A Few Recent Client Headshots (C&C Appreciated)

[Ballistics]

God this forum drives me buggy sometimes...

1. Op posts images.
2. Old schoolers beat on op for doing something that doesn't fit this or that model.
3. People with no experience cry foul on the old schoolers.
4. Op defends choices, citing either some other pro, what the client wants, or both.
5. Someone with no experience says that pros stuff sucks.
6. Repeat on 4,000 threads per day.

Etc.

Painful.

7.Someone complains about the forum and sums up the thread and passive-aggressively insults a few members in the thread.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Nope.. luckily I like horizontals.

Well, I recently did a head shot session for a theater student. He specifically told me to shoot some horizontal

In that case you shoot both and explain why the horizontal ones are no good. Then it is your client's choice... and his/her problem.

Of course, you need to be able to explain why horizontals are no good. If you have no idea yourself, how in the hell is your client supposed to get you?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

God this forum drives me buggy sometimes...

1. Op posts images.
2. Old schoolers beat on op for doing something that doesn't fit this or that model.
3. People with no experience cry foul on the old schoolers.
4. Op defends choices, citing either some other pro, what the client wants, or both.
5. Someone with no experience says that pros stuff sucks.
6. Repeat on 4,000 threads per day.

Etc.

Painful.

So what is you incredible/amazing point?

 

[manaheim]

Tired... It SOUNDED to me like OP was calling something a headshot... A term which apparently has a more strict definition than he realized. To me a headshot was a shot primarily of someone's head... But I guess it's typically those shots actors and models use, which is clearly very different than what op has done here.

 

[manaheim]

What group of people do you fit into? Old schoolers, or people with no experience?

Closer to the latter than the former.

 

[manaheim]

7.Someone complains about the forum and sums up the thread and passive-aggressively insults a few members in the thread.

I meant to add that one but forgot.

Besides if I wanna insult someone I'll be more direct... So I guess I need another number. Lol

 

[tirediron]

Tired... It SOUNDED to me like OP was calling something a headshot... A term which apparently has a more strict definition than he realized. To me a headshot was a shot primarily of someone's head... But I guess it's typically those shots actors and models use, which is clearly very different than what op has done here.

I guess we all get to learn something, don't we?

 

[ANDS!]

So far all you've done is moan like a cow about "Blooooooown highlights -" You haven't actually pointed out where on the mans face detail has been lost. You've simply parroted what the overwhelming chorus (of what. . .two people) have said.

You are a real professional, mature even.

I quoted Derrel and agreed with his post. Sometimes, redundancy is unnecessary and pointing out that you agree with a very detailed post shows that there are others that feel the same way. Just because I hopped on a bandwagon, doesn't make it any less true. To complain about people who are agreeing with a discrepancy shows your intent to do better. You are off to a great start. Next, instead of applying these critiques to your work and seeing how they come out, you should post up more photos of the same thing and ask for more CnC. Wash, rinse, repeat.

So that's a no on "Here are the blown highlights so the OP can be careful with their lighting next time. . ."?


For what its worth, Derrel's post said nothing about the lighting in Picture #3. Just sayin' -

 

[Ballistics]

So far all you've done is moan like a cow about "Blooooooown highlights -" You haven't actually pointed out where on the mans face detail has been lost. You've simply parroted what the overwhelming chorus (of what. . .two people) have said.

You are a real professional, mature even.

I quoted Derrel and agreed with his post. Sometimes, redundancy is unnecessary and pointing out that you agree with a very detailed post shows that there are others that feel the same way. Just because I hopped on a bandwagon, doesn't make it any less true. To complain about people who are agreeing with a discrepancy shows your intent to do better. You are off to a great start. Next, instead of applying these critiques to your work and seeing how they come out, you should post up more photos of the same thing and ask for more CnC. Wash, rinse, repeat.

So that's a no on "Here are the blown highlights so the OP can be careful with their lighting next time. . ."?


For what its worth, Derrel's post said nothing about the lighting in Picture #3. Just sayin' -

So now you want my specific opinion? Make up your mind. You've already gone to say that because photoshop doesn't have them at 255, they aren't blown. Hotspots do not have to be @ 255 to be perceived as blown.

For what it's worth, while Derrel didn't mention #3, others in here did.

 

[Ernicus]

I like turtles!

 

[rexbobcat]

The lighting in #3 is just not flattering and it's uneven.

Regardless of how "avante garde" or w/e the OP is trying to be....There are some things that are less than aesthetically pleasing, and that lighting setup is one of those things.

 

[rexbobcat]

I like turtles!

No you don't.

Shut up.

 

[o hey tyler]

Hotspots do not have to be @ 255 to be perceived as blown.

Well here is one thing we don't agree on.

 

[Ballistics]

Well then maybe in the two years since I've aggresively been using a camera our definitions of "Overexposed. . ." has changed.

Like I said, #3 looks overexposed. That's really all that matters to me, no matter what your definition may be. Not what photoshop renders the pixel color as.

 

[Ballistics]

Hotspots do not have to be @ 255 to be perceived as blown.

Well here is one thing we don't agree on.

Go on.