Headshots for CC

[Sw1tchFX]

IMO horizontal for portraits are great for when you're working with a wide angle or want the environment in the picture as well.

When you do retouching, don't just slide the clarity down to -100, it makes things look unusually soft and low contrast. patch and clone out the zits or w/e.

 

[nebcat]

If it's for regular use, then it's fine. Headshot term was misleading...

 

[kundalini]

2. a fast lens: 1.2 ~ 2.0 max

If you're talking about a shooting apeture, I tend to disagree. Depending on your focal length and camera to subject distance, I think an apeture of f/4 (+/-) is better. While the ears don't have to be tack sharp, the fade to blur should occur beyond the ears IMO. At f/1.2-2.0, the eyes may be tack sharp, but beyond that not much else is left to define the mask.

 

[swoop_ds]

I'm glad that you guys have pointed out these things. I am actually a "self-taught" photographer who can always learn new things. I'm trying to move a bit more into portraits but I think I should pick up a book and do some reading!

-Dave

 

[Clawed]

Horizontal, is the new portrait orientation. uke:uke:

Dizactly.

Horizontal on a shot like this is the kiss of death: it creates a floating head with two large patches of empty space on either side of it...horizontal makes sense ONLY if there is an environment or a background WORTHY of using a horizontal framing. Using a horizontal framing on a head and shoulders shot eliminates the SHOULDERS. Using horizontal on a bust shot eliminates the "bust" or chest, and ruins the pose! Using a horizontal framing on a head and shoulders shot REDUCES THE SIZE OF THE HEAD AND FACE, tremendously, and INCREASES the size of the dead, empty space.

There are many,many valid reasons why professionally trained, classic portraits have been done in the vertical orientation, dating back to the 1400's. Anybody who has studied formal portraiture, or who has studied composition or design, will understand the how,what,and why of using the compositional space to its best advantage. When I see horizontal framing on headshots, head and shoulder shots, bust shots, or half-body shots of a single portrait sitter, and there is not a truly interesting background that is WORTHY of inclusion, I know that the person who mashed the shutter button is self-taught, or untrained, and has not studied or been taught by anybody worthy of being called a mentor.

This sounds very closed-minded. The good thing about being self-taught is that it's easier not to buy in to all of the bull****. The art of photography is always evolving, so who cares about convention. There are very few definitives in photography and many times a good way to have your work stand out is by intentionally breaking the "rules." Besides, have you given no value to negative space? Plus, you say that "it creates a floating head with two large patches of empty space on either side of it." Sounds like someone is placing their subjects at the middle of the frame.

Anyway, The first shot is cropped dangerously close to the lips. To be honest, I like the third shot the most. The expression is flattering and looks natural. Plus, the background is a little more attractive and compliments her skin tone. The only thing is... what color are her eyes naturally? They are brown in pic 3.

 

[Christie Photo]

The art of photography is always evolving, so who cares about convention(?)

I do. I think we all should. Derrel's concerns are just. I think he's way too rigid about it. A photographer can break from conventional thinking successfully but seldom does one simply stumble into it. To be "self-taught" is another way of saying trial and error and having only yourself to decide on the degree of success.

-Pete