Product Photography

You have three options:
1. A chair to kick.
2. A noose.
3. A running car in a garage.

>>2922320
This stuff doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would ever really be good in a lifestyle shot.
I mean, personally, I'd expect to see these very cheap in a Kmart kids area but maybe that's just my part of the world.
In which case, sell them to Kmart and let them put a kid in it for their catalogue.
Otherwise, I guess you could take photos of people wearing them while they're sitting down having a drink watching a race.
I really can't picture how you'd do this with people in black shirts though without it looks g really cheap.

I don't mean to offend you and I'm no fashionista by any means. Just my thoughts.
If you do the same design in White or grey, I'd use that for shooting productshots

Find someone to model the clothing, friend, family friend, whatever, buy a 30mm/35mm f/1.8 for the A6000, find a nice background that's relevant to whatever you're selling, shoot portrait shots.

Clothing shot on it's own won't stand out enough, it needs to be on an actual person.

Also the 16-50 is complete shit and soft as anything unless stopped down to f/8 or so, which is kinda useless for anything other than landscape.

>>2922332
Also, who is your average customer and how do they buy these? I would imagine they might sell better track-side than online in which case, there's not really any need for a lifestyle shot. If it's for online, I'd just be getting people similar to your target customers to wear the shirt and take photos either trackside or even just on a grassy mound somewhere that looks like they're watching a race

>>2922333
Yeah I know the kit is a shit lens so a fast prime is going to be my next purchase.

Thanks for the feedback. We've been trying to get away from just shooting the apparel itself for both the marketing imagery as well as the content on the site.

>>2922333
I'm annoyed by your gearfaggot recommendation to OP to go buy more gear shit instead of using the 2 lenses he's already got, as though any difference in quality as a result of his lens choices will make any difference compared to lighting.

>>2922334
We just started back in May so we're online only at this point. For 2017 we're looking to hit some major races with product to sell at the track.

It's expensive to go driving around to all the tracks and keep all the inventory so we're focusing on online sales through the end of the year

>>2922299
The way you make money is just to be at racetracks. If you were in the infield for the run up to and during the Indy 500 weekend you would make a ton of cash because these are way better than most of the shit people are trying to push out. And I think race fans aren't the type to get their stuff off the internet for the most part.

>>2922336
The kit 16-50 truly is complete shit. Lighting won't make an ounce of difference with it, the shallow DOF needed for portrait/product shots simply isn't possible with it.

The 55-200 would probably work out okay, but a 35/50mm prime is going to work out a while lot better and is an extremely valuable bit of gear for the long term.

>>2922389
>Product
>Shallow DOF

Every fucking time
pls stop

>>2922340
I appreciate the advice here and you're on the right track but desu we're not looking for business advice, I am trying to get better at product photography here