Which photo do you prefer?

DotOrg

Did some photos for Dublin band, 20 Bulls Each for promo press packs and or inside cd covers

which one do you prefer and why?

delly

I like the last one cause of the whole depth of field thing with the backround.

Jim

Yeah last one.
They just look like muppets in the other two tbh.

Is the promo those free tracks that were on the site?

kmick

Piture 3
What camera and Lens did you use btw.

DadaKopf

Band promo shots always look ****e anyway.

Two kinds of band photos like that:
(1) Shots by magazine photographers where the photographer uses props or gimmicks to bring out the band's personality, sometimes successfully, but mostly they say more about the photographer's personality than the band's
(2) Shots by amateurs that are really devoid of any semblance of personality. These photos are divided into two sub-categories: happy and moody. Happy metal/wanky bands looks tits. Moody happy bands looks tits. Plus, it reflects zero concept/effort on the part of the photographer.

No offence but I don't like any of them. I never really like any promo shots anyway. I'd much rather look at an interesting photoraph in which the sitter is imaginatively situated, a photo that expresses something a little more unique than "hey, we're fun luvvin' rockers!"

Alternatively, I think gig shots, if done well are much better because that's what bands are all about afterall. But I don't like gig photography either. I prefer backstage photography, of gig shots where the interaction of audience and performer is indicated.

But as for you photos...

#1 makes them look like skangers, but not a band. For all we know, they're four glue sniffers emerging from an underpass having just gone for a collective dump.

#2 is distracting because, I think, there's way too much foreground. It's not that foreground is always bad but the criss-crossing lines of the pavement slabs actually obstructs the eye from finding the subjects. That's annoying and doesn't look good.

#3 It's in colour. But what's the guy on the left looking at? He looks bored or something. The guy smoking seems sharpest in focus but then the other guys at the back look left out because they're blurry. And yer man'd red t-shirt is distracting if it's giving the impression of a whole band you want. So, like the first one, they dont look like a cohesive unit. Plus, I don't like slanty-crazy compositions.

DotOrg

dadakpf: thanks, constructive criticism is really appreciated :-)

i agree about a lot of the points regards what kind of band photos look good and which look cheesey but i was shooting to what the band were after in this case

the colour pic there, the guy smoking is the lead singer so i wanted him to be sharpest in focus

Jimeatsmenu: as regards the band, i think their website is pretty old as are the songs there

kmick: a canon 300D with fixed 50mmf1.4 canon lens

Silent Grape

i like the first one. dont think they look like skangers at all.

what do i know, i just want more photos of Bombidol, more!

Jim

Yeah, I wish I had a tshirt with my avatar on it.
Although picking the Misfits as your avatar makes it that bit easier.

chewy

"#1 makes them look like skangers, but not a band. For all we know, they're four glue sniffers emerging from an underpass having just gone for a collective dump."

LOL hahahaha

i think the first is best though less posed...

Jim

Well, if the picture is going in the insleeve of a cd or whatever, the fact that they're a band is kinda self explanatory.

ErinGoBrath

I'd also side towards the first one. It's looks the most natural and theres defintiely too much going on in #2 and #3.

skittishkitten

I like #2 ...... possibly crop the foreground down a bit to bring the focus more on the group

as for -

#1 ....they blend with the background to much , it's very distracting .....

#3 ... I don't like how unfocused parts of it are , makes me want to cross my eyes, stare at it and see if I can see little pink elephants flying around

DadaKopf

Plus, smoking is not cool.