I don't know about you guys but this seems a little excesive and overboard, even for the 'Leafs'. To be honest, I don't even dig the final product. I find it funny that I am watching something like this for individual shots that took like half a day to set up, with a crew of half a dozen; when yesterday I did my individual shots in under 3 hours and like the finished product much better.
I think David handled this well with his response at the tail end of the post:
Just a quick PSA: I have chosen not to moderate a few comments of photographers whining about Finn O'Hara's photos and/or techniques because they forgot to include links to their own awesomer portfolios. Talk is cheap. Thanks, MGMT.
Personally, I dug the volumetric feel to the image, and I'm not sure hockey players are supposed to look upbeat or happy so I don't know that the distant look or anything was bad.
PShizzy wrote:
I think David handled this well with his response at the tail end of the post:
Personally, I dug the volumetric feel to the image, and I'm not sure hockey players are supposed to look upbeat or happy so I don't know that the distant look or anything was bad.
Max
Max, I agree that hockey players shouldn't be smiling and happy in photo's. But man, the bloody logistics to the shoot is just flabbergasting. I guess you would figure for a shoot that large the images would have been beyond amazing, but yet they are just, to me at least, images.
I don't mind the pictures too much but I think the background was the real focus, which makes me wonder about the pictures. The players actually look kind of small (not to mention bored) in these pictures. It's definitely non-traditional.
I think they are pretty cool and at least offer something different than the average stand in front of the 10x20 back drop and shoot a few images shots. I think Max hit on it when he mentioned the "volume" of the images. Larger than life.
I think the results are great but I think that it could've been accomplished on a much smaller budget in post. In fact they way they are lit it actually looks like some of the shots were taken on a green screen and had the background superimposed. Much more affordable way to do it would've been to do the portraits in a studio and then just add a computer generated background. But then again, if you have the money why not be extravagant.
i didn't get to see the pictures before they were removed but I appreciate it for all the work that was put into it. So what if it's overkill, he's the photographer and he can do what he wants. I have no doubt the images are pretty killer, and just because they aren't exactly what some of you would do doesn't mean it was a waste of resources.
livin4lax09 wrote:
i didn't get to see the pictures before they were removed but I appreciate it for all the work that was put into it. So what if it's overkill, he's the photographer and he can do what he wants. I have no doubt the images are pretty killer, and just because they aren't exactly what some of you would do doesn't mean it was a waste of resources.
Well, actually if you lived in Southern Ontario and new how much a ticket for a Leafs game was, you would be definitely questioning the scope of this shoot. They have the highest avg ticket price in the NHL. that being said, again I just don't get it, it could have been done on a much smaller scale, guess I am missing something.
Rick Denham wrote:
Well, actually if you lived in Southern Ontario and new how much a ticket for a Leafs game was, you would be definitely questioning the scope of this shoot. They have the highest avg ticket price in the NHL. that being said, again I just don't get it, it could have been done on a much smaller scale, guess I am missing something.
Worried about ticket prices? Not so much... I mean, let's say the shoot cost half a million dollars. There's what, 40 home games, and how many seats (19,500 is what google says). So, over the course of a year, if they sell out, thats 799,500 tickets that can be sold, at what price? And that's not considering cost of suites, concessions. And the fact that the Maple Leafs are valued at slightly under half a billion dollars. They could just blanket add 50 canadian cents to the ticket. Let's say they wanna gouge you. Add a buck.
They got the money, they don't need to squeeze the fans. If they do, it certainly isn't over this photo shoot.
Any shoot of this scale is bound to have a few meetings. Rarely is this just handed to a photographer and they're allowed to just commandeer people and resources. Things were signed off on, several times, at various steps.
So what's the problem? He proposed an idea, they reviewed, revised, and accepted it.
I think the problem is that some people will see the value in this shoot, and some won't. What matters is that the person paying for the shoot saw the value and paid for it.
