I got a referral to take some actor headshots which was a first for me. He's moving to LA to look for acting gigs so needed shots to submit to acting positions. Would love to get some feedback.
Hmm... I'll have to look at these at home to really comment but I thought this was a woman in the first 2 shots. Then 3 and 4 had me scratching my head. Not until the last two that I realized it's a guy. Not sure what that means to you or the photography but thought it was important for me to share my first impression.
Hmm... I'll have to look at these at home to really comment but I thought this was a woman in the first 2 shots. Then 3 and 4 had me scratching my head. Not until the last two that I realized it's a guy. Not sure what that means to you or the photography but thought it was important for me to share my first impression.
+1
There is something about the head tilting forward and the v-cut shirt and the beauty lighting that make #1 look very feminine and womanly. It's not until the last 2 shots that your sure this is a guy. I think perhaps it needs more contrast and direction of light and a more masculine stance.
In any case, had a few minutes to come back to this. They're ok technically as far as lighting etc, but I'm not sure how they'll represent him as his "calling card".
Specifics:
- way too much makeup. You don't want to see it that clearly on a gal, and you CERTAINLY don't want to see it on a guy. If it's not makeup, then the lighting has heavily emphasised his pores. Some tasteful skin softening would not go amiss, IMO.
- lips have foundation over them and are too pale
- as others have mentioned, his look is rather feminine with the hair and the earring, and - unless he's trying for geek/freak roles - it might be an idea to bring out something a little different. Character/sinister/quirky are fine, but it needs to be clear that's what he's selling (and he probably ought to have something that shows a different side of him, too). You start to get this in #5, but the skin and lack of catchlights in the camera right eye kill it (in fact, I'd love to see that expression from him with totally different lighting - either black bg, or puull him forward and let light falloff make the bg darker - main more to the side, less fill - instant "Orson Welles" moody portrait)
- the thrown back head 6 and 3 just make his larynx look big, and don't tell me anything about him. You get away with it better in 6, but that nub on his larynx really disturbs me - it's got its own highlight - there's no light in his eyes, and his thumb is extremely unfortunately placed..... He's clearly got a great physique, but that jacket is too short for him, and to me it's just a weird look.
The main point: what is a casting director going to consider him for from these? WHO is he trying to work for? WHAT kind of roles does he want? HOW does he view himself and hope to present himself? I don't actually know from these shots.
Again, these aren't photo technicals (other than the lack of light in his eyes), but more a question of INTENTION. When you consider that he'll be submitting against shots like these and these and these and these, it's not necessarily going to get him the kind of attention he's hoping for. Quirky is fine - and that's what I'm getting is his "selling point" from these shots, but it needs to be *clear*. It doesn't matter whether they're studio, or natural light, or whatever, but he needs to project something clearer, IMO. That's partly his job and partly yours.... and what makes headshots so darned hard!!!
I confess I saw your queries but I just didn't think there was any point in overstating the obvious about the lack of a stylist and no specific targeted role. It doesn't really change anything.
In any case, had a few minutes to come back to this. They're ok technically as far as lighting etc, but I'm not sure how they'll represent him as his "calling card".
Specifics:
- way too much makeup. You don't want to see it that clearly on a gal, and you CERTAINLY don't want to see it on a guy. If it's not makeup, then the lighting has heavily emphasised his pores. Some tasteful skin softening would not go amiss, IMO.
- lips have foundation over them and are too pale
Sigh, it's true, isn't it? Believe or not, this was our second shoot. On the first one his makeup was so heavy and flat that he looked like a corpse. When we looked through the pics he asked me if I could doctor them up. I told him we needed a reshoot with NO MAKEUP. He agreed. Shows up with "different makeup that will be fine." What was I supposed to say? I should have said, "go wash your face." But it was his shoot so I went with his judgement.
- as others have mentioned, his look is rather feminine with the hair and the earring, and - unless he's trying for geek/freak roles - it might be an idea to bring out something a little different. Character/sinister/quirky are fine, but it needs to be clear that's what he's selling (and he probably ought to have something that shows a different side of him, too). You start to get this in #5, but the skin and lack of catchlights in the camera right eye kill it (in fact, I'd love to see that expression from him with totally different lighting - either black bg, or puull him forward and let light falloff make the bg darker - main more to the side, less fill - instant "Orson Welles" moody portrait)
Um, you lost me on the lack of catchlight in the camera-right eye on #5. There's definitely a catchlight there, just not as pronounced as the side with main light. It is the short-lighted side after all. If you look at that Peter Hurley link you sent me, page 2, guy on right. Lighting in the eyes is very similar to #5. Also, you'll notice his shot there is Rembrandt lighting with a hi-key background. So my bg is already darker than that.
What you are describing a low-key setup. I love low key, and he'd be great for that. However, it's my understanding that directors don't want to see moody lighting. They want to see the actor with no tricks and no games. I've read this in numerous places. So I picked a mood somewhat middle of the road, thinking that may be too much as it is. Needless to say I'm surprised to hear you say to go to a low key, hatchet light kind of look for an actor shot. A model yes, but again I've read not to get too fancy on professional actor headshots. But maybe I've been reading the wrong stuff.
The task as I understood it was to get a variety of "approachable" looks, as well as some more serious looks. For the approachable looks I used a beauty lighting setup to be bright and fairly flat. In fact the lighting set up was modeled on Peter Hurley's setup. Lights above, below and to the sides. I'm happy with the light. Not happy with the makeup. Undecided on the poses. Now that folks have mentioned it, I do agree that the hair, earings and makeup make him look super feminine in these shots. Honestly the dude is far from being feminine in real life. Sounds like we blew it to some degree.
The last two shots were from the "serious" set and I used short lighting and Rembrandt on those and turned off the bg lights so it would go gray.
- the thrown back head 6 and 3 just make his larynx look big, and don't tell me anything about him. You get away with it better in 6, but that nub on his larynx really disturbs me - it's got its own highlight - there's no light in his eyes, and his thumb is extremely unfortunately placed..... He's clearly got a great physique, but that jacket is too short for him, and to me it's just a weird look.
Agree about the jacket and larynx, disagree about the catchlight. He's looking right into an octabox 3' away at at f/16. Not sure how much catchlight you're expecting on a full-length body shot, but it would have to be super enhanced to see it at this small size.
The main point: what is a casting director going to consider him for from these? WHO is he trying to work for? WHAT kind of roles does he want? HOW does he view himself and hope to present himself? I don't actually know from these shots.
That's not my understanding of the process. My understanding is that a casting director chooses actors for a specific role. They don't look at an actor and think, "hmm, how shall I use this guy?" So the actor knows what role he's applying for and chooses a headshot from his portfolio to submit for that particular role. Is that not true? So we were aiming for a portfolio of a variety of looks.
Again, these aren't photo technicals (other than the lack of light in his eyes), but more a question of INTENTION. When you consider that he'll be submitting against shots like these and these and these and these, it's not necessarily going to get him the kind of attention he's hoping for. Quirky is fine - and that's what I'm getting is his "selling point" from these shots, but it needs to be *clear*. It doesn't matter whether they're studio, or natural light, or whatever, but he needs to project something clearer, IMO. That's partly his job and partly yours.... and what makes headshots so darned hard!!!
Again, I appreciate your input Diva, and hope you don't mind me pushing back to get some clarity. I'm trying to put this puzzle together and not all the pieces are fitting yet.
Those two are WAY more on the right track for him IMO, although obviously it depends on whether or not he wants to showcase the tat sleeve (and the makeup is still an issue). The first one is a decent shot - captures "sinister" and "a little off the beaten track" well and the expression is pretty engaging. The 2nd one he looks a little dead in expression, but it's a good shot which shows his physique and stance.
I confess I saw your queries but I just didn't think there was any point in overstating the obvious about the lack of a stylist and no specific targeted role. It doesn't really change anything.
Ah, there's the confusion - I don't mean targeted role singular, but targeted roleS = TYPE. That really is the key to any headshots. Somebody can of course fall into more than one type and want pictures for all of those - they SHOULD have pictures that represent all of those - but each shot needs to say *something*. About the potential roles, about what the guy might be like to work with, about ability to project something above and beyond type etc etc. What did he say he's looking to do? Just "acting" is too broad. TV? Film? Commercial work? Experimental theater? Improv comedy? Indie? What are his "unique selling points" and what does he want a casting director to see when they look at the shot for 3 seconds or less before moving on to the next applicant?
This guy is clearly not out of the pretty-boy-next-door mold which is totally fine (although his looks actually give him potential for tons of stuff - a stylist could turn him into a prettyboy without that much effort) - but his shots really need to work with that and sell it. He's a quirky dude, clearly (and given his obsession for makeup in pictures, I'm gonna guess he's either never had headshots done before, or last had them done in the 80's). Of the first ones you posted, the one I like best is actually #4 because it works with his hair and clothes rather than against them. It's quirky... which is what he's projecting into the camera as a person.
What you are describing a low-key setup. I love low key, and he'd be great for that. However, it's my understanding that directors don't want to see moody lighting. They want to see the actor with no tricks and no games. I've read this in numerous places. So I picked a mood somewhat middle of the road, thinking that may be too much as it is. Needless to say I'm surprised to hear you say to go to a low key, hatchet light kind of look for an actor shot. A model yes, but again I've read not to get too fancy on professional actor headshots. But maybe I've been reading the wrong stuff.
IMO, it's all on a case by case basis - you work with what the actor is trying to project, and adjust light accordingly. I seldom give clients only one lighting set-up, in case a change in light brings out a change in personality (or they just realise after the fact they strongly prefer one or the other). Generally you do want a very well lit face, particularly for the "commercial" look. But.... there is some leeway as long as the shot *really* works.
However there are some great lowER key headshots. We're not talking full film noir (sorry if my Orson Welles comment misled you), but just something that picks up on his ability to do sinister more than a bright, high-key studio setup. I just googled "male headshots" until I found one that shows what I mean - it's not low key as such, but it has both a strong moody feel and good clear lighting. (Actually, look at that guy's headshot portfolio - some really fantastic work)
Um, you lost me on the lack of catchlight in the camera-right eye on #5. There's definitely a catchlight there, just not as pronounced as the side with main light. It is the short-lighted side after all.
Yes, there's a small catchlight, but it doesn't match the multiple ones of the other side, and the eyes just aren't sparkly enough. If it's shortlit and didn't happen naturally and takes dodging/burning and/or copying/pasting one from the other side to boost them, so be it. The eyes need to be absolutely captivating. Complex, large catchlights often help with that "grab you" effect, IMO.
Not sure how much catchlight you're expecting on a full-length body shot, but it would have to be super enhanced to see it at this small size.
Yup
That's not my understanding of the process. My understanding is that a casting director chooses actors for a specific role. They don't look at an actor and think, "hmm, how shall I use this guy?" So the actor knows what role he's applying for and chooses a headshot from his portfolio to submit for that particular role. Is that not true? So we were aiming for a portfolio of a variety of looks.
See above re: "Type". Yes, the casting director does choose actors for specific roles, but they will fall into broad categories AND just because you don't get pulled for one audition doesn't mean the CD doesn't pull your photo for another project they might have on the boil. Headshots are typically not trying to project or suggest a single specific role, but a whole category of possible roles/characters that person might be considered for. If you haven't read those Bonnie Gillespie articles I linked in the sticky on headshots, do go read them - her specific likes/dislikes aren't the benefit from those (especially since the images are now a bit out of date), but IMO you can extract a lot of general information and get a feel for how the system works.
With this guy, I'd be trying to do one set which tone down his "weird and wonderful" a little to give a quirky-but-approachable feel (maybe even doing some slicked back hair for a totally different look - not "in costume", but just different styling), and one look which brings out more of a buff, slightly sinister biker dude, which is what reads from these - if you pump that up it could be a really unique look that he can sell. If he has something else he wants to present, then do a look which brings that out.
Photographically headshots are not that hard. But getting an image that really SPEAKS and says something enough to help that person get on the "yes" pile is a lot tougher than it looks.....
The ones with the gray background aren't hi-key at all. The backgrounds aren't white, and the lighting is Rembrandt. Less fill would have added more contrast and given more of that sinister look you're alluding to which is a good idea. The first "approachable" ones that most people hate are hi-key. So these are two different lighting set ups. I believe the looks are distinctly different, but YMMV.
I think your ideas are great. He was pressed for time for the reshoot and we spent less than an hour on these. It would be great to get him more looks, but that won't happen any time soon as he's already moved to LA.
I should also mention he's pretty much straight out of acting school. His goal at this point is to get work, any work.
Kidding aside, I do like a much darker background for him - I prefer the grey background shots you posted in general, for many reasons including that - but that's just taste (and obviously, a BG swap isn't really what we're talking about here it's overall mood).
Sounds like he wasn't terribly invested in the shoot or particularly prepared to listen to you (eg on the makeup) so you do what you can do. He'll learn!! Frankly, it sounds like he was a tough customer. I suspect you have some good shots in the set that he can use, so you're good from that point of view. And your model work is SO good that I have no doubt that as you work with and talk to more actors you'll find your groove more easily than you did with this guy.
Ooh! Joel, was reading around some other stuff and came across a Bonnie Gillespie article I hadn't seen before which made me think of this discussion. Have a read and see if it makes any sense. Btw, PLEASE don't think I'm taking you personally to task over this - not at all. You should know by now I'm an admirer of your model work (big time), and the challenges you faced with this guy are ones I think EVERY headshot photographer comes up against. When you come from the performance side of things, it makes sense; when you come from the photography side of things, it can be harder to "get inside" all this flowery blah-blah rather than simply take a quality picture I do know how ridiculous much of it sounds!
Anyway, I think this is another great article (I'm adding it to the sticky, in fact) and she talks about how she sees images fitting into "type" (or not as the case might be). http://cricketfeet.com/temp/showfax/headshots4.html I wish another CD would write a similar article so one could get different "personal taste" coming into play, but I still find these really useful.
Kidding aside, I do like a much darker background for him - I prefer the grey background shots you posted in general, for many reasons including that - but that's just taste (and obviously, a BG swap isn't really what we're talking about here it's overall mood).
Sounds like he wasn't terribly invested in the shoot or particularly prepared to listen to you (eg on the makeup) so you do what you can do. He'll learn!! Frankly, it sounds like he was a tough customer. I suspect you have some good shots in the set that he can use, so you're good from that point of view. And your model work is SO good that I have no doubt that as you work with and talk to more actors you'll find your groove more easily than you did with this guy.
I think he was invested in the shoot. He needs these shots! But he underestimated the task. Actually that probably goes for both of us.
Ooh! Joel, was reading around some other stuff and came across a Bonnie Gillespie article I hadn't seen before which made me think of this discussion. Have a read and see if it makes any sense. Btw, PLEASE don't think I'm taking you personally to task over this - not at all. You should know by now I'm an admirer of your model work (big time), and the challenges you faced with this guy are ones I think EVERY headshot photographer comes up against. When you come from the performance side of things, it makes sense; when you come from the photography side of things, it can be harder to "get inside" all this flowery blah-blah rather than simply take a quality picture I do know how ridiculous much of it sounds!
Anyway, I think this is another great article (I'm adding it to the sticky, in fact) and she talks about how she sees images fitting into "type" (or not as the case might be). http://cricketfeet.com/temp/showfax/headshots4.html I wish another CD would write a similar article so one could get different "personal taste" coming into play, but I still find these really useful.
Thanks, Diva! That's a good link which does put this whole typed vs untyped photo thing into perspective. Definitely will refer back to this often for future reference.
And don't worry, I don't think you're picking on me at all. In fact, I was hoping you'd chime in on this series and feel honored that you've taken the time to help me out so much.
Thanks also for the kind words on my model work. Yeah, I feel comfortable with my camera and lights, getting better at working with models. But now I recognize there's a lot more to the actor headshot biz than meets the eye. I may even have to solicit some male models to practice on. That's almost unprecedented for me.
Thanks so much for all the help and pointers, Diva. If I wasn't 3,000 miles away, I'd buy you a lunch or three.
In case you didn't see the link within that piece, be sure to check out this companion article. I wouldn't say everybody lumps into those categories, but it does demystify some of the larger groupings I think.
Comments
Great job!
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
Question 2: did you have a stylist?
Answer those, and then we'll talk more
+1
There is something about the head tilting forward and the v-cut shirt and the beauty lighting that make #1 look very feminine and womanly. It's not until the last 2 shots that your sure this is a guy. I think perhaps it needs more contrast and direction of light and a more masculine stance.
Link to my Smugmug site
In any case, had a few minutes to come back to this. They're ok technically as far as lighting etc, but I'm not sure how they'll represent him as his "calling card".
Specifics:
- way too much makeup. You don't want to see it that clearly on a gal, and you CERTAINLY don't want to see it on a guy. If it's not makeup, then the lighting has heavily emphasised his pores. Some tasteful skin softening would not go amiss, IMO.
- lips have foundation over them and are too pale
- as others have mentioned, his look is rather feminine with the hair and the earring, and - unless he's trying for geek/freak roles - it might be an idea to bring out something a little different. Character/sinister/quirky are fine, but it needs to be clear that's what he's selling (and he probably ought to have something that shows a different side of him, too). You start to get this in #5, but the skin and lack of catchlights in the camera right eye kill it (in fact, I'd love to see that expression from him with totally different lighting - either black bg, or puull him forward and let light falloff make the bg darker - main more to the side, less fill - instant "Orson Welles" moody portrait)
- the thrown back head 6 and 3 just make his larynx look big, and don't tell me anything about him. You get away with it better in 6, but that nub on his larynx really disturbs me - it's got its own highlight - there's no light in his eyes, and his thumb is extremely unfortunately placed..... He's clearly got a great physique, but that jacket is too short for him, and to me it's just a weird look.
The main point: what is a casting director going to consider him for from these? WHO is he trying to work for? WHAT kind of roles does he want? HOW does he view himself and hope to present himself? I don't actually know from these shots.
Again, these aren't photo technicals (other than the lack of light in his eyes), but more a question of INTENTION. When you consider that he'll be submitting against shots like these and these and these and these, it's not necessarily going to get him the kind of attention he's hoping for. Quirky is fine - and that's what I'm getting is his "selling point" from these shots, but it needs to be *clear*. It doesn't matter whether they're studio, or natural light, or whatever, but he needs to project something clearer, IMO. That's partly his job and partly yours.... and what makes headshots so darned hard!!!
I confess I saw your queries but I just didn't think there was any point in overstating the obvious about the lack of a stylist and no specific targeted role. It doesn't really change anything. Sigh, it's true, isn't it? Believe or not, this was our second shoot. On the first one his makeup was so heavy and flat that he looked like a corpse. When we looked through the pics he asked me if I could doctor them up. I told him we needed a reshoot with NO MAKEUP. He agreed. Shows up with "different makeup that will be fine." What was I supposed to say? I should have said, "go wash your face." But it was his shoot so I went with his judgement. Um, you lost me on the lack of catchlight in the camera-right eye on #5. There's definitely a catchlight there, just not as pronounced as the side with main light. It is the short-lighted side after all. If you look at that Peter Hurley link you sent me, page 2, guy on right. Lighting in the eyes is very similar to #5. Also, you'll notice his shot there is Rembrandt lighting with a hi-key background. So my bg is already darker than that.
What you are describing a low-key setup. I love low key, and he'd be great for that. However, it's my understanding that directors don't want to see moody lighting. They want to see the actor with no tricks and no games. I've read this in numerous places. So I picked a mood somewhat middle of the road, thinking that may be too much as it is. Needless to say I'm surprised to hear you say to go to a low key, hatchet light kind of look for an actor shot. A model yes, but again I've read not to get too fancy on professional actor headshots. But maybe I've been reading the wrong stuff.
The task as I understood it was to get a variety of "approachable" looks, as well as some more serious looks. For the approachable looks I used a beauty lighting setup to be bright and fairly flat. In fact the lighting set up was modeled on Peter Hurley's setup. Lights above, below and to the sides. I'm happy with the light. Not happy with the makeup. Undecided on the poses. Now that folks have mentioned it, I do agree that the hair, earings and makeup make him look super feminine in these shots. Honestly the dude is far from being feminine in real life. Sounds like we blew it to some degree.
The last two shots were from the "serious" set and I used short lighting and Rembrandt on those and turned off the bg lights so it would go gray. Agree about the jacket and larynx, disagree about the catchlight. He's looking right into an octabox 3' away at at f/16. Not sure how much catchlight you're expecting on a full-length body shot, but it would have to be super enhanced to see it at this small size. That's not my understanding of the process. My understanding is that a casting director chooses actors for a specific role. They don't look at an actor and think, "hmm, how shall I use this guy?" So the actor knows what role he's applying for and chooses a headshot from his portfolio to submit for that particular role. Is that not true? So we were aiming for a portfolio of a variety of looks. Again, I appreciate your input Diva, and hope you don't mind me pushing back to get some clarity. I'm trying to put this puzzle together and not all the pieces are fitting yet.
Link to my Smugmug site
Link to my Smugmug site
Ah, there's the confusion - I don't mean targeted role singular, but targeted roleS = TYPE. That really is the key to any headshots. Somebody can of course fall into more than one type and want pictures for all of those - they SHOULD have pictures that represent all of those - but each shot needs to say *something*. About the potential roles, about what the guy might be like to work with, about ability to project something above and beyond type etc etc. What did he say he's looking to do? Just "acting" is too broad. TV? Film? Commercial work? Experimental theater? Improv comedy? Indie? What are his "unique selling points" and what does he want a casting director to see when they look at the shot for 3 seconds or less before moving on to the next applicant?
This guy is clearly not out of the pretty-boy-next-door mold which is totally fine (although his looks actually give him potential for tons of stuff - a stylist could turn him into a prettyboy without that much effort) - but his shots really need to work with that and sell it. He's a quirky dude, clearly (and given his obsession for makeup in pictures, I'm gonna guess he's either never had headshots done before, or last had them done in the 80's). Of the first ones you posted, the one I like best is actually #4 because it works with his hair and clothes rather than against them. It's quirky... which is what he's projecting into the camera as a person.
IMO, it's all on a case by case basis - you work with what the actor is trying to project, and adjust light accordingly. I seldom give clients only one lighting set-up, in case a change in light brings out a change in personality (or they just realise after the fact they strongly prefer one or the other). Generally you do want a very well lit face, particularly for the "commercial" look. But.... there is some leeway as long as the shot *really* works.
However there are some great lowER key headshots. We're not talking full film noir (sorry if my Orson Welles comment misled you), but just something that picks up on his ability to do sinister more than a bright, high-key studio setup. I just googled "male headshots" until I found one that shows what I mean - it's not low key as such, but it has both a strong moody feel and good clear lighting. (Actually, look at that guy's headshot portfolio - some really fantastic work)
Yes, there's a small catchlight, but it doesn't match the multiple ones of the other side, and the eyes just aren't sparkly enough. If it's shortlit and didn't happen naturally and takes dodging/burning and/or copying/pasting one from the other side to boost them, so be it. The eyes need to be absolutely captivating. Complex, large catchlights often help with that "grab you" effect, IMO.
See above re: "Type". Yes, the casting director does choose actors for specific roles, but they will fall into broad categories AND just because you don't get pulled for one audition doesn't mean the CD doesn't pull your photo for another project they might have on the boil. Headshots are typically not trying to project or suggest a single specific role, but a whole category of possible roles/characters that person might be considered for. If you haven't read those Bonnie Gillespie articles I linked in the sticky on headshots, do go read them - her specific likes/dislikes aren't the benefit from those (especially since the images are now a bit out of date), but IMO you can extract a lot of general information and get a feel for how the system works.
With this guy, I'd be trying to do one set which tone down his "weird and wonderful" a little to give a quirky-but-approachable feel (maybe even doing some slicked back hair for a totally different look - not "in costume", but just different styling), and one look which brings out more of a buff, slightly sinister biker dude, which is what reads from these - if you pump that up it could be a really unique look that he can sell. If he has something else he wants to present, then do a look which brings that out.
Photographically headshots are not that hard. But getting an image that really SPEAKS and says something enough to help that person get on the "yes" pile is a lot tougher than it looks.....
The ones with the gray background aren't hi-key at all. The backgrounds aren't white, and the lighting is Rembrandt. Less fill would have added more contrast and given more of that sinister look you're alluding to which is a good idea. The first "approachable" ones that most people hate are hi-key. So these are two different lighting set ups. I believe the looks are distinctly different, but YMMV.
I think your ideas are great. He was pressed for time for the reshoot and we spent less than an hour on these. It would be great to get him more looks, but that won't happen any time soon as he's already moved to LA.
I should also mention he's pretty much straight out of acting school. His goal at this point is to get work, any work.
Link to my Smugmug site
Kidding aside, I do like a much darker background for him - I prefer the grey background shots you posted in general, for many reasons including that - but that's just taste (and obviously, a BG swap isn't really what we're talking about here it's overall mood).
Sounds like he wasn't terribly invested in the shoot or particularly prepared to listen to you (eg on the makeup) so you do what you can do. He'll learn!! Frankly, it sounds like he was a tough customer. I suspect you have some good shots in the set that he can use, so you're good from that point of view. And your model work is SO good that I have no doubt that as you work with and talk to more actors you'll find your groove more easily than you did with this guy.
Anyway, I think this is another great article (I'm adding it to the sticky, in fact) and she talks about how she sees images fitting into "type" (or not as the case might be). http://cricketfeet.com/temp/showfax/headshots4.html I wish another CD would write a similar article so one could get different "personal taste" coming into play, but I still find these really useful.
Thanks, Diva! That's a good link which does put this whole typed vs untyped photo thing into perspective. Definitely will refer back to this often for future reference.
And don't worry, I don't think you're picking on me at all. In fact, I was hoping you'd chime in on this series and feel honored that you've taken the time to help me out so much.
Thanks also for the kind words on my model work. Yeah, I feel comfortable with my camera and lights, getting better at working with models. But now I recognize there's a lot more to the actor headshot biz than meets the eye. I may even have to solicit some male models to practice on. That's almost unprecedented for me.
Thanks so much for all the help and pointers, Diva. If I wasn't 3,000 miles away, I'd buy you a lunch or three.
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
Look forward to the next batch you do!!