Recent Diva Shoot (C&C)

divamum

C&C welcomed!

"Diva" in this instance wasn't me, but the client's prime directive - she wanted some more glamorous headshots to go for a big audition push this autumn.

I wish I could say I was happy with this set, but something about them is bugging me, even though I can't quite put my finger on it. I've had a brute of a time putting together her set, compounded because for whatever reason the camera seemed to have trouble consistently focusing on those light blue eyes - I lost WAY too many shots to missed focus, something I haven't had issues with in a very long time. Growl.

Anyway, whine, whine, whine. C&C welcome.

1.



2.


3.


4.

D3Sshooter

Hi Divamum, the set is OK but not a Wow. Except the second picture, that one has that WoW effect.
But then again that is just my limited view .

Pic 1> Frontal picture, that makes it always a bit more difficult and it has a limited depth feeling. Secondly the frame is a bit tight, whereby the arm look a bit oak-ward . I think if the picture would have a bit more space it would work better combined with a clamp shell light set-up. I would also liquify the nose a little bit to make it less wide. You got the catch lights that is good.


Pic 2 > That is the one, you got it . Nice depth, good glamour expression on the face, the wild hair. A lovely smile. But you could improve it in PP, for instance make the lips (upper lip) a but more hearth shaped (liquify). Remove the glossy spots on the nose, make the nose wings a bit smaller (not to much) But since she smiles, the nose tends to become wider. And work the body a bit, especially the back-shoulder and upper arm in front . Those appear massive in the picture compared to the head. Just close your eyes halfway and glance at the picture, you will notice what I mean. It is normal since the arm is close to the cam and light tones. That makes it always look bigger.
But like I stated, its a great shot to start from.

Pic 3> A bit bright on the chest area, I can see no more detail there (maybe it is my screen). I have the feeling that the model is flashed away. The blue top puls all the attention, unless it would go in a magazine with a blue background I would avoid it. I know it goes with the eyes. Talking about the eyes, the catch lights are not what they should be for a glamour shot (9-10-11-1-2-3 a clock).
Framing is a bit tight.

Pic 4 > Not bad, but it just doesn't has that energy as the second one. Furthermore I am not to sure about the vignette. It dampens the glamour feel.

Did you try a clamp light set-up ? That works marvelous for a beauty/glamour shoot.

So please don't take my comments as negative criticism ,they are just my observation for what it is worth.

Good shooting Divamum.

divamum

Thanks DS - these are actual headshots for professional use as a career singer, not "glamour shots" as such. "Glamourous" look and feel rather than traditional Hollywood glamour. In fact, I think one of the things I don't like about them is we went a bit too far with the styling, especially the hair - it's naturally straight, and I think I made a poor call on going for waves. I knew the look I wanted - a sort of "Ralph Lauren Catalog" English Rose - and her hair just would NOT play nice and give us the soft, tousled waves I wanted. I probably should have given up and just told the mua to blow it out straight instead :-/

3 is all natural light - no flash of any kind

What is a clamp light?

D3Sshooter

divamum wrote: »

Thanks DS - these are actual headshots for professional use as a career singer, not "glamour shots" as such. "Glamourous" look and feel rather than traditional Hollywood glamour. In fact, I think one of the things I don't like about them is we went a bit too far with the styling, especially the hair - it's naturally straight, and I think I made a poor call on going for waves. I knew the look I wanted - a sort of "Ralph Lauren Catalog" English Rose - and her hair just would NOT play nice and give us the soft, tousled waves I wanted. I probably should have given up and just told the mua to blow it out straight instead :-/

3 is all natural light - no flash of any kind

What is a clamp light?

OK, That is clear. I understood a glamour take... I still think that the PIC2 is great. And to be very honest, you hit nail on the head with the MUA and styling. I love it. And as s singer, are they not always a bit shiny, glamours and diva wise ?

Clamp lighting: The head of the model is close to a 45 degree downwards soft box in front of the model as the main light. Below the chin a reflection panel to take out the unwanted shadows and to soften the transition between the light and shadow area's.

divamum

Ah, I think you mean clamshell (a clamp is a clip to hold things; clam the thing that lives in the ocean, like an oyster .

Yeah, I like the way she looks with this hair and makeup, I'm just afraid it doesn't look enough like the "real her". Then again, maybe I'm just so frustrated with this set that I can't see straight any more! Particularly since the 5-6 shots I was REALLY excited about had to be tossed due to missed focus. I am SO SO SO SO SO mad about that. And I was rechecking while shooting and chimping like crazy to be sure it was sharp, and even with that - too many missed. I have to check the gear to make sure there isn't a problem of some kind, although I think it's because I was using a fair bit of backlighting (the lighting in #2 is daylight from behind and fill from a small LED video light in front), her eyes are pale and pretty low contrast, and I was standing quite close, which forced me to focus recompose (my space is REALLY limiting me these days). Like I say... whine, whine, whine, whine, whine....

angevin1

Something not mentioned is distance. If these are not crops, then you must have been too close to her. in Pic 4 this is easier for me to see. Pretty lady and I actually like the styling, also the look on #3, but as I said, I think you were too close. If that is not the case, then an angle or lighting to take away the prominent nose would have helped perhaps.

divamum

angevin1 wrote: »

Something not mentioned is distance. If these are not crops, then you must have been too close to her. in Pic 4 this is easier for me to see. Pretty lady and I actually like the styling, also the look on #3, but as I said, I think you were too close. If that is not the case, then an angle or lighting to take away the prominent nose would have helped perhaps.

Agreed on too close - it's driving me CRAZY. I can't do any of the things I want because I'm space-challenged. Worst of all, this gal booked me for "straight up headshots with a glamour vibe" and then asked why we weren't doing more full-length - I CAN"T do full-length at home, and if I'd known she wanted that, I'd have insisted we went on location. As it is, I simply MUST find somewhere else I can shoot regularly; the space issue is becoming a real problem :cry

angevin1

divamum wrote: »

Agreed on too close - it's driving me CRAZY. I can't do any of the things I want because I'm space-challenged. Worst of all, this gal booked me for "straight up headshots with a glamour vibe" and then asked why we weren't doing more full-length - I CAN"T do full-length at home, and if I'd known she wanted that, I'd have insisted we went on location. As it is, I simply MUST find somewhere else I can shoot regularly; the space issue is becoming a real problem :cry

Yep. You are long overdue to arrange another, longer space, closer to using the 200mm end of the stick and having to crop for head-shots. I cannot imagine the frustration knowing how solid your technique is.

Hackbone

Color and exposure, processing are just super. For me I dislike 2 the most because of the shooting into the shoulder. I think it would be a great shot cropped square and get rid of some of the shoulder. You and she should be totally happy with these.

Mitchell

A solid set, but she never delivered a really emotive pose for you. None of these have that winning smile or that striking sparkle in the eyes to grab the viewer.

In the set, I prefer #3.

divamum

Thanks Hack and Mitchell.

Mitchell, again you've nailed what I don't like. I have to say that these are pretty representative of her energy levels in real life - I really hoped to get some with honest sparkle and the outdoor set - including #3 (the one I gave her as a sneak peak, in fact - it's one of my favorites) - are the ones which came closest to that. I'll be interested to see which ones she chooses.

lilmomma

I think everyone's being a little too hard on the set!
I think 1 & 2 are OK not bad at all just not my favs
I like 3 a lot but might be a touch too hot?
But I personally think 4 is fantastic!! Love it!

thonsu

I think they're technically amazing shots. Lighting, focus, colors, framing, etc. But what seems to be missing is her. Doesn't seem like she's really engaging with you and instead just trying to see down the barrel of the lens.

More nit-pickedly, there seems to be problem areas around her neck.

1.: folds; bunched up skin.

2.: hunchback look

3.: minor folds, but that's kinda stretching it at this point. I like this one.

4.: I love!

divamum

Aw, thanks Melissa! I wish I were happier with it, but I'm less disappointed a couple of days later than I was right afterwards; sometimes I have to step back to gain some objectivity and see what I got instead of "what I'm disappointed I didn't get"

Thonsu, THANKS for pointing out! These aren't "finished" edits - if she chooses them, they'll get another pass, and your nits are super-helpful!

divamum

You know that feeling of relief when you're not sold on a set and the client writes back telling you how much they love them and are going to have such a hard time choosing? Yeah. That. :whew