Search form

[BJG145]

Now come on, I love SOS, but I wouldn't post this on FB let alone publish it in a magazine.



The "Snapped it on an iPhone" ethic is all very well, but you can't let the basics go entirely.

[blinddrew]

It is a bit less than flattering...

[Wonks]

Why do they think they call it Studio SOS?

[Wonks]

And at least they bothered to put on trousers and a shirt.

[Forum Admin]

What’s wrong with it? It’s not meant to be ‘posed’ but a record of what went on that day.

It’s real life.

[Hugh Robjohns]

It ain't a posed studio portrait.

It's an action shot of the people featured in the article operating their studio set up, grabbed on the fly with a Canon 5Diii and the wide end of a 16-35mm lens in a very cramped 10x6 foot room with no natural light... Taken while simultaneously talking the guys through the EQ and dynamics processing options for the retuned drum kit which Paul was bashing next door.

If you can do better in the same circumstances, be my guest... I'd quite like to retire....

[ConcertinaChap]

I'd quite like to retire....

Nooooooooo!

CC

[Kwackman]

Now come on, I love SOS, but I wouldn't post this on FB let alone publish it in a magazine....

Pah, this FB generation- it's all about me, me!

TBH, I don't see the problem, it's not like you were picking your nose or scratching your arse?
Although, that shirt?! You need a new personal shopper, all sound crew wear black T-shirts, it's the law.

On a quick scan of the article I didn't see the normal "the host provided us with chocolate Hobnobs" sentence, and I believe Hobnobs are mandatory on SOS visits. So maybe that's why they didn't use the better photos

[desmond]

It's an action shot of the people featured in the article operating their studio set up, grabbed on the fly with a Canon 5Diii and the wide end of a 16-35mm lens in a very cramped 10x6 foot room with no natural light... Taken while simultaneously talking the guys through the EQ and dynamics processing options for the retuned drum kit which Paul was bashing next door.

Under those (challenging) circumstances, you'd *really* notice the difference if it was a phone snapshot, as suggested by the OP.

I have no problems with the pic... :shrugs:

[Brian M Rose]

Well, OK.
Apart from a head popping out of his chest, Alien like, I've seen much worse. Including a picture of mine where the talkback mic appeared to grow out of the producer's nose.
I wouldn't have minded, but David Kirk captioned the picture as the 'New Nose Mic.'
Cmon, give the guy a little space....

[garrettendi]

On a quick scan of the article I didn't see the normal "the host provided us with chocolate Hobnobs" sentence, and I believe Hobnobs are mandatory on SOS visits. So maybe that's why they didn't use the better photos

So, to get SOS to visit my awful home setup, all I need to do is promise chocolate Hobnobs?

[Hugh Robjohns]

It's a tactic employed by many... Sadly, I'm not allowed choccy hobnobs anymore...

[Matt Houghton]

It's a tactic employed by many... Sadly, I'm not allowed choccy hobnobs anymore...

You must have a preferred bribe to replace them, though?

[Hugh Robjohns]

Apart from a head popping out of his chest, Alien like...

But at least the picture includes some space to the right of the person in the foreground where you can see the back, bum and legs of the person in the background...

Yes, in an ideal world you'd see both eyes of each person in the shot, with separation between them and even lighting adding some attractive modelling.... but that simply wasn't possible in this situation. Would people prefer not to see the situation at all?

H

[garrettendi]

It's a tactic employed by many... Sadly, I'm not allowed choccy hobnobs anymore...

I assume someone has imposed a ban... But what they don't know, they certainly won't find out from me!

Of course you may want to use your admin privileges to delete this message and all other hobnob related posts to keep the secret safe!

[ManFromGlass]

The people are in the way of seeing the gear.

And for it to be a really pro studio photograph then what's missing is the all pervasive Herman Miller chair!
Otherwise it's a good and useful shot reminding me of when I had much less than this setup in an untreated bedroom and still managed to create finished tunes. So it's an ode to optimism!

[garrettendi]

Changing the topic slightly that's an awful lot of acoustic foam. Is there a such as too much treatment?

[Alba]

I was talking to an acquaintance a couple of months ago in the pub. He's a bit of a local character in this small old market town where i live. When i first moved here i met him because he's a guitarist, a bit handy too. Now he's a writer and has published loads of books of stories using the local, very old established buildings as sort of literary backdrops. Its a famous town and he doesn't do too badly actually, local bookshops to the tourists and local history enthusiasts. He's in the museum etc.

Anyway, when i met him recently i asked him if he fancied a jam, get the acoustic guitars out and have a bash. He told me that he's pretty much given it up now.

He was saying how the FB generation would take videos and pictures of him, post them on FB and then all royally take the piss out of him. Not to his face when he was playing outside, but later, in the safe surroundings of their own homes.

He seemed heartbroken about it. He's a really nice bloke. Now when he walks around town he doesn't know who is sneering at him behind his back and who's a real friend.

Poor old sod.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Yes, there is... excessive foam sucks out all the high end and most of the mid-range, but leaves the low end to rattle around, resulting in a dull but boxy-sounding space.

H

[garrettendi]

Thanks Hugh. When my future Missus and I move home, I'm going to look at treating my new studio space, and it's useful to know not to go over the top. Not necessarily saying the people in the photo have gone OTT, but I'll try and be a bit sparing with the foam, myself.