Headshot- Critique Needed

anonymouscuban

So I got a gig doing actor head shots for this kid. It's the first time I actually do real head shots so I wanted to hear some feedback. His agent said she wanted studio head shots, preferably on a gray background so that's what we did.

I just did them tonight. We went through 5 wardrobe changes and I took about 400 shots. I studied quite a number of head shot photogs during the week to get an idea of compositions and lighting that is used. I aslo read Diva's stickied thread about a million times.

I just imported them to LR and I decided to edit one random shot to see what you all think of the comp, lighting and edit. The edit I did was nothing special. Capture and creative sharpening and added a slight vignette. I also touched up some razor burn on his neck.

Feedback please as I'm a little out of my comfort zone. :thumb

coolpinsky

I think it is good - don't know the guy but If the pic reflects his character it is good . Dont like just the right side of the pic - Its fades int dark specially the right upper corner - I know its a vignette but dont see it on the 2nd side.

anonymouscuban

Thanks Cool. Yeah, I think it's a good representation of him as far a personality. I removed the vignette a bit on the right. I inadvertantly republished the shot so it may look the same as the one in the OP.

divamum

Nice shot, but on this monitor (not mine - kinda pos so take with grain of salt) it's a bit dark. Typically headshots are very evenly lit and I'm finding the difference in brightness/lighting between both eyes a little too much.

It's a nice smile expression, but his eyes aren't "saying" anything to me - not as engaged with the camera as one might typically like.

Can you post some more? I'm sure you'll have some kicka** shots in the set, so let's see 'em and figure out which ones are the ones to go for!

perroneford

Just my thoughts..

1. The shallow focus is good. And it's razor sharp.
2. The main light is a bit far to the left if that's going to be your ONLY light.
3. It needs some fill.
4. The background is too dark for this subject. His dark shirts blends in too much on the right, and his dark hair on the right is just gone.

Essentially, you've set up a background and lighting for a somber or moody photograph. And then you've taken one of a very happy and handsome guy. They don't go together. This face, as shot, needs a white background or keep the gray but give him a more even light across his face. The catchlights in the eye tell the story. You've apparently used a softbox and placed it so that we are only getting a sliver of it in the right eye. This leads to a very odd look in the eyes. Get the full lighting instrument in both eyes for the most pleasing look.

These are tough for me. You did EVERYTHING right with the camera, it's just the lighting that is betraying you. Get that sorted, and you'll be doing much better.

kdog

Yeah, the lighting doesn't seem quite right on this. It's almost like hatchet lighting with too much fill. More of a classic Rembrandt lighting would be better although I don't think it would match the T shirt. Otherwise with the T, maybe Diva's suggestion of flatter lighting, almost a hi-key look would be a better match for the styling. I'm wondering why you used such a shallow DOF here too. I think it adds almost too much dimensionality to his face.

joshhuntnm

I wouldn't cut off the top of his head. I am not sure about it being off center

anonymouscuban

Good stuff guys. Like I said, this was just 1 of the first shots that imported that I randomly selected to edit. There are about 400 shots so I hope there something good in there. I will post more later.

anonymouscuban

OK.. came home to each lunch and had a few minutes to edit and upload another shot. Picked this one because it's similar to the last but I think this one connects more with the camera/viewer.



And a looser comp.

Hackbone

Check your main light position, catch lights seem awfully low, 9 o'clock ish. Might also need to bring your main more toward you.

divamum

Definitely more engaged with viewer. What happens with that 2nd one if you mess with the crop a bit?

The 3/4 length is from a very low angle. It doesn't work for me as is, but messing with it in my browswer window it works better when you crop into his arms.

More please

anonymouscuban

Hmm... good info guys. Unfortunately, can't do much about the lighting with these shots now. Gonna have to keep it in mind for next time.

Hopefully he likes them because you guys are stressing me out now. :cry

anonymouscuban

divamum wrote: »

Definitely more engaged with viewer. What happens with that 2nd one if you mess with the crop a bit?

The 3/4 length is from a very low angle. It doesn't work for me as is, but messing with it in my browswer window it works better when you crop into his arms.

More please

Diva... no need for cropping. I got more of that pose but tighter. I will post it in just a bit.

anonymouscuban

So Diva...

Here is another angle and crop of the arms crossed but I just realized that if this needs to be cropped to an 8x10 format, then it doesn't work because the arms get cut off. DOH!

divamum

I like this last one in the ratio you have. Stick it on an 8x10 canvas with a big border to use it as is. Cropping it doesn't really work (I just tried).

Was he looking for commercial/theatrical/character... anything specific? That will also indicate which ones will work best for him. You said you had some other looks/outfits - any of those to share?

Don't get me wrong - these aren't bad, I just feel like you're gonna have some "wow" shots in there

anonymouscuban

Diva... thanks for the help. He really wanted a commercial headshot since that is the one he needed updated but we tried for theatrical and character too. Here is a theatrical shot. Again, not cropped yet.

BTW, feel free to play around with these shots. Yeah... I read the post you deleted. You forget I'm an all-powerful mod!!!



BTW, I got an email from him a few minutes ago. Says he loves the shots so go figure! He's going to give me his picks tomorrow.

divamum

If he loves them, then you're good - he knew what he wanted when he picked you, and he got it!

I deleted the post because after I played with them I decided I liked your crops as well as anything I could come up with - you could add a few degrees of tilt here and there (I don't like straight up shots; ymmv) but nothing big changed when I messed around. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

I think what's bugging me is they're all square on to camera (a problem I often find when shooting guys, too). I want some more angles - something to give them some more dynamic qualities. He's a good looking guy and will easily fill the brief for quite a few different types, and I want him to "pop".

That last one will work for certain character types, but doesn't give me "theatrical" - more a sort of DeNiro/Travolta vibe.

Btw, I like the current version in post #14.... that's my favorite pick so far.

anonymouscuban

Cool. I did get other angles, not just squared up so I'll post a few. I wanted to do a lot more than he did. For example, I wanted to shoot him in different sitting positions, like sitting on the floor or on a chair, even if I was still only getting him at most waist up and he didn't want to. He wanted something specific. I also wanted to shoot some high key and again, no go. I think his agent gave him specific instructions and he did want to stray too much for this session. I did talk him into doing more on a second session though, more TFP shoot since I need more practice and also would like another guy for my portfolio.

karloznz

Good thread guys learnt a lot from reading it !!

novicesnapper

One thing you might want to keep in mind. With his arms crossed and shooting from low, the arms end up closer to the camera, and rule of thumb, anything closer, appears to be bigger. That little aspect ratio trick, may also make it appear his head is smaller, due to distant from the camera. Almost an aspherical feel to it. I noticed it on my 70-200 sigma the other day on some flash test shots. I was zoomed all the way back, and things appears slightly distorted. You might try a manual lens correction to help lessen this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspheric_lens

anonymouscuban

karloznz wrote: »

Good thread guys learnt a lot from reading it !!

Yup. Definitely lots of learning going on.

novicesnapper wrote: »

One thing you might want to keep in mind. With his arms crossed and shooting from low, the arms end up closer to the camera, and rule of thumb, anything closer, appears to be bigger. That little aspect ratio trick, may also make it appear his head is smaller, due to distant from the camera. Almost an aspherical feel to it. I noticed it on my 70-200 sigma the other day on some flash test shots. I was zoomed all the way back, and things appears slightly distorted. You might try a manual lens correction to help lessen this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspheric_lens

Yup. Different lenses have different amounts of distortion. I'm usually not one to get bothered too much by distortion and sometimes use it creatively. I'm not bothered by it in these shots enough to do any correction.

anonymouscuban

divamum wrote: »

If he loves them, then you're good - he knew what he wanted when he picked you, and he got it!

I deleted the post because after I played with them I decided I liked your crops as well as anything I could come up with - you could add a few degrees of tilt here and there (I don't like straight up shots; ymmv) but nothing big changed when I messed around. If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

I think what's bugging me is they're all square on to camera (a problem I often find when shooting guys, too). I want some more angles - something to give them some more dynamic qualities. He's a good looking guy and will easily fill the brief for quite a few different types, and I want him to "pop".

That last one will work for certain character types, but doesn't give me "theatrical" - more a sort of DeNiro/Travolta vibe.

Btw, I like the current version in post #14.... that's my favorite pick so far.

OK... so I do see your point about this last shot being more "Character" than theatrical. So that begs the question, what makes a theatrical shot, theatrical?

I also wanted to point out something that I noticed while checking out work of local head shot photographers, even the more well known ones. A lot of rules of portraiture get thrown out the window. For instance, someone made a comment about the head cut off in my first shot. Thing is, about 95% of head shots I looked at have the head cut off. Some even more severe.

Another thing I noticed is asymmetrical framing of the actor. Again, like in the first shot. I framed him over to the right a bit. Saw this a lot. I experimented with a lot of shots. I framed some real tight, where the head was cut off. Some with the head in full view. I shot some framed center, others asymmetrical. I shot in portrait and landscape orientation.

I do agree that I think I blew it on these with the lighting. I don't know what I was thinking since my mistake was so basic. I don't think it makes the shots unusable but I will definitely NOT do this again with the next head shots I shoot.

BBstringer

Eyes
You have a great subject there and I think there have been some great points made by some very good photographers here. Two things that may be helpful on the next go-round. The first suggestion is try using a kicker behind and to the subject's left (camera right) to pop that jaw line. Giving it a nicely defined line and the ability to give a "bolder" more dimensional look to a male subject. Especially when the nose is turned a little more toward the key light (and thereby balancing the eye light a little better as well). I've found that the key to a great headshot is expression and that most of that comes from the eyes. I'm guessing the ambient light in the room was fairly low? I say that because a key element in the eyes is color. I notice his pupils are quite dilated which results in the eyes not showing as much color as possible and leaves them looking a little dead. I shoot in NY and the first thing I got rejected on was that one point. If you look at Hooper's and Hurley's work one thing you will notice is the pupil is small allowing as much eye color through as possible. Of course this is easier with constant light like Hurley uses. I've found I have to have enough light in the room or on the subject to keep the pupil tight and let those often time gorgeous eye colors come through...even the deep brown which are often richly textured in younger clients. Right or wrong that's what's working commercially right now and people ask for Hurley's and Hooper's style a lot because that's what their agents are looking for. I find it's even spilling over into the social network shots I do. Guess it makes sense...a good looking heasdhot is a good looking headshot.

novicesnapper

Lol, I'm the same way. Many times I like the uncorrected version better. Sometimes the correction, seems to flatten the image and knock the DOF out. I knew you knew the stuff I mentioned, I really mentioned it for the ones following the thread. I actually like the crossed arms image the most, projects strength. I would be willing to bet, that will be one of the ones he picks right off the bat.

anonymouscuban

BB... yeah, the pupil thing bugs me and I always think to place a lamp I have without the shade in front of the person I'm shooting so the pupils constrict and I always forget. The stupid thing is that the lamp is in the room I shoot in.

BBstringer

anonymouscuban wrote: »

BB... yeah, the pupil thing bugs me and I always think to place a lamp I have without the shade in front of the person I'm shooting so the pupils constrict and I always forget. The stupid thing is that the lamp is in the room I shoot in.

Yep...but you've got it now. Next time around you'll kick it up a notch for sure.

divamum

The lighting WILL work.... it's just going to take some post work to make it a little flatter and less shadowy. Headshots typically aren't SOOC, much though people would like to think they are

Dang, I wish you and I could tandem-shoot, Alex - we'd make a great team!!

Attached below is one I did tinker with. Didn't do all that much, but I think it addresses some of the things mentioned and to my eye gives it a little more life. Slight tilt to unsquare his shoulders a little, slight crop to really bring it in on his eyes, and a little bit of equalizing the light. I didn't even bother to take it into PS and did it with LR gradients - one to darken on the left, one to brighten on the right. I did a bit of an eye bump to bring those out a little more; if I was in PS, I'd balance them up between each other even more by brightening the camera right eye, and doing a little less with camera left.

This one is heading towards a commercial shot - you got better examples with stronger eye engagement "straight out of the box", but this one is a good smile and I think the adjustments increase the sense of connection with the viewer.

Defining "theatrical" is a tough call - main thing is more dramatic, formal lighting, usually more formal attire/more glamourous and in some ways a more conventional portrait than your a smiley commercial shot, or a "we want it to look like a movie still" shot. Character suggests a specific type - often "quirky" rather than "just plain ole' me".

I also wanted to point out something that I noticed while checking out work of local head shot photographers, even the more well known ones. A lot of rules of portraiture get thrown out the window. For instance, someone made a comment about the head cut off in my first shot. Thing is, about 95% of head shots I looked at have the head cut off. Some even more severe.

Yup. I think it's just a different *kind* of portraiture - the goals are different, so the "rules" are different too.

Another thing I noticed is asymmetrical framing of the actor. Again, like in the first shot. I framed him over to the right a bit. Saw this a lot. I experimented with a lot of shots. I framed some real tight, where the head was cut off. Some with the head in full view. I shot some framed center, others asymmetrical.

Yup. Lots of negative space is a popular style right now. A few years ago, nobody liked it; it'll probably go out again in time. But currently? Very popular. Unless I have an obviously good shot that I can frame that way in camera, I tend to crop it to that afterwards. I find I have so much more flexibility by doing it that way.

divamum

Here's great examples of theatrical/character with somebody y'all probably know, so you can get what it means in terms of how she promotes herself.

Tina Fey, Theatrical
Tina Fey, Promo (could be used as theatrical or could possibly be "famous person commercial)
Tina Fey, Character

anonymouscuban

Cool Diva. I didn't try that much in post since I didn't quite know which way to go. Yours and others feedback on this thread will certainly help guide my edits. Luckily, I don't think my base is too off so I should be able to pull these off with some minor tweaks.

BTW Diva, sending you a PM.

BBstringer

In the sense of "theatrical" i have shot actors to a specific character and character type...everything from Juliet...to the nurse to Falstaff...a look that lends itself to the casting director saying "she looks just like (insert character here)....and I'd say from the feedback I've gotten it's been worthwhile for the client. If a 19 yr old actress goes in to audition for R&J she definitely wants that ingenue shot with corresponding type of wardrobe and hairstyle. She's not being cast as the nurse so she somewhat profiles the shot for that particular audition. Nothing new in that at all. On the other hand...they've stretched it the other way to get a look that's more "mature".

anonymouscuban

So he sent the link to his agent and she loved quite a few of them. He also had a few different ones that he liked. Now the process of whittling down that list to the select few I will do full edits on. I have actually gone ahead and edited the ones I really like on their list since I may end up using some in my port.

Here are a couple with two different edits that I can't decide which I like better. One version has an additional final layer. A bit more "punchy" than the other. Mostly local contrast bump.

1A


1B


2A


2B