A Few Recent Client Headshots (C&C Appreciated)

[cgipson1]

Not seeing this overblown highlights on picture 3. The face looks fine (lighting wise), and theres no loss of detail. It certainly looks like that at the small size, but not when you view the full picture. Agree on picture 4 that there is a hint of color cast that could be fixed in two seconds.


1 and 2 I agree with the overall complaints, especially with the lighting getting away from you on 1. Focus drops off in 2 sooner than perhaps you wanted (but at least a nice radius around the eyes is captured).

Question!!!! Do you calibrate your monitor? #3 has some of the worst overall highlights. If the large shot looks better.. give us a link to the larger version....

 

[Ballistics]

I'm making an effort to shoot something similar to what Peter Hurley comes up with. It's something different that people seem to love.

I'm very familiar with Hurley's work. Unless, I'm mistaken, you're not shooting with a $50,000 Hassy and lens, or a $15,000 Keno-Flo lighting setup.

Can you decipher exactly why you need that setup in order to take shots like these? I'm curious as to how any of this information is relevant.

 

[o hey tyler]

I'm making an effort to shoot something similar to what Peter Hurley comes up with. It's something different that people seem to love.

I'm very familiar with Hurley's work. Unless, I'm mistaken, you're not shooting with a $50,000 Hassy and lens, or a $15,000 Keno-Flo lighting setup.

James, I'm not quite certain why shooting P. Hurley's type of portraiture requires $65,000 in equipment... You could get the same effect with a 35mm, or even an APS-C DSLR, IMO.

 

[Ballistics]

Yes, I'm familiar with Peter Hurley's work. I'm just not a fan of the lighting approach in shot #1...the result is rather muddy-looking, and the low mainlight placement on #3...ehhh...that doesn't work well with his expression or face. Here's another guy, a well-respected LA headshot specialist, who has a nice style. KENNETH DOLIN PHOTOGRAPHY : LOS ANGELES, CA

If you want to cut the top of the head off, a horizontal usually means that there will be a goodly amount of empty, dead, uninteresting space. The horizontal framing in #1 and #3 is an issue, and a LOT of the issue relates to the way we look at a face in relation to the BODY that is is placed on top of...and I mean that literally, and figuratively. A horizontal lopping-off of a person, especially a man, at the neck does not show what kind of physique or build he has. Same with a woman similarly amputated right below the chin. The angle of the head is also CRITICAL...the man in shot #1 looks gay, because his pose is borndering on a feminine head tilt, AND he has no shoulders... Will these people get work when casting directors and talent people can not SEE WHAT they actually "look like", as a person, or as a "body"??? I doubt they would even get placed into the "possibles" file without at least SOME clue as to their body type.

The guy in #3...good face... BUT for some weird reason, you have his shoulders turned so one faces the camera, and we cannot see if he has broad shoulders, or anything...we can only see a floating head. If he has a killer physique, it doesn't matter, because the photo makes it look like he's a woman you are trying to slim down. If you want to be able to portray individual people, and make them look good, you need to truly understand HOW TO POSE people, and how to FRAME them. Some guidance from well-established professionals is what you need. Almost every time I bring this kind of stuff up here on TPF,somebody pipes up to whine about my comments on people pictures, with comments about how horizontals are okay: and they ARE perfectly okay when done with a full understanding of HOW to do them to LEVERAGE the person's appearance. There is an entire visual language, and a number of basics to showing off a person; one of the KEYS is to have some kind of a BASE to a shot of a person...not an amputated head, shown with no body and no shoulders, and no bust...that is the problem with shots #1 and #3.

We recently had a big brouhaha over "horizontal portraits". THe thing is, the newbies who whined about my comments seem to fail to understand the most-basic fundamental of a headshot: to make the person look GOOD. To LEVERAGE their strengths... The guy in #1 looks feminine and spindly...the guy in #3 looks slightly sinister, and we cannot tell much about his physique or body type...all we can see is one shoulder pointing right at the camera, and a MASSIVE shirt collar...his head just floats there. You need a course in posing basics, with the "secret" fundamentals taught to you.

Here is an ultra-quickie examination of a few really basic,basic things that EVERY "trained" professional shooter knows. And which most self-taught shooters have no idea about. 10. The Rules Of Good Portraiture

I like this. I will say though that horizontal portraits can work if done well.

OP - I truly believe that you have what it takes to make these work, but 1 through 3 has some serious exposure and/or contrast issues that need to be addressed in future shots. I'd like to see what your next shots turn out like.

 

[Ballistics]

I'm making an effort to shoot something similar to what Peter Hurley comes up with. It's something different that people seem to love.

I'm very familiar with Hurley's work. Unless, I'm mistaken, you're not shooting with a $50,000 Hassy and lens, or a $15,000 Keno-Flo lighting setup.

James, I'm not quite certain why shooting P. Hurley's type of portraiture requires $65,000 in equipment... You could get the same effect with a 35mm, or even an APS-C DSLR, IMO.

Yep ^^^

 

[jamesbjenkins]

I'm making an effort to shoot something similar to what Peter Hurley comes up with. It's something different that people seem to love.

I'm very familiar with Hurley's work. Unless, I'm mistaken, you're not shooting with a $50,000 Hassy and lens, or a $15,000 Keno-Flo lighting setup.

James, I'm not quite certain why shooting P. Hurley's type of portraiture requires $65,000 in equipment... You could get the same effect with a 35mm, or even an APS-C DSLR, IMO.

I wasn't trying to say that you MUST have a Hassy H4D or a full bank of Keno-Flos to do something similar to Hurley's work. Just that the gear he uses to create those laser sharp, perfectly lit portraits are a big part of his results. IMO, it's no different than trying to shoot night sports with a D3000 and a 70-300 with a max aperture of f/4.5, you just don't have the necessary equipment to get the exact result you're looking for.

If Hurley didn't have that glorious MF beast to resolve so much detail, and the Keno-Flo bank to provide such rich, soft, color-neutral light... I imagine his results would still be very very good, because of his skill, but they wouldn't seem anywhere near as unobtainably awesome as they do now.

As I said in the previous post, Hurley himself gives most of the credit to his posing and the expressions he's able to elicit from his subjects. I didn't say or infer that the gear was everything.

The OP has received some great feedback, and I'm sure the next set he posts will reflect that.

 

[Letterbox]

Not seeing this overblown highlights on picture 3. The face looks fine (lighting wise), and theres no loss of detail. It certainly looks like that at the small size, but not when you view the full picture. Agree on picture 4 that there is a hint of color cast that could be fixed in two seconds.


1 and 2 I agree with the overall complaints, especially with the lighting getting away from you on 1. Focus drops off in 2 sooner than perhaps you wanted (but at least a nice radius around the eyes is captured).

Question!!!! Do you calibrate your monitor? #3 has some of the worst overall highlights. If the large shot looks better.. give us a link to the larger version....

Mine is calibrated, FWIW. On my computer, if you click on the image, it brings up a much larger version (the uploaded version is much larger).

 

[o hey tyler]

I'm very familiar with Hurley's work. Unless, I'm mistaken, you're not shooting with a $50,000 Hassy and lens, or a $15,000 Keno-Flo lighting setup.

James, I'm not quite certain why shooting P. Hurley's type of portraiture requires $65,000 in equipment... You could get the same effect with a 35mm, or even an APS-C DSLR, IMO.

I wasn't trying to say that you MUST have a Hassy H4D or a full bank of Keno-Flos to do something similar to Hurley's work. Just that the gear he uses to create those laser sharp, perfectly lit portraits are a big part of his results. IMO, it's no different than trying to shoot night sports with a D3000 and a 70-300 with a max aperture of f/4.5, you just don't have the necessary equipment to get the exact result you're looking for.

If Hurley didn't have that glorious MF beast to resolve so much detail, and the Keno-Flo bank to provide such rich, soft, color-neutral light... I imagine his results would still be very very good, because of his skill, but they wouldn't seem anywhere near as unobtainably awesome as they do now.

As I said in the previous post, Hurley himself gives most of the credit to his posing and the expressions he's able to elicit from his subjects. I didn't say or infer that the gear was everything.

The OP has received some great feedback, and I'm sure the next set he posts will reflect that.

I see what you're saying a bit better now. But it did come across as: "If you don't have this gear, you can't do it." (In my opinion of course)

I did look at Hurley's portfolio that was posted, and I was not terribly impressed. Lots of photos seemed to have issues where the edge of the white seamless was either in the upper right hand corner, or vertically down the left hand side of the frame. For headshots of this nature, I found it to draw too much attention. But that's just me.

 

[Letterbox]

I'm very familiar with Hurley's work. Unless, I'm mistaken, you're not shooting with a $50,000 Hassy and lens, or a $15,000 Keno-Flo lighting setup.

James, I'm not quite certain why shooting P. Hurley's type of portraiture requires $65,000 in equipment... You could get the same effect with a 35mm, or even an APS-C DSLR, IMO.

I wasn't trying to say that you MUST have a Hassy H4D or a full bank of Keno-Flos to do something similar to Hurley's work. Just that the gear he uses to create those laser sharp, perfectly lit portraits are a big part of his results. IMO, it's no different than trying to shoot night sports with a D3000 and a 70-300 with a max aperture of f/4.5, you just don't have the necessary equipment to get the exact result you're looking for.

If Hurley didn't have that glorious MF beast to resolve so much detail, and the Keno-Flo bank to provide such rich, soft, color-neutral light... I imagine his results would still be very very good, because of his skill, but they wouldn't seem anywhere near as unobtainably awesome as they do now.

As I said in the previous post, Hurley himself gives most of the credit to his posing and the expressions he's able to elicit from his subjects. I didn't say or infer that the gear was everything.

The OP has received some great feedback, and I'm sure the next set he posts will reflect that.

If anyone's interested, I'm using two SB-28's to light the background, and three Flolights to light the subject. One left, one right, one under.

 

[Ballistics]

James, I'm not quite certain why shooting P. Hurley's type of portraiture requires $65,000 in equipment... You could get the same effect with a 35mm, or even an APS-C DSLR, IMO.

I wasn't trying to say that you MUST have a Hassy H4D or a full bank of Keno-Flos to do something similar to Hurley's work. Just that the gear he uses to create those laser sharp, perfectly lit portraits are a big part of his results. IMO, it's no different than trying to shoot night sports with a D3000 and a 70-300 with a max aperture of f/4.5, you just don't have the necessary equipment to get the exact result you're looking for.

If Hurley didn't have that glorious MF beast to resolve so much detail, and the Keno-Flo bank to provide such rich, soft, color-neutral light... I imagine his results would still be very very good, because of his skill, but they wouldn't seem anywhere near as unobtainably awesome as they do now.

As I said in the previous post, Hurley himself gives most of the credit to his posing and the expressions he's able to elicit from his subjects. I didn't say or infer that the gear was everything.

The OP has received some great feedback, and I'm sure the next set he posts will reflect that.

I see what you're saying a bit better now. But it did come across as: "If you don't have this gear, you can't do it." (In my opinion of course)

I did look at Hurley's portfolio that was posted, and I was not terribly impressed. Lots of photos seemed to have issues where the edge of the white seamless was either in the upper right hand corner, or vertically down the left hand side of the frame. For headshots of this nature, I found it to draw too much attention. But that's just me.

I found the same when I looked.

 

[ANDS!]

Not seeing this overblown highlights on picture 3. The face looks fine (lighting wise), and theres no loss of detail. It certainly looks like that at the small size, but not when you view the full picture. Agree on picture 4 that there is a hint of color cast that could be fixed in two seconds.


1 and 2 I agree with the overall complaints, especially with the lighting getting away from you on 1. Focus drops off in 2 sooner than perhaps you wanted (but at least a nice radius around the eyes is captured).

Question!!!! Do you calibrate your monitor? #3 has some of the worst overall highlights. If the large shot looks better.. give us a link to the larger version....

Nope. But then I don't rely on my eyes. The larger shot (obtained by simply clicking on the image - amazing) will show that there is detail where there needs to be detail - in the face. Photoshop (again, doesn't rely on the eyes) confirms this. The brightest spots are around the left cheek and forehead, but detail has been retained. You my disagree with the aesthetics of the shot, but technically nothing has been lost here.

 

[Ballistics]

Not seeing this overblown highlights on picture 3. The face looks fine (lighting wise), and theres no loss of detail. It certainly looks like that at the small size, but not when you view the full picture. Agree on picture 4 that there is a hint of color cast that could be fixed in two seconds.


1 and 2 I agree with the overall complaints, especially with the lighting getting away from you on 1. Focus drops off in 2 sooner than perhaps you wanted (but at least a nice radius around the eyes is captured).

Question!!!! Do you calibrate your monitor? #3 has some of the worst overall highlights. If the large shot looks better.. give us a link to the larger version....

Nope. But then I don't rely on my eyes. The larger shot (obtained by simply clicking on the image - amazing) will show that there is detail where there needs to be detail - in the face. Photoshop (again, doesn't rely on the eyes) confirms this. The brightest spots are around the left cheek and forehead, but detail has been retained. You my disagree with the aesthetics of the shot, but technically nothing has been lost here.

Relying on a computer to tell you what is technically correct will hurt your photography forever. Rely on your eyes, because the highlights are overexposed.

 

[ANDS!]

Well then maybe in the two years since I've aggresively been using a camera our definitions of "Overexposed. . ." has changed. Now in my day, overexposed typically meant an area of a photograph whose detail has been lost to "the white" (and similarly for "the black"). There is maybe ONE part of the guys face that satisfies that, and turning to my handy dandy math algorithms in Photoshop shows that, nope - we haven't thrown Triple 255's.


"Too much light" is not neccessarily the same as a "blown highlight. . ." But again, that's my Old Timey Know-How -

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Those are shots and they have heads in them so, yes, they are head shots. But they are not headshots.

Headshots are the simplest photos there are, and the most boring too, but there is a reason for that. Their purpose.

Considering what the purpose of a headshot is, "going by the book" in this case is the biggest favor you can do your clients.

Do you have any idea what the purpose of a headshot is? Do you have any understanding of how a casting agent looks at a pile of a 100-150 headshots and what he does when he comes across a horizontal one every 50 vertical ones? He couldn't care less that YOU thought you had to be creative and he skips to the next one without turning the pile around.

So, if your work is suppose to help your client get a job, how does your attitude help them?

Go learn.


And you are welcome to read my previous posts about headshots.

 

[Ballistics]

Well then maybe in the two years since I've aggresively been using a camera our definitions of "Overexposed. . ." has changed. Now in my day, overexposed typically meant an area of a photograph whose detail has been lost to "the white" (and similarly for "the black"). There is maybe ONE part of the guys face that satisfies that, and turning to my handy dandy math algorithms in Photoshop shows that, nope - we haven't thrown Triple 255's.


"Too much light" is not neccessarily the same as a "blown highlight. . ." But again, that's my Old Timey Know-How -

So then rely on photoshop then, not the group of people telling you that they are overexposed/blown/ or whatever adjective you want to use to satiate semantics.