Options

Portraits of Aspiring Actor

briandelionbriandelion Registered Users Posts: 512 Major grins
edited January 3, 2011 in People
Starting off the New Year with some low key B&W. These were not appropriate for his portfolio samples (will show those next time) but some extras I did for myself at sessions end with my 50mm prime lens. C&C welcomed.

_C105396web.jpg

_C105395web.jpg
"Photography is not about the thing photographed.
It is about how that thing looks photographed." Garry Winogrand

Avatar credit: photograph by Duane Michals- picture of me, 'Smash Palace' album

Comments

  • Options
    IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited January 2, 2011
    Your lighting of #1 is superb. I'm not so wild about the choice of the 50mm lens though. I think the short focal length has distorted his face. For a head shot, I would have used at least an 85mm lens.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • Options
    divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited January 2, 2011
    Definitely not ideal as submission headshots (although, depending on the kinds of roles he goes in for you never know if one might be useful as a "character" shot) but #1's a great photo! #2 doesn't work as well for me - I like the twinkle in his expression, but the dof is kind of funky on his mouth. The lighting isn't quite as effective in the 2nd one either (although terrific in #1 - I love not only the way you've shaped his bones, but the way you've brought out the texture of his skin - very effective)

    Look forward to seeing his headshots thumb.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • Options
    briandelionbriandelion Registered Users Posts: 512 Major grins
    edited January 2, 2011
    Icebear wrote: »
    Your lighting of #1 is superb. I'm not so wild about the choice of the 50mm lens though. I think the short focal length has distorted his face. For a head shot, I would have used at least an 85mm lens.

    It's actually a 4/3rds system Zuiko lens so it's equivalent to 100mm or so?headscratch.gif That being said, yes the second one looks a bit "bloated." How come I only see this stuff after I post? rolleyes1.gif
    "Photography is not about the thing photographed.
    It is about how that thing looks photographed." Garry Winogrand

    Avatar credit: photograph by Duane Michals- picture of me, 'Smash Palace' album
  • Options
    briandelionbriandelion Registered Users Posts: 512 Major grins
    edited January 2, 2011
    divamum wrote: »
    Definitely not ideal as submission headshots (although, depending on the kinds of roles he goes in for you never know if one might be useful as a "character" shot) but #1's a great photo! #2 doesn't work as well for me - I like the twinkle in his expression, but the dof is kind of funky on his mouth. The lighting isn't quite as effective in the 2nd one either (although terrific in #1 - I love not only the way you've shaped his bones, but the way you've brought out the texture of his skin - very effective)

    Look forward to seeing his headshots thumb.gif

    Thanks for your detailed comments. I'm anxious to get your input on the other headshots. We will be doing a second session so the feedback I get on the first session will be helpful. Keep an eye out :oogle I should be posting them in a couple of days.
    "Photography is not about the thing photographed.
    It is about how that thing looks photographed." Garry Winogrand

    Avatar credit: photograph by Duane Michals- picture of me, 'Smash Palace' album
  • Options
    NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited January 2, 2011
    briandelion wrote: »
    It's actually a 4/3rds system Zuiko lens so it's equivalent to 100mm or so?headscratch.gif That being said, yes the second one looks a bit "bloated." How come I only see this stuff after I post? rolleyes1.gif

    My own experience exactly! And very useful, too!deal.gif

    I really can't see much difference between the two shots. But as promo material in an actor portfolio I think they are too much like too many other 1/4 profile high contrast studiofied portraits. Your technique is fine, but the image is too passive, both on your part and his, imo. I'm itching to shake it up somehow. Blast it from the back so the profile emerges from some drama, or come in outrageously close, or tilt it, or get some camera motion playing with some edges... You get my meaning? It's fine as "This is blah blah, college sophomore, debating, football team etc etc..." On the other hand that might be exactly what you want?! But if you want it to be more than just a proof of your studio ability and his respectability, I think you could be looking outside the box.

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • Options
    divamumdivamum Registered Users Posts: 9,021 Major grins
    edited January 2, 2011
    I agree with Neil, but I think it's less about the lighting/technique as such than about getting his personality across - as an actor, the photo needs to tell us about *him*, not the photographer, or the technique. It's the hard part to achieve!! thumb.gif
    facebook | photo site |
  • Options
    rpcrowerpcrowe Registered Users Posts: 733 Major grins
    edited January 2, 2011
    I like #1
    I rather like #1 but I would liked to have seen him lower his chin just a bit.
  • Options
    briandelionbriandelion Registered Users Posts: 512 Major grins
    edited January 3, 2011
    NeilL wrote: »
    But as promo material in an actor portfolio I think they are too much like too many other 1/4 profile high contrast studiofied portraits.
    Neil

    As I said in my initial comments "These were not appropriate for his portfolio samples (will show those next time) but some extras I did for myself at sessions end..."

    These were more for my own experimentation with lighting technique. I have always used natural light and have recently started adding some supplementary lighting (in this case LED light panel added.)
    I do agree with your viewpoint though on some levels and hopefully you'll see that reflected in the actual portfolio shots I intend to use. I will be posting them soon.
    Thanks for your feedback.
    "Photography is not about the thing photographed.
    It is about how that thing looks photographed." Garry Winogrand

    Avatar credit: photograph by Duane Michals- picture of me, 'Smash Palace' album
  • Options
    NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited January 3, 2011
    briandelion wrote: »
    As I said in my initial comments "These were not appropriate for his portfolio samples (will show those next time) but some extras I did for myself at sessions end..."

    These were more for my own experimentation with lighting technique. I have always used natural light and have recently started adding some supplementary lighting (in this case LED light panel added.)
    I do agree with your viewpoint though on some levels and hopefully you'll see that reflected in the actual portfolio shots I intend to use. I will be posting them soon.
    Thanks for your feedback.

    Right, yes. The lighting is excellent, so you've got that down I'd say. Was the LED lighting strobe or continuous?

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
  • Options
    briandelionbriandelion Registered Users Posts: 512 Major grins
    edited January 3, 2011
    Neil: continuous, charged by a 12 volt "brick" battery. It is an 183 light panel (Kelvin 155) with switchable diffusers that stay charged for about 4 hrs. It can be hotshoe mounted and swiveled or off- camera mounted (or hand held by a handy assistant.) Some versions can also be linked together to form increasingly bigger panels. There is a whole array of sizes and configurations with new ones appearing every day. The technology keeps changing so it will be interesting to see if these eventually can find their niche as a continuous light alternative in photography. China is making some nice clones of light panels that are a fraction of their former cost and especially videographers are buying these up like candy.
    "Photography is not about the thing photographed.
    It is about how that thing looks photographed." Garry Winogrand

    Avatar credit: photograph by Duane Michals- picture of me, 'Smash Palace' album
  • Options
    NeilLNeilL Registered Users Posts: 4,201 Major grins
    edited January 3, 2011
    briandelion wrote: »
    Neil: continuous, charged by a 12 volt "brick" battery. It is an 183 light panel (Kelvin 155) with switchable diffusers that stay charged for about 4 hrs. It can be hotshoe mounted and swiveled or off- camera mounted (or hand held by a handy assistant.) Some versions can also be linked together to form increasingly bigger panels. There is a whole array of sizes and configurations with new ones appearing every day. The technology keeps changing so it will be interesting to see if these eventually can find their niche as a continuous light alternative in photography. China is making some nice clones of light panels that are a fraction of their former cost and especially videographers are buying these up like candy.

    Excellent info, thanks!

    Neil
    "Snow. Ice. Slow!" "Half-winter. Half-moon. Half-asleep!"

    http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Sign In or Register to comment.