Headshot Session!

[catchlight]

Hey, all! My beautiful friend let me use her as a model for a headshot session. I think they came out pretty well! I did, however, forget to adjust my ISO before the shoot...so even though the lighting was fine...the ISO was 800. Yikes. Got a very high shutter speed because of it, but still some noise. Unless the ISO wasn't the problem...

I also think I could have bumped up the aperture a little to get more in focus (pretty blurry at a 1:1, particularly after reducing noise).

Anywho, let me know what you think! Oh, these are also edited, so if something seems...well, off, please let me know. Only have had a little Lightroom experience now. Oh, and I exported smaller files since the others were too big.

Thanks!

 

[tirediron]

For future reference, critique is easier when the images are numbered. Without knowing the intent (modelling, acting, corporate, ???) it's hard to give the best critique, but here goes:

1. There's almost never a reason to pose a woman square to the camera ("football" shoulders), and this definitely isn't one. The lighting is fine, but the background is messy and distracting.

2. This would have been a great shot if you hadn't cropped the top of her head off ('though it's a great composition for an ad with empty space for type). Generally speaking go portrait or square for headshots.

3. Being SLIGHTLY above the subject can work well. Towering over them rarely does. It's a nice shot of an attractive young lady, but that's about all it is IMO. AGain, think vertical!

While current fashion does say that it's okay to crop the top of the subject's head head off, IMO, unless there's a compositional need to, why do it???? I would say that #2 is the only one that really qualifies as a "headshot". Drag her out again and try using some reflectors to slightly increase the dynamic range and add slightly deeper shadows. Also read up on masculine and feminine poses.

Just my $00.02 worth - your mileage may vary.

~John

 

[skieur]

I would add to TireIron's comments that when shooting a model with red hair you need to be extremely careful that you do NOT have a too ghostly, too pale skin colour like in #1.

skieur

 

[Designer]

Without knowing the intent, it is presumably up to us to make a guess.

WB is inconsistent
Tight crops are for magazine publishing, not for a model's portfolio
You did not pose your model to the best advantage.
Not makeup shots, not toothpaste shots, not hair shots, not fashion shots
lighting fairly good in all, even if somewhat flat

 

[catchlight]

Sorry, guys. I'm concentrating on creating headshots for actors.

 

[Buckster]

Those are just horrible for actors, ya know...since they are women. Maybe actresses?

lol :lmao:

"Actress" is becoming an archaic term, associated with sexism left over from a bygone era.

"Actor" is not gender specific, and most modern women in the acting profession today prefer the term "actor".

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Without knowing the intent, it is presumably up to us to make a guess.

WB is inconsistent
Tight crops are for magazine publishing, not for a model's portfolio
You did not pose your model to the best advantage.
Not makeup shots, not toothpaste shots, not hair shots, not fashion shots
lighting fairly good in all, even if somewhat flat

+1 !

 

[tirediron]

"Actor" is not gender specific, and most modern women in the acting profession today prefer the term "actor".

Ehhh... "actor" is gender-specific. It indicates the male gender. The modern vernacular has bastardized the meaning of it into a gender-neutral slang term, however that doesn't make it correct.

 

[Buckster]

"Actor" is not gender specific, and most modern women in the acting profession today prefer the term "actor".

Ehhh... "actor" is gender-specific. It indicates the male gender. The modern vernacular has bastardized the meaning of it into a gender-neutral slang term, however that doesn't make it correct.

Look it up for yourself. Google it and see the very first thing the very first link says. Dictionaries and Wiki can help you with that. Look up "actress" while you're at it, and you'll see that what I said about that is supported as well. Then go ask a bunch of working female actors what they prefer. Then start noticing that females in the profession these days are commonly referred to as "actors", not "actresses".

Get with the times. They're allowed to vote now too.

 

[kathyt]

Once that I see that the skin tones and WB are all wonky...I lose interest. Once you you get a correct WB, then the other will fall into place.

 

[o hey tyler]

I support the motion to use "actron."

All in favor, say "Aye."

 

[bunny99123]

Catchlight, that"s okay, I didn't know to number either at first, and still forget to most of the time. It is easier to C&C if they are numbered, but since you posted only 3 shouldn't be difficult for a person to count them.

I don't agree with not shooting someone face forward or football player style. I mean what is the deal...most photographs of people are face forward or are people afraid to look at their full face.

Number one, looks like you blow it out. Try adjusting your exposer a little before taking the photo. The Third one is my favorite.

I like when there is a background on some head shots, and cutting her head off makes a person look...see how many NO's you got.

IMO: Learn your camera, and practice and more practice. Feel lucky you got a model free of charge that is hard to do.

Look forward to seeing more of your photographs.

 

[terri]

Let's keep everything civil, guys.

The OP was correct in his use of the word actor here, btw.

 

[Buckster]

It has ALWAYS been gender-neutral: Online Etymology Dictionary


-ess - definition of -ess by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Do you know why ALL female actors belong to the "Screen Actors Guild" union? Because there IS NO "Screen Actresses Guild" - there's no need for one. Know why? Because ALL persons who act are "actors".

There's no need to lash out at me with all the name-calling and moaning. I'm just the messenger, delivering the message that some of you seem to have missed.

ETA: I see the offending post has been deleted. Thank you to the Moderation Team for that.

 

[Pallycow]

If you're going to delete my post, delete all my posts in here, as the trolls as well. why discriminate? It was nowhere near offensive, simply because he makes it such does not make it so.

I find his posts offensive as it is unrelated to the topic and I do not need lessons. I guess I'll just report it to get it removed, that's how it works around here right?


Edit

Nevermind, I deleted all of mine for you guys.