Headshot photography

lalady

Hello,
I have been studying photography for a couple years focusing mainly on portraits and weddings. I would like to expand to headshot photography and would like some feedback and tips please. Thank you all in advance for your help and time.

lalady

one more

Foques

well, at least the bokeh and horizon lines are nice..

i'd be curious to see your work in the areas of portraiture and weddings...

Helvegr

#1
I really don't like the crop. I'm not a portrait photographer so I can't tell you exactly what is right or wrong, but it just seems to take a strange chunk out of her body and even some of her hair.

I'm not a fan of the light at all. If she really has skin that pale, maybe you could have added a gel to an off camera flash to help warm it up? But there is no direction to the light, its flat.

Again, I'm not a pro, but if you are looking at providing clients with headshots I'd almost think that they might need a little bit more retouching. The eyes and hair especially. The hair is almost picking up a little bit of greenish tone to it

#2
Pretty much the same comments as above. Although I like the crop better on this one as a portrait, it feels like the crop is a bit loose for a "headshot".

Thats it from my point of view.

divamum

Intended purpose? It does make a difference.

For performing artists, please have a read of this sticky as well as the extremely informative articles linked from it - it will answer many, many questions and link you to lots of good examples. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=205510

General C&C for the above photos:

- I'll assume that the poor focus and quality is a resolution issue and the originals are in better shape; probably better to post higher quality/higher res images for feedback.

- headshots, even now that most things are submitted digitally, are typically 8x10 - these would need cropping

- nice use of bokeh to separate your subject from the background

- Poor choice of clothing for this subject - the tanks aren't terribly flattering for her, and her bra is hanging out in both of them (straps in #1, under the arm in #2). If she insists on a tank, she needs different poses to make her look shapely in them, particularly her upper arms.

- expressions are ok and she has great eyes, although I don't feel her really engaging with the viewer.

- she needs to be lit in a way which de-emphasises the undereye shadows and/or those need to be retouched in post.

Go read the Bonnie Gillespie articles and watch the Peter Hurley vids (as linked above) and then come back with any specific questions you may have

williaes

http://digital-photography-school.com/6-portrait-lighting-patterns-every-photographer-should-know

This was posted on here the other day. This was really a great lesson on protrait lighting that opened my eyes.

Lubinski

Get your subject to engage and let go and the photos you take will be that much better. We are only as good as our subjects sometimes. If you haven't heard of Peter Hurley check him out.

dogwood

The purpose of headshots is to get casting directors interested in hiring someone for a role or job.

So the question to ask is, If you were a casting director, would these photos compel you in any way to hire this woman? For what role? Maybe an extra in a crowd? Even that would be a stretch based on these photos.

Gotham

The above (particularly Diva Mom pretty much says it all). A couple of notes: a few people reference Peter Hurley who has a very distinct style -- it's useful to look at him, but he only does studio photography and only overlit white backgrounds, which isn't appropriate for everyone (and doesn't match the style you're going for here at all). As for lighting, when you look at your portraits and see that her chin and jawline disappear into her neck, you know that your lighting isn't doing what it needs to -- contour and shape her face. When you're photographing someone with a squarer face like your model here, you should consider short lighting which will be more flattering.

Lubinski

Gotham wrote: »

The above (particularly Diva Mom pretty much says it all). A couple of notes: a few people reference Peter Hurley who has a very distinct style -- it's useful to look at him, but he only does studio photography and only overlit white backgrounds, which isn't appropriate for everyone (and doesn't match the style you're going for here at all). As for lighting, when you look at your portraits and see that her chin and jawline disappear into her neck, you know that your lighting isn't doing what it needs to -- contour and shape her face. When you're photographing someone with a squarer face like your model here, you should consider short lighting which will be more flattering.

If you look at peter hurley and thats all you get out of it then its a sad day in heaven. Forget his photos, just look at the way that man directs and understand the face. Peter hurley isnt Peter Hurley because he can take good photos, most of us here could mimic that TYPE of shot, he is Peter because he dominates the stuio and knows how to direct his subjects.

Pay less attention to the technical aspects.

divamum

A slight aside: Lubinski, while there is much to admire about Peter Hurley's work and I certainly respect him as one of NY's top headshot photographers at the moment, I know that if I were going to a new set of my own done in NY, he isn't the guy I would pick for me.

His output is certainly prolific and consistent, but I myself don't think that high key/soft fluor light setup is always right for every subject. More significantly for myself as a subject, I know I would find his directing style a little overwhelming; I've had several rounds of pictures done by Big Name Photographers (in Hollywood rather than NY, but similarly high profile artist/fashion studios) and, while the shots were photographically great, the experience didn't hit *my* particular comfort-zone. In fact, that "dominating the studio", HUGE personality approach meant I felt rather overwhelmed and out of my depth and less able to express my artistic personality; I don't feel the shots I got from those sessions reflected what I do onstage.

This is one of the reasons that I wanted to learn how to take headshots, to try and deliver the kind of experience I personally like to get. I'm not saying my own approach is for everybody (or at Hurley's technical/profile level - I am SO not in that league!!!), but I have intentionally avoided adopting any kind of slick "showman" approach which Hurley and a few others tend to use.

Anyway, definitely a tangent to the initial post, but one that warrants discussion IMO and is definitely food for thought. This is IN NO WAY to slam Mr Hurley - he is a "name" in the business for a reason, and his approach obviously is very successful for many people (including agents and casting directors who like what he gets out of his subjects!). My comments above reflect personal taste more than anything (especially being on the subject side of the camera) rather than his photographic skill as such.

BrettDeutsch

Lubinski wrote: »

If you look at peter hurley and thats all you get out of it then its a sad day in heaven. Forget his photos, just look at the way that man directs and understand the face. Peter hurley isnt Peter Hurley because he can take good photos, most of us here could mimic that TYPE of shot, he is Peter because he dominates the stuio and knows how to direct his subjects.

Pay less attention to the technical aspects.

When technical aspects are the problem in a photo, it's a big mistake to ignore the technical aspects. Good lighting is crucial. Everybody has their own style in the studio, as Divamom rightly points out. If you want to mimic Peter's style and demeanor in the studio, go for it. But that style doesn't work for me.