over the top of his eye glass lens, you can see how much sharper it would be. This is not at all a problem or distraction for me. . . just seems natural. When I look at any photo, including the professional shots in major publications, it seems there is always something that can be nit pik about. . .but I think the imperfect is where most of the elements of interest and character come from. Great shot, Sebastian

Gary,

I think you and I see "eye to eye" ;) about several things. Any image can be nitpicked to death, but that doesn't always detract from the impact or message.

I'm just glad I finally took one that you like... ;)

[Sebastian]

I know Steve is into music so I thought it was him!
DOH!
Can I go home now?
Brian

If your wife will let you.

[mtbbrian]

If your wife will let you.

She will WANT me to come home..
;) ;)
My boss, another story!
Brian

[Lara]

Uh oh,...look what I started! I knew it wasn't that Steve too Bri!! But I didn't know who it was until now!