Executive portraiture - site link.
puzzledpaul
Registered Users Posts: 1,621 Major grins
Came across this guy's site.
Wondered if anyone here might be interested.
pp
http://www.dansellers.com/
Wondered if anyone here might be interested.
pp
http://www.dansellers.com/
0
Comments
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
One thing I have noticed is that photographers with images like this never have a price list.
Kinda like if you have to ask you can't afford it.
Sam
Since I got this link in an email from Phase One (no, am not in the market), I assume he's using some of their kit and therefore making the odd quid or two, too
Apart from having a general look, I was curious to see whether he used the 'tog higher than subject, subject looking up at cam' setup, much favoured by some.
pp
Flickr
Those are wonderful corporate shots, particularly the more environmental ones. Terrific stuff.
PS, I'm addicted to vignetting and there are great examples here of how it draws you eye into the subject.
www.cameraone.biz
Well, I've given indications before, but ...
In essence I think it's a bit of a 'contrivance too far' or ignoring the 'transparency of artifice' somewhat
Whilst I accept (but don't necessarily agree) that a 'tog's job - in this sort of genre - is to use whatever skills they have to produce an acceptable (to client or client's market) image ...and this is done via lighting / posing / makeup / environment / clothes etc ...by using an angle / pose which - to my mind - is somewhat 'out of kilter' with some 'norms of life / social interaction', I find somewhat counterproductive.
An analogy would be CGI special effects in a film - when done well, they're transparent, they don't deflect the viewer's attention from the plot (assuming a plot is present) ... but if not, they tend to distract the viewer (certainly this viewer).
The 'pose' in question, because it's so different from how I'd prefer to interact with others IRL, tends to distract me, make me wonder why it's being used, what's trying to be hidden etc.
In real life, when talking / interacting with other people I prefer to be at the same eye level (give or take) and there are many sayings associated with height differences between a person who's 'looking down' on a 'lesser person' ... or the opposite, someone who's 'looking up' to someone else, also with the appropriate implications.
ie there's a sense of inequality / subservience / inferiority etc being introduced into the scenario.
(Oliver Twist asking for more also just came to mind for some reason)
There are, of course,many bigger questions here, too - re the triumph of 'style (or superficiality) over substance, and being at ease within oneself etc.
I showed your recent selfie to mrs pp and one of the first comments she made was 'it make me feel uneasy'
When out 'duck snappin' ' in normal 'bike park' position, I sometimes get asked why I'm dong it in the way I am ... probably the 2nd Q I'll ask them is 'would you (prefer to) take pics of your (grand)kids by standing over them, pointing down at them, or get down to their (eye) level? '
I'll let you guess the answer
Before writing this, I stood in front of the mirror (rare 'cos horrible sight) in order to emulate the 'canoe eye' look* ... and as am sure you're aware, is easily achieved when standing upright, but with chin tucked into neck ... but this produces a v.particular ... and again (imo) not greatly dissimilar look to the one under discussion.
I don't expect you to agree or take any notice of the above, or for you to change your views ... just as I'd be unlikely to agree with someone suggesting that I should start taking pics of waterfowl with the cam on a tripod on the bank
I did however, briefly peruse several sites of London based headshot 'togs to see how they went about things ... so maybe it's a 'different side of the pond' fashion at the moment ... and something we can all look forward to seeing more of here ...
Btw, I trespass in here, because I have a couple of daughters in their late 20s ... and occasionally get asked to get the cam out on their behalf.
pp
edit
* Also similar to lawyer / doctor etc looking over top of specs to impart bad news.
Flickr
I guess I just don't have a problem with it; if I'm honest. I actually have trouble "seeing" it, and don't really even notice a raised eyeline unless it's quite extreme. I'm tall so in real life am often aware of people looking up at me slightly, so maybe it doesn't seem unnatural to me?
UK actor shots have a few specific requirements, in part laid down by Spotlight (the industry directory) expectations. Flat lit, whole face showing (no extreme side angles or split lighting), I believe it needs to be full head and shoulders etc. However, you still see flattering angles, including, at times, from above. Pulled this current London headshot photographer's site at random (had never heard of him before, although I LOVE this work and will be following him now!) - plenty of "from slightly above" shots in his portfolio (as well as others). Other photographers sites demonstrate similar variety, so I don't think it's a style entirely divided by an ocean.
http://www.nickjamesphotography.co.uk/gallery
Again, I don't think it's right for everything (and in my own shot happened slightly "by accident" as I was on the wrong side of the camera, making specific framing challenging) - thanks for taking the time to explain your (pardon the pun!) views - some great food for thought.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
For me I don't like it because as PP stated it isn't a normal interaction you have with someone, and there are psychological subtexts of being smaller than the viewer from that angle. Shooting below eye level gives the subject a more commanding presence than shooting above. I can see shooting from above in some cases but even if they have a double chin etc shooting below overcomes that by just having a more heroic view.
When I shot sports i would get as low to the ground as possible. Athletes get in athletic stances which makes them look shorter. Getting low to the ground compensates and makes them look more heroic. Take two pictures of the same play at the same spot, one photog standing at 6ft shooting down and one on their knees shooting up, the lower angle is going to look better.
Same principle applies to portrait work. Sometimes the above shot works and it should be in the bag of tricks but for me I just don't like it as the standard shot I do.
Another thing I found interesting is his frequent use of interlocked fingers whereas many texts on posing say to avoid them. There are enough of those shots that it's clear that he's actually posing them that way. The folded arms across the body is another pose he uses frequently and in some cases it's a strong pose but in other shots I think it looks a bit defensive.
These are fun to look at and to learn from. The photography is great in all of them and he's got a consistently classy style.
Link to my Smugmug site
Where I disagree is that a portrait isn't the same as real life. When interacting with people, you don't have a "freeze frame" option in which you will look at that "frame" for an extended period of time. A portrait or photograph is that freeze frame. Photog's need to use all the items you mention to present a pleasing image.
Just today, I had a couple come in and they presented an opportunity to do something with this thread in mind.
First, here is just a quick snap of the woman (posing with her husband) as she sat naturally, taken from eye level when I was checking settings.
This pose was taken standing on a box from above, with her head positioned in a manner that she would seldom, if ever, assume in real life.
Which one do you think she'll like better? Which one do you think she'd spend more money on?
Btw, Jon, I agree with you regarding styles like the sports shots you describe - shooting from above in that context would convey entirely the wrong mood. Similarly, full-length models look better shot from slightly below to elongate the legs, and corporate portraits sometimes convey more "authority" if shot from a lower angle. We're talking subtleties here; as Kdog and John point out, these are all TOOLS in the arsenal to be used when appropriate.
One other comment in re this: the exponential growth of selfies mean a LOT of people are getting "used" to seeing themselves shot from slightly above and it's becoming more, rather than less, common ime. Again, I am NOT saying it's the only way to shoot, the way one "should" shoot, or anything else which implies it's somehow "better" than any other shooting angle - just pointing out what I hear from clients and other portrait shooters
I guess I don't get all the criticism.
Even if it isn't your style, can't you simply appreciate the photographers skill? There isn't a doubt that side by side with most portrait shots these will stand out and get that wow response.
It would be kinda like me commenting that your uncooked, raw, pre=grocery store food shots were noisy, busy odd backgrounds, and demonstrated focus issues with many images nothing more than blurry silhouettes.
Or one could simply enjoy the creative images made from nature.
Sam
I try very hard to maintain the ability to simply look and enjoy good solid images for what they are without critique.
Bryce ... am sure she'd be happy with either - but presumably chose 2, for the reasons being mentioned here (and I'm not going to get into specifics re someone I don't know)
Things that I noticed between the 2 shots ... other than the height difference, which, imo, are also relevant in making a fairer overall comparison between the 2 shots
1 is much smaller pic than 2 and differently presented
1 is head on shot, 2 isn't, therefore cam angles (in projected horizontal plane) are different
As the finish / appearance of the 2 shots is different, I suspect 2's been pp'd ... but dunno
Expression (smile) in 1 looks more natural (to me) ... especially the eyes - using the 'cover the bottom half of face trick / test'
Comments from mrs pp
'If trying / wanting to remember my mum - 1, if having a laugh, giggle - 2'
'Character shot - 1, magazine - 2'
+ 'I'd be happier with 1, but I'd (probably) wear a scarf '
As regards 'seated shots' on DS's site ... in the first 50 or so, there are a few ... but the majority have been taken from a lower pov to match the seated individual height / eye level.
Re 'raised eyelines' ... well, I'm 6ft, so don't have too many people 'looking down' on me either.
As regards subject 'eye level' ... different ballgame here ...maybe because of my main photographic interest - especially where distinct horizons are very evident @ water level, they're v. important / crucial.
pp
Flickr
Flickr
I can understand that reasoning, which is selfies are becoming the norm on social media so clients are requesting that. Personally, when I hear the word "trends" I go the opposite direction. In my market for beach portraits the trend is white shirts and khaki pants shot with natural light. I am getting clients who want beach shoots in colorful pastels and like the studio look I give to the beach pictures by using strobes. I am still very much in the learning phase of how to balance things out but I am getting clients that are hiring for my style and not price.
In Bryce's example of course I think the client is going to pick 2, but it isn't a great comparison. Her smile looks more natural in 1, and if shot at an angle and not straight on that would be a flattering shot.
These are examples from a shoot, one above, and one shot where I was kneeling. To me I like the one shot below, but then there are other factors like smile, background, body angle etc that it isn't a direct comparison.
If I have to shoot above for someone I will, it just isn't my standard shot. I try to flatter clients but have them in natural looking poses. When I see someone going through unnatural contortions to compensate for a double chin it screams to me almost as bad as plastic skin editing.
My brothers mother-in-law and I had a discussion about this a couple of months ago. She and her husband had their church portraits taken recently. The photographer was trying to get her to pose in ways that felt unnatural to her to compensate for chin and body. She said I know we are fat, just take our picture because this is who we are.
Short version: intended purpose of shot (including market expectations) has a LOT (everything?) to do with choice of and response to look/vibe/feel/camera angle/lighting.
I'd probably respond by saying that you need to make an appointment with (US equivalent of ) Specsavers 'cos you need new glasses ... as you only spotted about half the problems / issues with a typical shot
Re this thread topic
Diva - looked at new / 2nd pic in selfie thread... obvious which you'd chose for current purpose, but also an unfair test / comparison on many levels imo, not least that shot 2 was presumably taken without trying to get across these (same) feelings that you wish to evoke from a viewer?
Having looked at more headshots over the last few days, than ever before, I'd also suggest that it's (more than) possible to take one that will still evoke the response that you wish to obtain, without necessarily having to use the particular setup* you did - although I accept a selfie imposes particular problems of its own.
(* personally don't like the multiple catchlights, esp frame left - have been known to dump otherwise ok w/l shots for same reason - apart from the visual aspect they give an indication of the setup 'difficulty' needed to achieve the desired result - all imo, of course)
'Better than a comedy programme'
Mrs pp's comment after looking at some (phone) selfies I'd taken yesterday ... trying for all manner of looks, including both canoe and 'sunken / inverted canoe' ... thought she was going to choke laughing
pp
Flickr
Actually, I had no specific mood I was going for, really: I just wanted a shot with GREAT connection in flattering light that doesn't make me look 20 years older or 2 stone heavier than I am, and that jives with my aesthetic both photographically and in terms of how I present myself. I wanted a shot that was lit well enough that I could do minimal pp and, if needed, use the shot for musical theater (where a more natural look is preferred) AS WELL as opera (where it's expected to lean towards more glamorous).
Whenver I do SP's (thankfully, haven't had to for a while - gawd they're a pain!), I vary expressions - that "come hither" look is the one I find hardest to achieve, especially as a selfie, since if you think about it too hard it just looks mean (to say the least, the Peter Hurley "squinch" is NOT a success for me lol) and if you don't think about it hard enough and over-relax you get "resting bitch face". I always shoot a few "I'd be friendly and fun to work with if you hire me" broad smiles, so I did a few of those too, as demonstrated..... I just don't like the results. Maybe another photographer could get a good smiling one out of me, but I'm terrible at doing it as a self portrait
The 2nd photo I posted has nothing specifically "wrong" with it, it just doesn't present me the way I want to be seen among a pile of other headshots and looks really old-fashioned in photographic style. As I mentioned, that expression in a different environment with a more interesting, cinematic background might work for me, but doing a self-portrait "on location" would be reeeaalllly tricky (and a great way to get my camera stolen!!), so for now I'm stuck with studio look rather than a more cinematic vibe, unless I figure out how to cheat an urban look in my suburban garden................
PS I love, love, LOVE complex catchlights. I prefer the ones you get from shooting in natural light with the light from windows, open doors, porches, garages, mountains etc etc than those from the triflector, but I still like them when they're complex
To spell it out (again) just to be sure I'm not being misunderstood: I AM NOT SAYING that any angle is "right" or "wrong" - we're actually in agreement that the "best" angle (like lighting, pose, and expression) is ENTIRELY dependent on context, which include the subject's face/physique as well as the intended mood/vibe/use of the shot. Shooting from above can be flattering to some bodies nd some faces; shooting from below can be flattering to some bodies nd some faces; shooting square on can be flattering to some bodies and some faces. Intended use will determine what kind of expression is appropriate. It really all depends.
I think you are misunderstanding my point. You have been saying shooting from above is flattering for some subjects AND is the trendy thing to do. I get all of what you are saying other than the trendy part. Choice of angle is a subjective matter and a personal one. I'm just not agreeing with the "trendy" argument since a casual browse of magazine covers shows all angles are used.
You do realise we're actually arguing over agreeing, right?!
I thought we were discussing, not arguing.