Both are spot on sharp, well lit and exposed. Personally, I like the looser crop, background lighting, and more level shooting position of the new version. Both are fine examples.
Otherwise,.....both are missing a splash of Red, White, and Blue. But that's just me (which means absolutely nothing) and may very well be what the client wants (which means absolutely everything).
LarryBeemer wrote:
Both are spot on sharp, well lit and exposed. Personally, I like the looser crop, background lighting, and more level shooting position of the new version. Both are fine examples.
Otherwise,.....both are missing a splash of Red, White, and Blue. But that's just me (which means absolutely nothing) and may very well be what the client wants (which means absolutely everything).
I was actually wondering if you would say name plate, which is absent on the new uniform (as it was with WW2). Takes some getting used to.
I am deliberately steering away from the official photo look, and tending more toward the older military portrait traditions. I want to make portraits of folks who happen to be wearing a uniform. More details and examples:
I'm not a military guy, so got no dogs in this fight and maybe I'm not qualified as well.
Don't know if it's your lighting or if the color is so different but it has a real foreign feel/look to it.
I see a brownish tint to it and I thought they always had the rank patches on the arms which are not there. Maybe the chest pockets are bigger or something but has a bit of a Russian look to it, not that I've seen any Russian uniforms other than in pictures.
It's a good looking uniform nonetheless, if that's what's being issued today but any details are lost on me!
But I'll give it a thumbs up!!!
John
JohnSil wrote:
I'm not a military guy, so got no dogs in this fight and maybe I'm not qualified as well.
Don't know if it's your lighting or if the color is so different but it has a real foreign feel/look to it.
I see a brownish tint to it and I thought they always had the rank patches on the arms which are not there. Maybe the chest pockets are bigger or something but has a bit of a Russian look to it, not that I've seen any Russian uniforms other than in pictures.
It's a good looking uniform nonetheless, if that's what's being issued today but any details are lost on me!
But I'll give it a thumbs up!!!
John...Show more →
The new Army Green Service Uniform references the classic “Pinks and Greens” of WWII. The coat is “olive drab,” a brownish green. The color here is fairly accurate, and different than the “dress blues” of the Army Service Uniform.
Rank on the arms is for enlisted soldiers. The subject is a commissioned officer now, though one can see from his ribbons that he was formerly a non-commissioned officer.
The uniform is correct per the new AR670-1, as inspected by multiple noncommissioned officers including the subject’s battalion CSM.
You might want to fill the left arm a bit with a gridded light to highlight "Special Forces" and "Airborne". I would assume they would like those to be visible as well.
I like the new uniform. I love the belt! I came from the "Class A" greens and really didn't like them. The "Blues" yes.
The "belt" was a fixture on most other Countries uniform! It gave class/character to the fit person wearing it!
My understanding is that the new uniforms are "retro" to WWII and that back then, name tags were not required.
Having a "name plate" is an on going discussion but for now no name plates as I understand!
This is excellent work. It does have a different vibe from the older version you posted. I like both styles, the new style seems a little more personal and warmer, for lack of a better term.
story_teller wrote:
You might want to fill the left arm a bit with a gridded light to highlight "Special Forces" and "Airborne". I would assume they would like those to be visible as well.
I think if I could go back I would just try to straighten the sleeve to decrease the shadow on the airborne tab, but I think the SF tab is ok, and you can see the green beret and jump wings fairly well, so airborne is assumed.
Evan Baines wrote:
I think if I could go back I would just try to straighten the sleeve to decrease the shadow on the airborne tab, but I think the SF tab is ok, and you can see the green beret and jump wings fairly well, so airborne is assumed.
Thanks all!!
Yes the original patch evolved, but, as with the Army Rangers, airborne is "assumed". It is "part" of the patch.
Ohhhhh-rahhh!!
DOL
RD
Evan, whether it is a new uniform or previous uniform, your photography is for sure top-notched and it showcases not only the uniform but the officer in the uniform to look his best.
AGeoJO wrote:
Evan, whether it is a new uniform or previous uniform, your photography is for sure top-notched and it showcases not only the uniform but the officer in the uniform to look his best.
Joshua
Evan should be the Army's Recruiting photographer Joshua! I told him so many times.
He should be a doctor, medical, now as well as a Special Forces "operator".
Dan
Good to see you posting Evan. These are wonderful and I always say most of the time when doing portraits better warm than cool. Camera slightly lower than eye level on #1 and quite a bit lower on #2 gives your subjects stature. New uniforms have a vintage feel and look a bit like Marine Corps wool dress greens from my era.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I always say most of the time when doing portraits better warm than cool.
Except when warmer insignia means lower rank.
Not sure a Lieutenant Colonel would want to be mistaken for a Major, or a First Lieutenant for a Second Lieutenant. Not an issue here for the Captain, with his two bars ... but, just something to be aware of that a warm color cast can make those bars look like a different rank if you let the warm (vs. neutral) color get away from ya.
The color balance would have VERY over the top with extreme yellow skin tones if a silver bar of a first LT or a Lt Col were to get enough yellow to make them look like a second Lt or Major.
RustyBug wrote:
Except when warmer insignia means lower rank.
Not sure a Lieutenant Colonel would want to be mistaken for a Major, or a First Lieutenant for a Second Lieutenant. Not an issue here for the Captain, with his two bars ... but, just something to be aware of that a warm color cast can make those bars look like a different rank if you let the warm (vs. neutral) color get away from ya.
I’m pretty conscious of that sort of thing. I like the warm tone for the more vintage-feeling and warmer toned uniform, but would certainly be careful to ensure rank and decorations are not mistaken. But one thing that is different about this series than a DA photo is that I view it as a portrait first, and a showcase of awards and decorations in a very secondary sense. I actually deliberately burn down most of the awards to make them less eye catching.
Your comment that the warm tone goes a bit far for you is fair, and this was just a first effort playing with my approach to the pinks and greens. I figured given the goofy-looking subject, this shot is going to have limited appeal regardless.
But that's just me (which means absolutely nothing) and may very well be what the client wants (which means absolutely everything).
