Headshots

[W.Y.Photo]

It's been awhile since I've done headshots. How did I do?

 

[DanOstergren]

The image links appear to be broken.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Broken links repaired.

 

[Zen1300]

He has a unique look and the first shot is the better angle in my opinion. I feel too close though.

 

[kdthomas]

Where did you set your focus point? The eyes might be a little soft?

 

[Rick50]

A little too tight I think.

 

[tirediron]

Headshots for ....?

Agree with the others, they feel too tight, and I'd like a greater DoF.

 

[Braineack]

HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLO

 

[pixmedic]

I like the first one. i think it needed a slightly looser crop, and a little more DOF to bring the ear and shoulders into focus.

#2 just seems overall too soft to me, and its shot just a little too "straight on" for my taste.

 

[Derrel]

I am finding the orange background just overwhelms this subject, especially since the depth of field is just so shallow. Why do I say the DOF is too shallow? Because we have a high-information subject matter, with all that beard detail, and yet the focus is "out" on the beard, and the one eye...it's like there's a lot to see, but we're not being allowed to use our eyes to see anything, just a hint of OOF detail, over the majority of the frame. I've seen tis look plled off successfully, most often with 4x5 camera sheet film photos, but those have one thing that these lack, which is a feeling of richness of information, meaning just tons and tons of fine, fine detail very clearly visible, yet with depth of field that drops off by the ears. These images lack that richness of detail...and it's hard to describe what that means, but let me try an analogy: this subject matter, a man with a scruffy new beard would benefit from being shown with millions and millions of pixels' worth of information, but these two images I am seeing look like they're 900 k in image information depth.

I'm not trying to demean your efforts. I like the idea, the approach that was used, but the final end result is not pleasing to the eye; I want to literally be able to SEE, to experience, "more information". I guess what I am saying, or trying to say, is that I crave more detail, both in terms of focus area that is within the sharpness plane, but also more micro-detail, more actual resolving of what *is still* within the focused area. Shot #2 is so fuzzy it looks almost like it's an image shot off the surface of a mirror, like it's an image of the aerial image coming off the silvering inside the front glass sheet.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

A little too tight I think.

Thanks for the input. I actually shot these a little looser but there was a distracting light I needed to crop out, maybe I can go in and clone it out. I'll come back with the updated images once thats done.

Headshots for ....?

Agree with the others, they feel too tight, and I'd like a greater DoF.

Duly noted. Thanks for the input. These were Natural light and I was shooting wide open so it was difficult to get a larger DoF. Looking back I sure should have focused between his eyes rather than on the closest eye. I was under the incorrect impression that my DoF was large enough to span that space and neglected to check while we were still on location.

HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLO

hahah, apparently TPF forgot to notify me that people were posting in this thread.

I like the first one. i think it needed a slightly looser crop, and a little more DOF to bring the ear and shoulders into focus.

#2 just seems overall too soft to me, and its shot just a little too "straight on" for my taste.

Thanks for the comments. I'll keep them in mind on my next shoot.

I am finding the orange background just overwhelms this subject, especially since the depth of field is just so shallow. Why do I say the DOF is too shallow? Because we have a high-information subject matter, with all that beard detail, and yet the focus is "out" on the beard, and the one eye...it's like there's a lot to see, but we're not being allowed to use our eyes to see anything, just a hint of OOF detail, over the majority of the frame. I've seen tis look plled off successfully, most often with 4x5 camera sheet film photos, but those have one thing that these lack, which is a feeling of richness of information, meaning just tons and tons of fine, fine detail very clearly visible, yet with depth of field that drops off by the ears. These images lack that richness of detail...and it's hard to describe what that means, but let me try an analogy: this subject matter, a man with a scruffy new beard would benefit from being shown with millions and millions of pixels' worth of information, but these two images I am seeing look like they're 900 k in image information depth.

I'm not trying to demean your efforts. I like the idea, the approach that was used, but the final end result is not pleasing to the eye; I want to literally be able to SEE, to experience, "more information". I guess what I am saying, or trying to say, is that I crave more detail, both in terms of focus area that is within the sharpness plane, but also more micro-detail, more actual resolving of what *is still* within the focused area. Shot #2 is so fuzzy it looks almost like it's an image shot off the surface of a mirror, like it's an image of the aerial image coming off the silvering inside the front glass sheet.

You are completely correct. I get exactly what you're saying with the 4x5 example. There isn't enough detail in a composition that would benefit greatly from extreme detail while retaining a similar gradation(couldn't think of a better word) of focus; similar to Martin Schoeler for example.



Again, thanks for the reply's and critiques everyone!! Now to find out why I wasn't informed of them even though I subscribed to the thread...