Acceptable?

ORourkeK · Jan 17, 2019

If you were to take head shots of someone for a professional site, would you be artistic about it, or would you take an evenly lit photo? Below was taken just to test out my new backdrop and I quickly set up a soft box on the right and a soft box to light the backdrop. I wish I had angled the light a bit more, but I had someone holding a reflector on the left, and thought I would have been able to even it out a bit more. I know for portraits we like to create an interesting image with shadows, but should a head shot intended for a professional site be evenly lit?

IMG_0339-Edit by KC ORourke, on Flickr

smoke665 · Jan 17, 2019

ORourkeK said:
I know for portraits we like to create an interesting image with shadows, but should a head shot intended for a professional site be evenly lit?

Why? Just my personal feeling but a 1:1 looks extremely flat, going to 2:1 or even 4:1 makes for a more interesting image, and doesn't go overboard. Also my personal feeling is that f/4 creates to shallow of DOF for a professional portrait. Having the nose and hair in focus looks better IMO.

ORourkeK · Jan 17, 2019

I agree that 1:1 looks flat. I just have no experience with taking head shots for a business professional site, so I figured I would spark a discussion. I also should have been more clear. I would not use the attached image. This was a solo snap I asked someone to sit in for to see what the lighting looked like. I should have tested it out on myself, but didn't have much time. My backdrop was up for maybe 5 minutes. I really just included the image to assist my thoughts on lighting.

Designer · Jan 17, 2019

ORourkeK said:
I know for portraits we like to create an interesting image with shadows, but should a head shot intended for a professional site be evenly lit?

This will probably sound terribly sexist, I know, but you shoot women and men differently. The attire and pose should be appropriate for the person's position in the company. Top executives are posed differently than junior executives. Women, regardless of rank, are lighted more straight-on, and with somewhat more power than for men. Men should be lighted more from the side, and with lower power.

Designer · Jan 17, 2019

smoke665 said:
Having the nose and hair in focus looks better IMO.

Right. DOF needs to be deep enough to include the entire head, including the hair. Of course this implies the collar, sleeves, any jewelry, hands, etc. Any blurriness is a distraction, therefore not professional, IMO. For a series of portraits, pre-figure your DOF, and mark out on the floor the place where you want your subjects to stand.

tirediron · Jan 17, 2019

The organization also dictates, at least to some extent, the style. If I'm photographing a group of high-ranking church officials, I'm likely to go for a fairly even (maybe 2:1) not too dramatic, other hand, if I'm doing a high-end rock music station, I might get a bit more creative.

smoke665 · Jan 17, 2019

Designer said:
This will probably sound terribly sexist,

Well duh, but until you change the eons of public perception there will always be that difference. Lines, wrinkles and skin texture are always viewed differently on women vs men. Not saying it's right or wrong, just the way it is. Being a member of the senior set, I see it everyday with my male and female friends. In the OP's post, the wrinkles around the man's eyes enhance the feeling of character, wisdom.....the same wrinkles around the eyes of a woman, don't get the same pass. On the other hand, I've seen professional portraits of women where the editing was so bad it looked like they had applied a coat of mortar to the face. With women there is a fine line between realism and editing.

vintagesnaps · Jan 17, 2019

i think the lighting on the left (the subject's right) has darkened the lines around the eyes too harshly and made them too noticeable. I feel like that shouldn't stand out so much, or be so noticeable on one side of the face and not the other. If nothing else from a quick practice shot you can learn what didn't work and rule that out, the figure out what adjustments to try next time.

Derrel · Jan 17, 2019

vintagesnaps said:
i think the lighting on the left (the subject's right) has darkened the lines around the eyes too harshly and made them too noticeable. I feel like that shouldn't stand out so much, or be so noticeable on one side of the face and not the other. If nothing else from a quick practice shot you can learn what didn't work and rule that out, the figure out what adjustments to try next time.

I tend to agree. I think the main light was placed too close to the subject, creating a very bright highlighted side of the face, and a quite-dark shadow side; this is due to the main light falling-off in brightness at too steep of a rate. The shot has a sort of split-personality,lighting wise...one side light and bright, the shadow side of the face dark,and wrinkled-looking around the under-eye area. The shadow-side nose shadow is small, but very dark in tone, and the highlight side's neck skin looks okay, but on the shadow side, the neck skin looks less than appealing by way of comparison with the skin on the other side. The man is also very much pressing the boundaries of the frame, at the top, and at the collar.

In a way, the lighting is okay, kind of rugged, but as a "professional headshot", I'm not sure if the lighting setup is exactly what one might want to have. Still...on the right subject, this lighting could look good. I think the man looks like a foreman in the building trades, with a little bit of stubble, and a casual, open-collar, seven-button shirt. Not sure exactly what it is you want to hear or to have answered; the term "professional headshot" is what's confusing me, since I am not sure if you mean professionally-lighted and photographed headshot OR a headshot for a person in a "professional" line of work like doctor/lawyer/dentist/executive.

As far as your new backdrop: I like the light-gray rendering of it!