Kasey's Headshots

kdog

My young friend Kasey asked me to take some headshots for a talent agency to pick up some part time work. She's such a sweetie, who could refuse. Besides, it gave me a chance to practice as this is only the second headshot shoot I've tried. We went for a variety of different looks. Here's a sample from the shoot and it would be great to get some feedback.

1 Glamor?


2


3 Grunge?


4 Corporate?


5 Teeny Popper


6


7


8


More shots from the shoot here. http://www.desertilluminations.com/People/Kasey-Headshots/15713749_ehUcW#1177747088_ZxU3m

Thanks for looking and commenting. :thumb

-joel

chris5olson

thanks for the kind comments on my headshots. here #1 & #4 are my faves.

#1: I really like, if i were shooting there are a couple things I'd do differently (per my preference). The hand is most distracting in this picture to me. For women i tend to put their hand to the side just a bit (under their chin) or on there neck. This to me makes the photo appear softer & more feminine. The way her hand is here is (imo) giving off a masculine vibe. Also she is pushing down on her hand and that's giving her the chin crease. On the lighting for this one: I wish that the light is on her eyes. She looks like she has such beautiful eyes but they are so dark. I would have liked to see a little more light there to make them pop.

#4: I just really like! Shes got a little squint but over all i really like it!

kdog

Thanks, Chris! I totally agree on #1. Light on her eyes would have made it so much better. The hand position could definitely be better as well. And you're right. She is a squinter. I had to keep reminding her to open her eyes. I've got a couple more of the outdoor ones in my gallery in case you want to take a peek.

divamum

Probably my favorite. I think you can probably reduce shadows, as well as bring those eyes out a bit more - some more fill light to lift the whole thing, and have you played around with layering in screen blend, high pass filter, more dodging burning, cloning catchlights etc? This and #4 are IMO the most flattering shots of the set.



Not a bad shot with a decent pose and expression, but it's really hot on CL on this monitor. Can you reprocess it so it's a little darker and/or equalize the shadows on CR with the brightness on CL?



Not crazy about the processing on this one - it's artefacting on her face a bit by turning orange in places. Also "armpit shots" can be really difficult to pull off - you could try tilting and cropping way down to see how that works.



This is a terrific TV/Film-style promo shot. Crop in from the top - quite a lot, past the horizontal parting in her hair - bring out her eyes a bit more (dodge/burn/saturate/high pass sharpening) and this is a winner in current style.



Photographically this one is good, but I have to question how it could be used in a professional context for an actress. If she knows she needs a look like this, then it's a good enough shot lightingwise. How would she plan to use this one?



I like the outfit and general styling here - very classic. It's still a little hot on camera left, and I'd probably crop/tilt to get a little more dynamism into it and really focus on her eyes. The risk with shots like this - and it's something I fight all the time! - is that they can start looking a little "school picture"-ish. I find a good crop can often lift them to something a little more glamourous - this one might work really well cropped way into CL with some negative space working it on the other side - playing around with it, you suddenly get a sort of Brigitte Bardot thing going on which could be very appealing.




This is a nice enough shot, but not sure what it "says" about her - you have better expressions from her in some of the other shots and since the sweater actually masks that she's very slim, I'm not sure it's showing off much as a 3/4 shot.



Really pretty eyes in this one - I think I might prefer it with the arm cropped out entirely, however - how does that work if you try it?

HTH! You've got a pretty lady and I think you can deliver some nice shots for her with some tweaking

kdog

Wow, thanks for the thorough analysis, Diva! :wow

Really appreciate the comments and critiques. The only one that's cropped is the first one. The rest were as shot. I may try a couple more crops with your comments in mind. I've tried to shy away from dodging and burning because most of the time it looks fake. But I did try a bit #1 being careful not to overdo it, and it was a definite improvement.



Thanks again for the help.

kdog

One more.

zoomer

Pretty young lady.
You did pretty good for your first try. I don't mind the shadows in one...cropped just a bit tight for me.
The light is a little strong in several of them and the skin work could be better....posing is a work in a progress.

Overall I bet she is happy with these.
The very last shot you posted is the best of the lot .

Looks like you are using commander mode maybe...see that tiny little dot from your on camera flash reflected in her eye....if you think about it, on these extreme closeups good idea to clone that out.

kdog

zoomer wrote: »

Pretty young lady.
You did pretty good for your first try. I don't mind the shadows in one...cropped just a bit tight for me.
The light is a little strong in several of them and the skin work could be better....posing is a work in a progress.

Overall I bet she is happy with these.
The very last shot you posted is the best of the lot .

Looks like you are using commander mode maybe...see that tiny little dot from your on camera flash reflected in her eye....if you think about it, on these extreme closeups good idea to clone that out.

Hey Zoomer, thanks for checking in. I shoot RAW so maybe I'll try dialing down the exposures some. Flash was strictly manual and off-camera. But I see that extra catch light you're talking about. I think it may have been the foamy reflector I was using for a fill flash to my camera right. I had been using a reflector, but wasn't getting enough fill, so I switch to a flash and foamy. I should have used an umbrella probably. Cloning it out is a good idea. I'm curious what I could do better on the skin without making it look overly processed. Thanks again!

zoomer

kdog wrote: »

Hey Zoomer, thanks for checking in. I shoot RAW so maybe I'll try dialing down the exposures some. Flash was strictly manual and off-camera. But I see that extra catch light you're talking about. I think it may have been the foamy reflector I was using for a fill flash to my camera right. I had been using a reflector, but wasn't getting enough fill, so I switch to a flash and foamy. I should have used an umbrella probably. Cloning it out is a good idea. I'm curious what I could do better on the skin without making it look overly processed. Thanks again!

It looks like you are using your on camera flash to set off your off camera flashes, judging from that small highlight....I have been wrong before .

See the little bumps in her skin, look around the nose and smile lines. Easy to clone them out.
Grab a piece of clean skin that is the same brightness color from another part of her face, set your clone tool at 30% and to brighten, smooth out just enough, less is more. Sometimes will need to set the tool to normal, make sure the brush has soft edges. Just takes a minute or two.
For deep smile lines sometimes it helps to use the dodge tool set very low and run it over those deep lines to soften the transition just a bit.

If you use your histogram while shooting it can save a lot of exposure adjusting in post .

kdog

zoomer wrote: »

It looks like you are using your on camera flash to set off your off camera flashes, judging from that small highlight....I have been wrong before .

Nope, didn't do that. I was wireless and manual.

See the little bumps in her skin, look around the nose and smile lines. Easy to clone them out.
Grab a piece of clean skin that is the same brightness color from another part of her face, set your clone tool at 30% and to brighten, smooth out just enough, less is more. Sometimes will need to set the tool to normal, make sure the brush has soft edges. Just takes a minute or two.
For deep smile lines sometimes it helps to use the dodge tool set very low and run it over those deep lines to soften the transition just a bit.

Thanks! I do use those technique now, only clearly not enough. The hard part for me is knowing how far to go without looking fake or changing her looks too much. I don't have a good eye for this yet, and so the critiques really help.

If you use your histogram while shooting it can save a lot of exposure adjusting in post .

Not to be flip, but use it for what? I used a light meter on these, and there are no blowouts on these shots. They are not technically overexposed, although perhaps they are aesthetically too bright. When I process, I usually adjust the exposure in ACR so that there's no dead area at the extreme right of the histogram that contains no pixels. That's what always works best for nature photography which is what I mainly do. Perhaps that's too bright for faces. Again, I need to develop that eye for what looks good, so the critiques are invaluable. Thanks again!

zoomer

Then that odd little spot of light is a mystery to me......I only mentioned it because I get them all the time because I do use my on camera flash to set of my off camera flash.....so on extreme closeups I have to clone it out.

Bumps can go, the trick is to retain some skin detail while getting rid of them, Sometimes I will set the clone tool at 80% so I can re-create the pore detail from the spot I am cloning...but there are some tricks to doing that and making it look good....more of an advanced technique.

Another way to go is to go high key....without blowing out the skin.... which takes all the detail out of the skin.

Always better to leave a few blemishes than to go to far with the skin work.

Sometimes the light meter/histogram will lie to you when it comes to skin...as long as you don't blow it out you can correct in post. Sometimes only your eyes can tell you what looks "right". They will get you in the ballpark however.
Lightmeter....what's that .

kdog

zoomer wrote: »

Then that odd little spot of light is a mystery to me......I only mentioned it because I get them all the time because I do use my on camera flash to set of my off camera flash.....so on extreme closeups I have to clone it out.

Pretty sure it's the "foamy" reflector I was using for fill. It was small, and pulled back, perhaps causing the small catchlight. It was just to my camera right, which seems to agree with the positioning of the spot on her eye. Perhaps a bit of direct flash was exposed as opposed to being all bounced off the foamy too, which might have created the little spot as well.

Bumps can go, the trick is to retain some skin detail while getting rid of them, Sometimes I will set the clone tool at 80% so I can re-create the pore detail from the spot I am cloning...but there are some tricks to doing that and making it look good....more of an advanced technique.

Another way to go is to go high key....without blowing out the skin.... which takes all the detail out of the skin.

Always better to leave a few blemishes than to go to far with the skin work.

Sometimes the light meter/histogram will lie to you when it comes to skin...as long as you don't blow it out you can correct in post. Sometimes only your eyes can tell you what looks "right". They will get you in the ballpark however.
Lightmeter....what's that .

! There's one photographer on this board who says you aren't a pro unless you use a lightmeter. Then I read books by some of the masters and they don't use a light meter either. Really, the only thing that matters at the end of the day is that the pictures look good. I shoot RAW, shoot to the right, and never blow pixels, so I can get any look I want in post. Developing "the eye" for what looks good is the hard part for me. A lot of my right-brained friends don't understand my handicap.

Really appreciate all your help, Zoomer.

-joel

divamum

Nice job on the rework on one - if there's any extra brightness/fill and lowered contrast I'd still take it a tad further (esp in the camera right eye - sometimes cloning the catchlight from the better-lit eye can help balance them up), but I like what you've done to it. I also like the extra one that you posted I'd loosen up the crop a bit if it's available to get a little more neck and shoulder into it, but it's a nice fresh look from her.

Also agree that you can go further with skinwork - nope, you don't want plastic-y, but there's no doubt that the "perfection" of fashion styling does mean that expectations are high for "real people" now. I do the work on layers so I can dial texture up and down as (and where) needed.

If that reflector was that far away to appear a pinpoint (it really does look like the flash from a speedlight commander - I get it when I use the 7d's built-in one)... why? That would explain some of the contrast between the lit/unlit sides. For me - ymmv, and lordy knows I"m no technical guru! - I find the closer I can get the reflector to the subject the happier I am with the results as a rule. I use a 42" or 36", often only just out of shot. Keeps things nice and soft while filling well.

kdog

divamum wrote: »

Nice job on the rework on one - if there's any extra brightness/fill and lowered contrast I'd still take it a tad further (esp in the camera right eye - sometimes cloning the catchlight from the better-lit eye can help balance them up), but I like what you've done to it. I also like the extra one that you posted I'd loosen up the crop a bit if it's available to get a little more neck and shoulder into it, but it's a nice fresh look from her.

Thanks, Diva! Yeah, I dunno. I was trying to get some contrasty light like the books tell you to do. So if I keep reducing contrast in post, I may have well shot it flat which folks have dinged me for in the past. Ya can't win!

I'm still working on cropping I guess. Yes, there's a lot more room on the original for that last one, so I could easily recrop.

Also agree that you can go further with skinwork - nope, you don't want plastic-y, but there's no doubt that the "perfection" of fashion styling does mean that expectations are high for "real people" now. I do the work on layers so I can dial texture up and down as (and where) needed.

Gotcha. I do use layers, but haven't figured out how I can save them in the PSD file such that I can go back and adjust them later.

If that reflector was that far away to appear a pinpoint (it really does look like the flash from a speedlight commander - I get it when I use the 7d's built-in one)... why? That would explain some of the contrast between the lit/unlit sides. For me - ymmv, and lordy knows I"m no technical guru! - I find the closer I can get the reflector to the subject the happier I am with the results as a rule. I use a 42" or 36", often only just out of shot. Keeps things nice and soft while filling well.

It wasn't actually that far away. Maybe 5 or 6'. It might have been a bit of exposed flash area that wasn't bounced, possibly. Or maybe even a light or window behind me. Hard to say. At any rate, you can be sure I'll use a much larger modifier for fill the next time. Live and learn!

Thanks again. Really appreciate your and Zoomer's help.
-joel

divamum

kdog wrote: »

Thanks, Diva! Yeah, I dunno. I was trying to get some contrasty light like the books tell you to do. So if I keep reducing contrast in post, I may have well shot it flat which folks have dinged me for in the past. Ya can't win!
-joel

Dramatic lighting is great... when you want drama (and there ARE some great dramatically-lit headshots, even though those are usually the exception rather than the rule). Tough thing is that headshots are often "informational" as much as anything - they need to give a casting director a clear picture of the person to see if something jumps out at them, but also are used just to remember somebody from an audition, as well as give to costume folks when they start working on a show etc etc etc. You often see casting directors advise actors to get "clear, well-lit, bright shots" - it's definitely something that's often mentioned. Prime directive for the *client* is to show them in the most flattering way that still looks ilke the reality, while oozing personality, but actual use can often be anything but aesthetic! It's so different from other kinds of portraits, IMO, because one picture has to do so much!

Some recent comments about headshots from three different casting directors published in Backstage magazine:

"I like headshots that are representative of the actor. They should be clear, direct, natural, and never posed. No artifice. I really don't like silly outfits, and if I see one in a picture—an actor wearing a policeman's or fireman's hat, for example—I won't keep it. Headshots can be in color or black and white, but I need one great shot only. I don't care for composites."

"The headshots I want to see really look like the actor, not overly dolled up and not heavily made up or trying too hard to fit into a type. I like you to look natural, approachable, and relatable, with your real personality coming through. The angle of the shot should also be natural, but it's important to me to see a clear image, one that doesn't hide your eyes. It's very important to me to receive headshots that are current. If, for example, you are now 20 years older than your picture and I bring you in based on that headshot, it not only gives me the impression of an unprofessional actor, but it also takes away an opportunity from other actors who are appropriate for the role."

"Headshots that reveal intellect, smarts, and a wonderful expression in the eyes appeal to me. I really look at the eyes. They are the windows to the soul. Your headshot should leave me with a clear vision of who you are."

kdog

Those are some great points, Diva. One has to keep in mind how the photos will be used. Artistic license probably doesn't play a strong role there. Fortunately, I think we got enough variety in the shoot so that some of them meet the criteria you gave. BTW, I do agree the "teeny bopper" request was an odd one. "Look 16 years old" is what they said. Sounded pretty weird to me. About the only idea I had was to grab a teddy bear and shoot with that. If I had more time, pig tails, bobby socks and an enormous stripped lollypop would have been killer.

divamum

The irony, of course, being that most 16 year olds are trying to look 30

I suppose we have to consider that a lot of fashion models ARE about 16-18 (albeit styled to look much older), ditto the girls playing roles in TV marketed to tweens on Disney Channel and Nikolodeon etc. My guess is that's going to be achieved with styling as much as anything - natural, "fresh" makeup, clothing choices (jeans+tank+layers+converse/prom dresses/sweaters rather than sexy cleavage/little black dress/officewear etc); more of a senior portrait look than sultry actress. That last one you posted actually fits that bill to me the best of the shots you shared - the smile and "feel" is just a younger look to my eye.

Just my 2c and goodness knows I'm not the last word on this - just throwing some food for thought into the arena

briandelion

Nice work kdog. She's got that January Jones look. Very classic '60's. One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned: if you do another shoot with her I would say that her blue dress complements her complexion and eyes much better than the pale colors. #4, 6 and the very last one are my favorites.

dawssvt

Great set! The lighting is fantastic!

kdog

divamum wrote: »

The irony, of course, being that most 16 year olds are trying to look 30

I suppose we have to consider that a lot of fashion models ARE about 16-18 (albeit styled to look much older), ditto the girls playing roles in TV marketed to tweens on Disney Channel and Nikolodeon etc. My guess is that's going to be achieved with styling as much as anything - natural, "fresh" makeup, clothing choices (jeans+tank+layers+converse/prom dresses/sweaters rather than sexy cleavage/little black dress/officewear etc); more of a senior portrait look than sultry actress. That last one you posted actually fits that bill to me the best of the shots you shared - the smile and "feel" is just a younger look to my eye.

Just my 2c and goodness knows I'm not the last word on this - just throwing some food for thought into the arena

Thanks for the perspective I appreciate it. Incidentally, here's the full image of the last crop that you liked.

briandelion wrote: »

Nice work kdog. She's got that January Jones look. Very classic '60's. One thing I don't think anyone has mentioned: if you do another shoot with her I would say that her blue dress complements her complexion and eyes much better than the pale colors. #4, 6 and the very last one are my favorites.

Thanks, Brian! I think you're right about the coloring. Appreciate you checking in.

dawssvt wrote: »

Great set! The lighting is fantastic!

Thanks! Lighting is a work in progress for me. Appreciate you taking the time to comment.

Qarik

lovely stuff..just one thing though..her hair style ages her 10 years lol.

kdog

Qarik wrote: »

lovely stuff..just one thing though..her hair style ages her 10 years lol.

Hey thanks, Daniel! She has lovely hair, but I wasn't wild about the style at all. With all the styling she had done to it, she had this one bang that kept falling over her left eye. Appreciate you checking in.

amoncur

I really like the 2nd and 3rd posts you added in this thread. Beauty lighting always looks good, especially on a pretty face. Next time maybe place a white board underneath to get some more light in those eyes. And maybe lower the softbox/umbrella a bit (again, to get more light in those eyes).