Options
Young actress
C&C always welcome!
Did my annual mini-headshot-session shoot for the acting class at the school where I teach (they each get about 20 minutes), and was quite taken with the results for this young actress.
Experimenting with more 3/4 and full length. I suck at it. These are better than some, but mainly because she was a natural and only needed a very little posing guidance; I really need to take a fashion posing class somewhere to get more ideas. The Sue Bryce seminars are awesome, but I feel I want even more range of ideas than that. I can easily adapt to "real people", I think, but gotta get more familiar with fashion/commercial looks, since they seem to be drifting across into EVERYTHING these days. :deal
Hardest thing about this one is that she HATES photos of herself - I have no idea if she'll go for any of the ones we got or not. I think she really has "the look" goin' on and will be interested to see how she responds.......
5dII/70-200 2.8 II/natural light throughout (indoors I have a beautiful atrium/corridor to shoot in at that location, and it was bright and sunny out).
1.
2.
3.
4.
Did my annual mini-headshot-session shoot for the acting class at the school where I teach (they each get about 20 minutes), and was quite taken with the results for this young actress.
Experimenting with more 3/4 and full length. I suck at it. These are better than some, but mainly because she was a natural and only needed a very little posing guidance; I really need to take a fashion posing class somewhere to get more ideas. The Sue Bryce seminars are awesome, but I feel I want even more range of ideas than that. I can easily adapt to "real people", I think, but gotta get more familiar with fashion/commercial looks, since they seem to be drifting across into EVERYTHING these days. :deal
Hardest thing about this one is that she HATES photos of herself - I have no idea if she'll go for any of the ones we got or not. I think she really has "the look" goin' on and will be interested to see how she responds.......
5dII/70-200 2.8 II/natural light throughout (indoors I have a beautiful atrium/corridor to shoot in at that location, and it was bright and sunny out).
1.
2.
3.
4.
facebook | photo site |
0
Comments
A tip I learned from models and one that non models appreciate is learning how to pose to enhance curves. In 3 for instance, her clothes go straight down making her look straight figured. If they are wearing loose clothing and I am paying attention, I get the subject to pull the slack into the front. Since their hands are folded anyway, they can use one hand to hold the slack. Also arching the back and sticking the booty out by having them cross their legs enhances their shape. They feel very weird doing that but I show them before and afters and they actually get more confidence in themselves during the shoot.
www.cameraone.biz
1 is great. Nice work. Sorta wish the teeth were in focus, but whatever, it still works. Just delete the feeding gnat on her forehead.
2 she will reject because it makes her look somewhat fat even though she isn't.
3, Jesus H. Christ, she needs minor surgery to remove that hideous mole. Come on people, we have technology. And, all piercings other than ear and bellybutton always suck. Suck suck suck suck suck. Fugly.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Well... that's because you're not a dude.
It's the first thing I see in that picture. Moley moley mole! I wouldn't make such comments normally but I would think an aspiring actress would want to get that taken care of.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I think that's a little harsh.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
For the record, I am a director--in my case, of theatre (not all actresses are striving to work on film). It would depend on the part I was looking to fill, of course, but her mole would NOT automatically rule her out at all. She is a striking young lady with a strong charisma on camera--at least in these still pictures. I'd want to see her move and speak before I'd make a judgement.
Similarly, she does not look "fat" in #2.
Such stupid side issues aside....Diva, I love these photographs. On my monitor, the first does look a little blown-out...but I'm not at my normal work station. I love the way you've emphasized her eyes--those dark brown eyes with her blonde hair are one of the reasons I would absolutely think about having her audition for me. (On that note, if she does like #3--and I do--I would probably spend a little time lightening her roots for her in post-processing.)
stueveshots.smugmug.com
stueveshots.smugmug.com
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Anyway, another great job on the photos, Diva.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
pp
Flickr
Headshots (at least for actors--I'm not speaking here of models) are not "advertisement" in the traditional sense--and they certainly don't need to project an actress as "sexy" just because she's young.
Headshots are used by directors to winnow down a large number of actors for particular parts, and the decision the director (or casting director) makes upon looking at the shots is based upon the nature of the role he or she is trying to fill. A great headshot photographer for performing artists will provide her client with a number of photographs that project various aspects of the actor's personality--hence the reason I loved #2. That mole might rule this actress out for a very narrow number of roles (maybe some leads, maybe some ingenue parts--and, as an aside, ingenue parts are often very boring to perform)...but every show you see on TV today could make use of someone like her in a large number of roles. Based on appearance alone, that girl could be a successful working actress--she's rocking a unique, gritty, urban look--and if she's got the personality Diva describes, she's in great shape! (Can she sing, Diva?)
Are there directors out there who would respond as you do? Sure. Would most of them? No, thank goodness.
If this beautiful young lady decides herself to someday remove that mole because she wants to open herself up for more parts, that's up to her. But you forcing your perspective of what is attractive upon her is, frankly, offensive. I appreciate that in your last response you have softened your position somewhat...but let me remind you what you first wrote: "Jesus H. Christ, she needs minor surgery to remove that hideous mole. Come on people, we have technology. And, all piercings other than ear and bellybutton always suck. Suck suck suck suck suck. Fugly." I don't think that was a comment on intended use (you make no mention of the photograph)--that was an attack on the young lady's appearance. I hope that you are not truly that rude in real life.
stueveshots.smugmug.com
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Thanks again, Stueve, for "getting" what's going on here. Obviously as somebody in the industry we have similar views on this.
Jack, you're right - acting is a "lookist" profession and, as Stueve also mentions, there are indeed casting directors/directors out there that go exclusively on appearance and/or type and might be that aggressively looks-focused. Particularly in the US, typecasting has become extremely widespread. Why? It's EASIER. You don't have to do much except push the actor's start-button and let things happen. Working with somebody to CREATE a character - instead of only using what the actor already has on offer - is much, much harder work. (For what it's worth, a lot of those directors also have the reputation among actors as shallow a**holes. Just saying............
HOWEVER - and thankfully - we're starting to see more of the industry (partiucularly TV) thinking outside the "pretty" box; it's been a long time coming, but there are glimmers of more substance starting to appear. Is physical appearance a part of the package? Absolutely. But for the best of the best, it's only ONE part of the package. Many, many other things are involved in deciding whether or not a person might be right for a role. Hollywood may still be all about "perfect" matinee idol looks, but (thank goodness) American TV is starting to take the more British approach (actors who look like real people instead of soapstar looks, eg Breaking Bad), and the theater has always been a little kinder and more open-minded in that regard anyway.
IMO this is a very American thing; one of the things I notice most about British TV is the huge range of appearances that not only turn up, but are very well-known and respected performers (both onstage and on screen). Nicola Walker, Olivia Coleman, Laura Carmichael are quite ordinary looking women, in some cases with prominent "unattractive" features, but they are nothing short of superstars because they bring their characters so vividly to life. There are male actors of note as well who I suspect might not even have had a look-in in the states because their looks didn't conform to square-jawed type (eg Martin Freeman).
There are plenty of normal, average, or even homely actors in the US, they just don't get leading roles, or if they do they don't get swarmed by paparazzi. But they do get some very important roles. My wife is actually acquaintances with Siobhan Fallon, so we always notice when she pops up in movies and tv shows. She gets a ton of work because she is good. If you've never noticed her, that would speak to the culture here. She was the bus driver in Forrest Gump, and she was in Men In Black, and she has had recurring roles on SNL and Seinfeld, just to name a few.
But I think what's worse is the trend that seemed to be started by King of Queens, where a below-average schlub guy lands a supermodel.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I do think her right eye and mouth should be sharper in number one.
As far as the mole, at first glance, I thought it was a piercing and didn't think much of it, well except that old codgers like me don't like facial piercings. Didn't know it was a mole until it was mentioned.
I think it will. My kids (11 and 8) think it's dumb.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I like 3 and 4.
3 - attitude captured.
4 - I see the beauty in her.
1 is not focus and 2 just doesn't appeal to me.
Phil (just trying to keep it simple).
"You don't take a photograph, you make it." ~Ansel Adams
Phil