Hippie 60s Band Shoot

This one was chosen as one of the band's 2012 promo shots. Not a real cooperative bunch, but this is one of the better outdoor shots we got:

Think it looks '60s-ish?'

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …erphotography/7​046518385/

I am wondering if the dude on the right (in vest and paisley shirt) hasn't used his deodorant or is he being avoided for other reasons.

However as for the promo shot... I think that an inner city background would be more appropriate. Especially an abandoned factory site. A black background with some cross lighting might also be neat.

Lol that's dope. Lighting looks off*, but definitely good work

Interesting edit.

Here's another take in a completely different direction (fwiw, ymmv, etc.)...when I think of color prints left over from the 60's I think of higher contrast and odd color shifts from UV exposure... whites typically start to bleach out, some colors over-saturating. I also think of 60's print film as being a higher contrast, smaller dynamic range to begin with and not nearly as sharp, at least I remember it looking that way when prints came back from the one hour photo Long winded way of saying that in my mind, I don't necessarily associate muted tones with the 60's either existing at the time or looking at them 50 years later.

How many of these guys own the hair they're wearing?

edited to add, the more I look at it the more it reminds me of a hand colored black and white print, think Marshall Oils/pencils(which was popular in the 60's)!

I agree about the background.

Having lived through that era, what I get when I look at this is that it looks like they are trying too hard to look like hippies. I guess I'm saying it doesn't look natural. we never wore head bands or paisley shirts, and the giant peace sign around the neck....not. Pants were jeans full of holes. I wouldn't have been caught dead in a shirt like the green one in the middle. These guys look like narcs, could spot 'em a mile away.

PrecisionMediaCraig wrote in post #14211567
Lol that's dope. Lighting looks off*, but definitely good work

Thanks for the kind words! No supplemental lighting. Shot on overcast day about 3pm. Agree though, I would have liked to darken the GB a bit, but they were looking for kind of a washed-out, 60s look and this is what I was able to get for them.

dave

Foodguy wrote in post #14211581
Interesting edit.

Here's another take in a completely different direction (fwiw, ymmv, etc.)...when I think of color prints left over from the 60's I think of higher contrast and odd color shifts from UV exposure... whites typically start to bleach out, some colors over-saturating. I also think of 60's print film as being a higher contrast, smaller dynamic range to begin with and not nearly as sharp, at least I remember it looking that way when prints came back from the one hour photo Long winded way of saying that in my mind, I don't necessarily associate muted tones with the 60's either existing at the time or looking at them 50 years later.

How many of these guys own the hair they're wearing?

edited to add, the more I look at it the more it reminds me of a hand colored black and white print, think Marshall Oils/pencils(which was popular in the 60's)!

Thanks foodguy. All wigs, all the time. Take that back ... the 'outcast' guy on right is wearing real hair!

As far as the edit, I think someone mentioned more contrast and strange color casts associated with 60s film photography. Maybe a revisit to the original might be in order.

dave

saea501 wrote in post #14213268
I agree about the background.

Having lived through that era, what I get when I look at this is that it looks like they are trying too hard to look like hippies. I guess I'm saying it doesn't look natural. we never wore head bands or paisley shirts, and the giant peace sign around the neck....not. Pants were jeans full of holes. I wouldn't have been caught dead in a shirt like the green one in the middle. These guys look like narcs, could spot 'em a mile away.

LOL! Great stuff, saea501. Maybe they do try a little harder than they have to. Guess it's part of the 'show' ya know! Thanks for your perspective.

dave

RPCrowe wrote in post #14211085
I am wondering if the dude on the right (in vest and paisley shirt) hasn't used his deodorant or is he being avoided for other reasons.

However as for the promo shot... I think that an inner city background would be more appropriate. Especially an abandoned factory site. A black background with some cross lighting might also be neat.

Not much 'scenery' around this shoot. We were lucky to have a bit of 'nothingness' for the outside shoot. The band is getting ready for the summer season, and had one hour to do both indoor and outdoor work.

Like any other band, they probably have difficulty getting everybody together in one place at the same time ... unless they're being PAID to do so!

dave

1968 all over again! ARGGGH Nice shot ... a lot of nostalgia...

I would make that green bush on the right same as the brown wilted ones.... to balance it out and make all of them pop out more.

Not a bad shoot, although the one guy on the right like stated by other's seems so weird. I would prefer in a shoot like this for the background to be OOF due to its extreme business. If you could, try and get them together with a prime(1.8 or 2.8), bring them off the background, get a lower vantage point perhaps, and shoot them on a day that isn't do dreary looking. When setting the guys up, perhaps put the shorter in the front kneeling, and the tallest in the middle standing, and the shorter, but not shortest outside of the tallest standing. Would bring them together to look like they're actually a group. Perhaps try shooting in a more organic airy atmosphere like tall grasses and have them all be seated? Look at photographs of say The Doors, etc. May help you get your ideas or concept down better!

Hope this helps!!

Clothes are a nice contrast to the stark BG. Nice job! 60's yes!! Groovy!!
Dan

they're too well fed for the 60's