# Portrait photography advice?



## weepete (Mar 19, 2017)

Hi all,

My best mate has asked me if I could shoot some portrait shots for his CV as he is in a profesional job. The goal will be to try and get some classic pro style studio shots of him suited and booted. Now, I mostly shoot landscapes and wildlife so this is a bit out of my comfort zone, but worst comes to the worst we'll have a laugh and waste a few hours so there's no issues if I make a mess of it and there will not be any kind of payment involved.

Lighting wise I was just going to go for a Rembrant style lighting as the main light shot from the front with a speedlight through a shoot through umbrella, and a reflector on the opposite side to lift the shadows just a little. Not planning on using a hair light as he doesn't have any hair but I'll have a second speedlight there in case we need a little extra light on his shoulders. Ideally the background will be dark grey. Posing I'm not too sure of  but I'd like to try and get one shot of him standing and one sitting. 

What I'm not sure about is how much room we'll need between him and the background so I'd really appreciate some advice on that so I can choose somewhere suitable to shoot. Also some advise about backgrounds would be very welcome as I've seen a few cheap vinal ones on fleabay that look good but I've no idea if they are any good or not and it's probably not going to be used again.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 19, 2017)

Distance between subject and background depends a bit: six,seven,eight,ten,12 feet is nice if you have the width of background to do it. The longer the lens focal length, the narrower the angle of view behind the subject. There's a sweet spot between focal length and camera-to-subject distance and capture format size. AVOID shooting inside of seven feet with any lens length.

On a sitting shot, have him sit on the very front edge of a stool or chair, then have him lean forward from the waist,so his head is actually at knee-distance, pull his shoulders back, and project his chin. This extreme posture will look great on-film: rugged, dynamic, masculine. If you want, have one foot placed on a 4- to 6-inch high shoebox-sized block of wood, another classic pose. Same with foot-on-stool, hand on raised knee type standing shots. You need a dynamic look, in a static pose!

Suitable backgrounds are easier to find if you use a longer telephoto lens, like 105 to 180mm or so (35mm format equivalent FOV), so the angle of view behind him is narrow, and easy to control.Plain walls, blankets suspended on a rod, an office themed background wall, perhaps a backdrop of the office or the exterior of the building where he works, or what you can find handy; curtains, sliding wall dividers, doorway arch, door, etc..

With a larger-format camera, you can blur the heck out of many things with a long lens from 10 to 20 feet, and make it a suitable background. I think large queen- or king-sized dark grey microfiber blankets from the large department stores make a fine backdrop material when hung on a crossbar.


----------



## weepete (Mar 19, 2017)

Superb advice. Thanks Derrel! I'll have a looksee for those type of poses, they sound spot on.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 19, 2017)

For anybody who wants insight into hundreds of years' worth of posing the human body (in marble, in bronze, in oil painting, in  photography) check out the classical lessons taught here, for free. Ignore the clothing styles, and look at the images and read the text, and there is tremendous insight into the visual language of western civilization.

Zeltsman Apporach to Traditionla Classic Portraiture

Chapters 4 and 5 detail many secrets to successfully posing the male form. This is classical posing, and the principles are still the same as they were years ago. The masculine pose has just a couple simple rules to it regarding head placement. Other than that, it can encompass hundreds of props, any kind of wardrobe, and so on. There are many small fundamentals that the average untrained photography enthusiast is typically totally unaware of. In the past we've had some heated discussions here on TPF, regarding how to pose people according to a visual language tradition that goes back to the Renaissance in 2-D (painting), and to the ancient Greeks and Romans in 3-D (sculpture).


----------



## weepete (Mar 19, 2017)

Thanks mate! That is such a good read on classic posing for portature and just on a quick read addressed most of the things I wasn't quite sure about with posing (particularly head position) and highlighted dome stuff I need to pay attention to (like leg position when sitting) that I'd not even thoght of yet. It really does wonders with that strong traditional posing and gives a whole variety of shots based on some very simple methods. That gives me over 30 options for shots I could run through and that's without different expressions and props or backgrounds. Seriously good content in that, I've bookmarked it and will be referring back to it. Thanks!


----------



## weepete (Mar 23, 2017)

After a bit of experimentation with my shoot through umbrellas and a little hand from the wean (who is not so little now) there was too much light scatter for my liking so I've ordered a cheap bowens adapter and a softbox. I'm more fond of octagonal ones but they were a bit priceier than I was willing to spend so ended up with a square one (though I was keen on the internal diffuser). Some experimentation is now needed, but thanks to amžon prime should come Saturday.


----------



## KmH (Mar 24, 2017)

Scatter and some of the limitations of softboxes is the major part of why I mostly used brolly's.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 24, 2017)

weepete said:


> After a bit of experimentation with my shoot through umbrellas and a little hand from the wean (who is not so little now) there was too much light scatter for my liking so I've ordered a cheap bowens adapter and a softbox. I'm more fond of octagonal ones but they were a bit priceier than I was willing to spend so ended up with a square one (though I was keen on the internal diffuser). Some experimentation is now needed, but thanks to amžon prime should come Saturday.


Shoot-through umbrellas are (IMO) not at all suitable for portrait work unless you're in the business of driver's license & passport portraits.  They send light EVERYWHERE; a good 32" white or silver reflecting umbrella on the other hand is the single best modifier EVER!  I've got softboxes from 24x24" to 48x60", brolly boxes, beauty dishes..  but the one thing I never leave home without are two 32" silver reflecting umbrellas.  They take up virtually no room, and I KNOW that no matter what, I can get good results with them.   Karsh used umbrellas... need one say more?


----------



## weepete (Mar 24, 2017)

KmH said:


> Scatter and some of the limitations of softboxes is the major part of why I mostly used brolly's.





tirediron said:


> Shoot-through umbrellas are (IMO) not at all suitable for portrait work unless you're in the business of driver's license & passport portraits.  They send light EVERYWHER; a good 32" white or silver reflecting umbrella on the other hand is the single best modifier EVER!  I've got softboxes from 24x24" to 48x60", brolly boxes, beauty dishes..  but the one thing I never leave home without are two 32" silver reflecting umbrellas.  They take up virtually no room, and I KNOW that no matter what, I can get good results with them.   Karsh used umbrellas... need one say more?



Thanks chaps. I've ended up slightly more flush than I expected towards the end of the month so I'll add a brolly or two to the shopping list!


----------



## Derrel (Mar 24, 2017)

This is a nice umbrella box, $29.95 US *for the pair*. Steve Kaeser Enterprises also has an Amazon storefront. I have used a pair of these and similar Lastolite Umbrella Box units since 2007. I prefer these to the more-costly Lastolite Umbrella Box model, which is heavier, and uses a three-ziper closure as opposed to the drawstring closure these use.

Pretty hard to beat a pair of 42-inch umbrella boxes for under $30.

Softbox Umbrella Reflective 42inch

This type of modifier, a reflecting umbrella with a diffusing face on it gives what I call double diffusion; first the light hits the inner bowl and is scrambled a bit, and then that light goes through a close-in diffusing panel, softening the light additionally. This creates a softer light than either a shoot-through or a plain reflecting umbrella. One gets much of the benefit from a softbox, but without the need for a mounting ring, and with almost instant set-up, plus easy teardown and transport.

As far as umbrellas go, there are so many different sizes and types. Inner linings on reflecting umbrellas do change the light quality quite a bit: soft-silvery white-colored fabric is the norm, but there is also metalized silver, gold-and-silver or zebra, gold metalized, and also one of my favorites, the hard to find dull,matte white vinyl interior. You might find that silver-lined umbrellas make the rounded planes of the face light up a bit, which may be considered too specular in color images, but which adds a sense of dimension in B&W conversions. Also, smaller reflecting umbrellas give more contrast to the light than do big umbrellas, and that too can look good in B&W conversions. Thirty and 32-inch umbrellas have more usefulness than many people give them credit for these days, and work great with speedlights and quick setups. I like 32-inch umbrellas, and I like 40- to 43-incher's as well.


----------



## jake337 (Mar 24, 2017)

Derrel said:


> For anybody who wants insight into hundreds of years' worth of posing the human body (in marble, in bronze, in oil painting, in  photography) check out the classical lessons taught here, for free. Ignore the clothing styles, and look at the images and read the text, and there is tremendous insight into the visual language of western civilization.
> 
> Zeltsman Apporach to Traditionla Classic Portraiture
> 
> Chapters 4 and 5 detail many secrets to successfully posing the male form. This is classical posing, and the principles are still the same as they were years ago. The masculine pose has just a couple simple rules to it regarding head placement. Other than that, it can encompass hundreds of props, any kind of wardrobe, and so on. There are many small fundamentals that the average untrained photography enthusiast is typically totally unaware of. In the past we've had some heated discussions here on TPF, regarding how to pose people according to a visual language tradition that goes back to the Renaissance in 2-D (painting), and to the ancient Greeks and Romans in 3-D (sculpture).



Bookmarked!


----------



## weepete (Mar 24, 2017)

Thanks Derrel, 

Those umbrellas aren't avalible on amazon UK at the moment but I've read good things about that double diffused type. Ended up just ordering some cheap 33" silver reflective type ones. At least I'll have a few different options now. Gonna try setting up some self portraits first and get some practise in!


----------



## table1349 (Mar 24, 2017)

If you decide to go with some softboxes these are available.  Godox® 120cm / 47.2in Portable Octagon Softbox Umbrella: Amazon.co.uk: Camera & Photo


----------



## chuasam (Apr 1, 2017)

tirediron said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> > After a bit of experimentation with my shoot through umbrellas and a little hand from the wean (who is not so little now) there was too much light scatter for my liking so I've ordered a cheap bowens adapter and a softbox. I'm more fond of octagonal ones but they were a bit priceier than I was willing to spend so ended up with a square one (though I was keen on the internal diffuser). Some experimentation is now needed, but thanks to amžon prime should come Saturday.
> ...


You get what you pay for.
The friend is looking for free shots, he should also expect equivalent quality.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 1, 2017)

tirediron said:


> Karsh used umbrellas... need one say more?


That`s cuz Karsh did not have access to the Mola catalogue
MOLA Mantti 43.5″- 110cm White Interior - MOLA Softlights


----------



## weepete (Apr 7, 2017)

chuasam said:


> You get what you pay for.
> The friend is looking for free shots, he should also expect equivalent quality.



Not everything in this world is about getting paid neighbour.


----------



## weepete (Apr 7, 2017)

Thanks for the help guys, I think i've found my lighting setup with a photo-R double diffused octobox as the main light, positioned front, 45° and 45° up about 1-2 feet away with a 1/4 cut CTO gel, slave flash side 1.5 stops below and bounced off a rogue flashbender for a little extra diffusion but back far enough to avoid a double catchlight in one eye acting as a shadow lift and half hair light a reflector underneath to lift the chin shadow slightly seems to me the best with some self experimentation. still quite a bit of spill but I think that's due to close walls reflecting light.

Might still change once I order a background support and some backdrops. Plus it looks like my wee sis is also wanting a couple of headshots done too now so at least it will be two birds with one stone.

One thing I have learned already is I am so not a people/portrait photographer!


----------



## Frankinfuji (Apr 7, 2017)

Great advice in this thread. Just one extra thought on the background.   I review professional cv's in my job, and the traditional Rembrant lit portrait with printed backdrop is common and so will not help him stand out.

What I really like to see is a well lit photo in an appropriate setting.  For example if your friend is an engineer,  then an out of focus, but still recognizable workshop in the background would be good.  Or if he's in retail, set up the shoot in a shop.  Even an office in the background is better, in my view, than a backdrop, which suggests 'posed' and even 'false' to some.

Place your subject close to the lighting set up and the camera (depending on your lens), have the background scene far back, and use a wide aperture to throw the background out of focus.

In other words, do the opposite of what you do for landscape! 

Focus on his nearest eye, and help him to feel relaxed so you get a natural expression. 

Good luck and have fun - you may really enjoy it and shift to portrait photography.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 7, 2017)

Maybe consider moving the main light a bit farther away from the subject. Perhaps experiment a bit, and see what having the main light at 4 feet does as opposed to right on top of him. When a light is VERY close to a subject, it's so-called soft light, but it also has a very rapid rate of fall-off in its intensity over even a few in ches of distance; that can work for you, or against you. As you move the light fartyher away from the subject, the rate of fall-off in intensity slows, and the liught becomes more "steady".

Of course, keep in mind that lighting stuff is very much an in-the-moment, and on-the-spot kind of thing; rooms, floors,ceilings,walls,size and kinds and brand of the specific modifiers, types of lights, all sorts of things add up to _making the light and how it plays across the subject_,and there's NOBODY better than making the on-the-scene decision than the guy who's doing the photography! *And that guy is you!*


----------



## tirediron (Apr 7, 2017)

chuasam said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Karsh used umbrellas... need one say more?
> ...


I suspect even if he had, he would have looked at the prices, muttered something about one being born every minute and gone back to adjusting his umbrella!


----------



## weepete (Apr 8, 2017)

Here's the result of my lighting experiments. Please ignore my own ugly mug in the shot and the background, which is just my curtains. but it should let you see the lighting at least




Selfie by wee_pete, on Flickr


----------



## fmw (Apr 8, 2017)

My advice is always the same.  Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring.  Photograph your friend doing what he does.  The best portraits don't look like portraits.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 8, 2017)

weepete said:


> Here's the result of my lighting experiments. Please ignore my own ugly mug in the shot and the background, which is just my curtains. but it should let you see the lighting at least


We never criticize the models!  The photographers on the other hand....   Not bad at all; a nice basic, but effective set-up; my preference is generally for broad lighting (have the key light illuminating the same side of the face as you're photographing) vice short, for men, assuming your mate is of average build, but this works just fine.  My only real concern is that if he has darker hair like yours the detail will be lost in the shadow.  Moving the key light so that it illuminates the hair a little more and bringing in a reflector til fill chin/neck might work if you don't have another light to dedicate as a hairlight.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 8, 2017)

fmw said:


> My advice is always the same.  Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring.  Photograph your friend doing what he does.  The best portraits don't look like portraits.


Just as a point of order, that is *opinion*, *NOT* advice.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 8, 2017)

Derrel said:


> This is a nice umbrella box, $29.95 US *for the pair*. Steve Kaeser Enterprises also has an Amazon storefront. I have used a pair of these and similar Lastolite Umbrella Box units since 2007. I prefer these to the more-costly Lastolite Umbrella Box model, which is heavier, and uses a three-ziper closure as opposed to the drawstring closure these use.
> 
> Pretty hard to beat a pair of 42-inch umbrella boxes for under $30.
> 
> ...



i have a pair of these in 42" and _*love*_ them.
I also have a pair of 40 inch shoot through softbox umbrellas, but i prefer the reflected ones.
both are the same drawstring style. they are super fast to mount and unmount and will fit over whatever flash/trigger i am using.
I have a pair of 36" shoot through umbrellas that haven't been used in forever, and at one point i _*had *_a pair of small reflective umbrellas but i cant seem to find them now.

you can get these pretty cheap on ebay. 
thats where all mine came from, and the made in china ones are built fairly decent...not much to go wrong really.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 8, 2017)

fmw said:


> My advice is always the same.  Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring.  Photograph your friend doing what he does.  The best portraits don't look like portraits.




yup. so boring. guess i should have just gotten a few snaps of him running around the yard, or in front of the fence. 




DSC_1247 by pixmedic, on Flickr

its ok. I get that different people have different tastes, but it just seems counter productive to comment on a thread specifically asking about posed studio shots and tell the OP
not to do them. Its kinda like going on a thread asking about film developing and telling the OP to just shoot digital. The best portraits are ones that embrace what the client wants.

Dad specifically asked for studio shots, and this shot in particular was all his idea. Considering he paid $400 for the family set, I figured it was probably best to give him what he wanted.


----------



## Frankinfuji (Apr 8, 2017)

.... Well it could be a 'portable studio' shoot?

I'm guessing that the lighting and backdrop will be set up at home.  We're just suggesting it could br set up at work.

I like the trial shot from the OP.  Nicely lit.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 8, 2017)

tirediron said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...


I thought that...till a friend rented one...and I thought: do I really need both kidneys?


----------



## chuasam (Apr 8, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > My advice is always the same.  Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring.  Photograph your friend doing what he does.  The best portraits don't look like portraits.
> ...


Short lighting would have worked better for this where he is looking right into the key light.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 8, 2017)

weepete said:


> Here's the result of my lighting experiments. Please ignore my own ugly mug in the shot and the background, which is just my curtains. but it should let you see the lighting at least
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A touch too much shadow for the pose.  MOO (my opinion only)  But a nice start.


----------



## fmw (Apr 8, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > My advice is always the same.  Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring.  Photograph your friend doing what he does.  The best portraits don't look like portraits.
> ...



I stand by what I said.  They are boring.  The portrait above is boring.  Any photographer has to deliver what the client wants but that doesn't necessarily make great images.


----------



## fmw (Apr 8, 2017)

tirediron said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > My advice is always the same.  Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring.  Photograph your friend doing what he does.  The best portraits don't look like portraits.
> ...



No, it is advice.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 8, 2017)

fmw said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...


Must remind you of your avatar I guess 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## fmw (Apr 8, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Why is that?  The large format studio camera you see there was for commercial product photography.  My favorite camera for portraits was the Mamiya RZ67.  I shot some posed studio portraits in my day but I didn't like any of them.  The clients liked them but so it goes.  I loved capturing people doing what they do.  That practice makes better portraits every time.

If I were to make a portrait today I would use a DSLR.  What does a camera have to do with what I said?


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 8, 2017)

fmw said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...



i just figured that since  your avatar was a boring portrait, _*my*_ boring portrait got you feeling a little nostalgic, that's all. nothing to do with the camera.

your _*opinion*_ on what makes a better portrait is duly noted. kinda narrow minded though.  I suppose if your clients dont care about posing, or lighting, or any kind of setup at all, then running around taking random pictures of people doing things might be desirable. I never cared for it. always felt lazy to me.  it used to be called photojournalism back in the day, but now I think its been re-dubbed "lifestyle" photography. personally, "I" call it, "didn't bother to learn lighting or posing" photography.  just my opinion though, don't want anyone to think im stating it as a fact. 
I suppose the lighting portion isn't *entirely* accurate, seeing as how the forum has some amazing natural light photographers...but again, the magic is in the posing.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 8, 2017)

weepete said:


> Here's the result of my lighting experiments. Please ignore my own ugly mug in the shot and the background, which is just my curtains. but it should let you see the lighting at least
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looks alright to me. Perhaps a tad too much negative clarity on the skin for a male's portrait? I might burn down the ear camera right, just a bit...a little bit too much fill on the shadow side, IMHO. Overall the degree of shadowing from the lighting set-up creates a lot of dimensional clues for the shape of the face.


----------



## weepete (Apr 8, 2017)

Thanks guys. I'm not going to be able to take photographs of him at work, it's not allowed. When I was asked to do shots of him I got him to send me a few examples of what he had in mind. The images I got back were all studio shots so as far as I'm concerned that's what I've been asked for and thats what I'm going to do my best to deliver. We may end up doing some outside shots too if time allows and conditions are right but I think I'll do ok with them. He can then pick whatever ones he likes.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 8, 2017)

weepete said:


> Thanks guys. I'm not going to be able to take photographs of him at work, it's not allowed. When I was asked to do shots of him I got him to send me a few examples of what he had in mind. The images I got back were all studio shots so as far as I'm concerned that's what I've been asked for and thats what I'm going to do my best to deliver. We may end up doing some outside shots too if time allows and conditions are right but I think I'll do ok with them. He can then pick whatever ones he likes.




knock it out the box bro. 
studio work is awesome!
its the kind of formal portraiture that families get to hang on their walls, and professionals of all sorts hang in their offices.


----------



## weepete (Apr 8, 2017)

tirediron said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the result of my lighting experiments. Please ignore my own ugly mug in the shot and the background, which is just my curtains. but it should let you see the lighting at least
> ...



Aye, I'm thankful that we don't comment on models! My mate's a big lad 6'2" and broad but he is quite skinny now. He's also bauld so no worries about a hair light  with him  I'll bear in mind for the future though.


----------



## weepete (Apr 8, 2017)

Frankinfuji said:


> .... Well it could be a 'portable studio' shoot?
> 
> I'm guessing that the lighting and backdrop will be set up at home.  We're just suggesting it could br set up at work.
> 
> I like the trial shot from the OP.  Nicely lit.



Thanks mate. Unfortunatley shooting at his work is not an option, but thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## weepete (Apr 8, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Looks alright to me. Perhaps a tad too much negative clarity on the skin for a male's portrait? I might burn down the ear camera right, just a bit...a little bit too much fill on the shadow side, IMHO. Overall the degree of shadowing from the lighting set-up creates a lot of dimensional clues for the shape of the face.



Thanks mate, yeah it was a quick and dirty edit and I've never had good skin so it's hiding some flaws.


----------



## weepete (Apr 8, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> knock it out the box bro.
> studio work is awesome!
> its the kind of formal portraiture that families get to hang on their walls, and professionals of all sorts hang in their offices.



Thanks mate, I'll do my best!


----------



## weepete (Apr 8, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> A touch too much shadow for the pose.  MOO (my opinion only)  But a nice start.



Thanks mate, I did have a few that were more front lit and even but I wanted to try for a bit of shadow to learn to use the lights.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 8, 2017)

weepete said:


> He's also bauld so no worries about a hair light  with him  I'll bear in mind for the future though.


In the trade, we call that a 'dome-light'!


----------



## fmw (Apr 9, 2017)

You mis


pixmedic said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...


You missed the point entirely.  My avatar was a self portrait doing what I did.  That is exactly the message I was trying to convey.  Most people would see the self portrait and say "photographer" and you missed that entirely.  You should make portraits any way you like.  I was simply suggesting a better way.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 9, 2017)

fmw said:


> You mis
> 
> 
> pixmedic said:
> ...



by your own definition, your avatar is a posed portrait, ergo, it is boring. so no, i think i pretty much nailed it.  you should have taken a picture if  yourself in action as a photographer. according to you, it would have been a better picture. (although I dont personally think so because i think your staged, posed shot is great)
But i think  _*you*_ have missed the point.  you have repeatedly tried to impose a purely subjective opinion as fact in a thread where the OP has _*clearly*_ defined the parameters of his shoot.
I think shooting film (and i have shot a lot of film in my time) is _*boring*_ with a capital "notdoingitanymore", but I dont get on film threads and tell people they would be better off shooting digital.  noone here, including myself, is saying your opinion is wrong...were just saying its an _*opinion*_, and honestly, not really relevant to the OP;s question.


----------



## fmw (Apr 9, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > You mis
> ...



I don't shoot film anymore either.  Aren't you trying to bulldoze your opinion here?  Sorry I criticized your image.  Too bad you don't accept feedback with any sort of objectivism.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 9, 2017)

tirediron said:


> weepete said:
> 
> 
> > He's also bauld so no worries about a hair light  with him  I'll bear in mind for the future though.
> ...


In this country it is called a chrome dome-light.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2017)

For accent or hair light on a bald head, it is important that the light be well- diffused, and not coming in toward the lens axis at a steep angle, otherwise it will be too specular.


----------



## JonA_CT (Apr 9, 2017)

Derrel said:


> For accent or hair light on a bald head, it is important that the light be well- diffused, and not coming in toward the lens axis at a steep angle, otherwise it will be too specular.



I wish they had a wax or something to make my head less shiny. :|


----------



## table1349 (Apr 9, 2017)

Derrel said:


> For accent or hair light on a bald head, it is important that the light be well- diffused, and not coming in toward the lens axis at a steep angle, otherwise it will be too specular.


Derrel, that is to much work.  I used to use this quite successfully.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 9, 2017)

JonA_CT said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > For accent or hair light on a bald head, it is important that the light be well- diffused, and not coming in toward the lens axis at a steep angle, otherwise it will be too specular.
> ...


See above.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 9, 2017)

fmw said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > fmw said:
> ...



What are you talking about?  I never had an issue with your opinion of my work. Now your just putting words in my mouth. Too bad you can't separate option from fact and actually help the OP with his question 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Frankinfuji (Apr 9, 2017)

Is this a private argument, or can anyone join in?


----------



## tirediron (Apr 9, 2017)

With apologies to the OP for potential derailment....



fmw said:


> You missed the point entirely.  My avatar was a self portrait doing what I did.  That is exactly the message I was trying to convey.  Most people would see the self portrait and say "photographer" and you missed that entirely.  You should make portraits any way you like. * I was simply suggesting a better way.*





fmw said:


> My advice is always the same.  *Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring*.  Photograph your friend doing what he does.  *The best portraits don't look like portraits.*


Frank... let's be objective.  Your posts above make it pretty clear that you think ALL posed studio shots are bad, and that we should all be outside chasing our clients around.  Fair enough; we'll accept that as your _opinion_ on the matter (despite the fact that my education in the English language would still contend that those are phrased as alleged fact).  Explain to me how you would have created this gentleman's portrait.  He is a WWII Veteran, 91 years old I believe...


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2017)

Back to genuine advice for portraits, as opposed to opinions. One issue is the way that focal length controls the width of the background shown in the final image. Camera-to-subject distance sets the perspective, and controls how "big" the person is, but the angle of view behind the subject can be altered by a lot by using a wider-angle or narrower-angle lens.

If you have a poor or ugly background, or not a very wide roll of paper, or only a small curtain, use a long focal length lens, which will show only a narrow angle. Similarly, when using a gelled flash head or speedlight to color a backdrop (as was done above in Tirediron's portrait, using a blue gel), a shorter lens will show the un-gelled parts of the backdrop, while a longer lens like say a 135mm, will show only the most-colored parts; it's really up to the photographer to figure out what looks the best.

I think the biggest issue many people combat is getting too physically close to the portrait subject, with too short of a lens; I think 7 feet is the absolute closest-ever distance, and even that is pushing it. I've found that 10 to 15 feet gives the subject more personal "space", mentally, so they feel more free to "act in their own, personal bubble" of space. Nobody likes a camera breathing down his nose.


----------



## fmw (Apr 9, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



This thread is off the rails.  I see no benefit in continuing with it.  Best of luck.


----------



## fmw (Apr 9, 2017)

tirediron said:


> With apologies to the OP for potential derailment....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How could I have been more clear?  His portrait would have more photographic and social value if it captured him in his own environment doing whatever he does.  If you see him, thank him for his service.


----------



## chuasam (Apr 9, 2017)

I've done a similar shot outdoors too


----------



## table1349 (Apr 9, 2017)

fmw said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > With apologies to the OP for potential derailment....
> ...


Perhaps that it why it is call Photography instead of Fredography.   There are a wide variety of styles, likes, and dislikes.  None of them are absolutes or the only correct one.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 9, 2017)

chuasam said:


> I've done a similar shot outdoors too
> View attachment 137829 View attachment 137830


Those. Are. Awesome. 


That is all.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2017)

pixmedic said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > I've done a similar shot outdoors too
> ...



Agreed. VERY striking! So good I gave the post the "Winner" badge, pretty rare for me to dole one of those out. Kick-a** work, @chuasam!


----------



## chuasam (Apr 9, 2017)

Derrel said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...


Thanks.

here is some context


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2017)

***k yeah! (did he mean heck yeah??? You decide....)


----------



## chuasam (Apr 10, 2017)

tirediron said:


> With apologies to the OP for potential derailment....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would have asked him what his happiest moment was and try to recreate that in a photograph. I mean your lighting and focus is spot on but it doesn't portray what he is like as a person. I mean your work is solid but there is no sense of risk and adventure. Something to make me look at an image and find myself unable to look away. I want to be able to feel something when I look at an image.

A good image makes me wonder "how did the photographer think to take that?"


----------



## weepete (Apr 14, 2017)

So I did a headshot shoot with my wee sis yesterday evening. Turns out she needed one for work as she is starting a new job and they wanted her to provide one. As I got basically a pop up studio anyway we set it up for some shots after I'd finished work. thankfully she was very patient with me effing about with the lighting and we did a fair bit of shooting, culled them tonight. The good thing was it was a very collaberative shoot, with the whole selfie thing these days she aleady had an idea of how she wanted to look and how to get it. With a few tweeks. Another good thing was we got some lighting that was interesting (for me) and we hot a fair few where she was happy with how she looked. Even had a bit of a laugh doing it.

I've gained a new respect for portrait photograpers, my backgrounds were still pretty poor, though I think there are a few that are useable, maybe more if I can salvage in photoshop. It was really hard to get distance though and I made a lot of mistakes. A third light (possibly even a 4th) would have been useful. Using the LCD was not great for a quick review and the lighting seemed different when I got them in lightroom. So we'll see what hapens in post, I took 91 shots (not all of her) culled that down to 60 with the exposure tests gone culled that doen to 35 where she liked her pose then down to the 9 that she liked the most. Now just need to edit them and get them to her by Monaday!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 15, 2017)

weepete said:


> So I did a headshot shoot with my wee sis yesterday evening. Turns out she needed one for work as she is starting a new job and they wanted her to provide one. As I got basically a pop up studio anyway we set it up for some shots after I'd finished work. thankfully she was very patient with me effing about with the lighting and we did a fair bit of shooting, culled them tonight. The good thing was it was a very collaberative shoot, with the whole selfie thing these days she aleady had an idea of how she wanted to look and how to get it. With a few tweeks. Another good thing was we got some lighting that was interesting (for me) and we hot a fair few where she was happy with how she looked. Even had a bit of a laugh doing it.
> 
> I've gained a new respect for portrait photograpers, my backgrounds were still pretty poor, though I think there are a few that are useable, maybe more if I can salvage in photoshop. It was really hard to get distance though and I made a lot of mistakes. A third light (possibly even a 4th) would have been useful. Using the LCD was not great for a quick review and the lighting seemed different when I got them in lightroom. So we'll see what hapens in post, I took 91 shots (not all of her) culled that down to 60 with the exposure tests gone culled that doen to 35 where she liked her pose then down to the 9 that she liked the most. Now just need to edit them and get them to her by Monaday!


Sounds like a very good portrait session,weepete. Good to hear you got plenty of keepers.


----------



## weepete (Apr 15, 2017)

I'd like to thank everyone for their posts and suggestions, it's been really helpful and I appreciate the input and help. Here is my favorite from the shoot with my wee sis whom I'm dead proud of.



My Wee Sis by wee_pete, on Flickr

By no means perfect and has a few errors on my part (the loss  of detail in the shadows of her hair really buggs me but detail is there in the raw file I just can't quite figure out the processing yet). On the whole I'm resonably pleased  with the results.


----------



## weepete (Apr 15, 2017)

Derrel said:


> Sounds like a very good portrait session,weepete. Good to hear you got plenty of keepers.



Cheers mate, yet to see as there is quite a bit I need to do in post, but at least I got some poses where she quite likes. Personally I'd probably cull that down to 2 or 3 so keeper rate still won't be that good. I've still made a lot of mistakes but you know live and learn plus if she doesn't like the finals we can re-process or re-shoot. I must admit I found the whole thing stressful and just so out of my comfort zone.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 15, 2017)

I can see by the above sample image that overall you were able to create a good quality of light, and in the process no doubt learned some things.


----------



## joshuaraineyphotography (Apr 19, 2017)

I prefer as much distance as possible, maybe 15ft or so.  That way you can stop down a bit and still get the background slightly bokeh if needed.  I usually shoot portraits in studio around f/8 or so.


----------



## ronlane (Apr 19, 2017)

weepete said:


> By no means perfect and has a few errors on my part (the loss  of detail in the shadows of her hair really buggs me but detail is there in the raw file I just can't quite figure out the processing yet). On the whole I'm resonably pleased  with the results.



I like the image and would like to offer a possible suggestion to help you with the processing here for the hair. Click on the local brushes and select the dodge brush and paint on the hair some to brighten it up and help to separate it from the background.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 19, 2017)

Good solid image!  Nicely done.


----------



## Scoody (Apr 19, 2017)

fmw said:


> My advice is always the same.  Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring.  Photograph your friend doing what he does.  The best portraits don't look like portraits.



This time of year I get a lot of senior shoots.  I do strictly location shoots for these.  But here is what I also do.  When I book one of these kids for a shoot I do an interview either with them or their parents.  What does the kid like to do?  Do they play sports?  Do they have a car?  Do they have hobbies?  What do they want to be?

I use this information to set up my shoot.  I do the usual nicely dressed shots.  Then I do the ones that are based on their likes, hobbies, hopes and dreams.  One kid who rode bulls I shot in his chaps, vest and bull rope in a stockyard holding pen.  A boxer I did some shots at the gym.  A kid who dreams of being a chef I took to a friends restaurant and got some shots of him at the grill in a chefs hat and jacket.  The kids and parents love these and they are a lot of fun to do.


----------



## fmw (Apr 20, 2017)

Scoody said:


> fmw said:
> 
> 
> > My advice is always the same.  Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring.  Photograph your friend doing what he does.  The best portraits don't look like portraits.
> ...


I suspect I would like your portrait work.


----------



## weepete (Apr 20, 2017)

joshuaraineyphotography said:


> I prefer as much distance as possible, maybe 15ft or so.  That way you can stop down a bit and still get the background slightly bokeh if needed.  I usually shoot portraits in studio around f/8 or so.



Ideally, yeah. But I don't have a studio and ultimatley struggled for getting 6-7ft of room (on reflection I should have shortened the backdrop to 1.5m but it was new and my first try with a "studio" background. I assume you'd be shooting f8 on a full frame as well so I can shoot a bit wider with my crop sensor.


----------



## weepete (Apr 20, 2017)

ronlane said:


> I like the image and would like to offer a possible suggestion to help you with the processing here for the hair. Click on the local brushes and select the dodge brush and paint on the hair some to brighten it up and help to separate it from the background.



Thanks Ron. I"m familiar with masks but still working on my dodging/burning  in lightroom. I did try it but couldn't refine it enough snd she ended up looking like her hair was grey! I'm refining my process ATM , a lot more confident eith it now do will give it a go.


----------



## weepete (Apr 20, 2017)

Derrel said:


> I can see by the above sample image that overall you were able to create a good quality of light, and in the process no doubt learned some things.





tirediron said:


> Good solid image!  Nicely done.



Derrel, Tirediron, I'd like to thank you two spesifically for your help. It has been invaluable. I'd have got no where near it without yor advice which is greatly appreciated indeed. Thanks!

My wee sis told me the other day that, after seeing her shots, her collegues have now decided they all need better shots for the website. She is chuffed and that makes me pleased, though I appreciate my shots still could be improved.

Apoligies  for the late reply, am midway through a landscape workshop ATM!


----------



## weepete (Apr 20, 2017)

Scoody said:


> This time of year I get a lot of senior shoots.  I do strictly location shoots for these.  But here is what I also do.  When I book one of these kids for a shoot I do an interview either with them or their parents.  What does the kid like to do?  Do they play sports?  Do they have a car?  Do they have hobbies?  What do they want to be?
> 
> I use this information to set up my shoot.  I do the usual nicely dressed shots.  Then I do the ones that are based on their likes, hobbies, hopes and dreams.  One kid who rode bulls I shot in his chaps, vest and bull rope in a stockyard holding pen.  A boxer I did some shots at the gym.  A kid who dreams of being a chef I took to a friends restaurant and got some shots of him at the grill in a chefs hat and jacket.  The kids and parents love these and they are a lot of fun to do.



Thanks for the tips mate, but it's a serious corprate headshot I'm going for. While in some fields a casual portrait is fine this is not one of them


----------



## Derrel (Apr 20, 2017)

weepete said:
			
		

> [QUOTE"]I
> Derrel, Tirediron, I'd like to thank you two spesifically for your help. It has been invaluable. I'd have got no where near it without yor advice which is greatly appreciated indeed. Thanks!
> 
> My wee sis told me the other day that, after seeing her shots, her collegues have now decided they all need better shots for the website. She is chuffed and that makes me pleased, though I appreciate my shots still could be improved.
> ...


Hey Buddy, Thank you for the kind words! Always willing to help out if I have anything worth sharing with a fellow forum mate! Let's hope her co-workers get you some added photo sessions with the lights and such. The more sets shot, the more easily the shots fall into line!


----------



## ronlane (Apr 20, 2017)

weepete said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > I like the image and would like to offer a possible suggestion to help you with the processing here for the hair. Click on the local brushes and select the dodge brush and paint on the hair some to brighten it up and help to separate it from the background.
> ...



Once you paint it on, you may have to play with the exposure slider and the highlights and shadows sliders as well. I gave it a go and see what you mean about the grey but after a little adjustment it lightened up a bit.


----------



## weepete (Apr 20, 2017)

*(¥€¥__$#!!!

Damn Ron, your edit is spot on! I just couldn't get that. Any chance you could screenshot it with the mask overlay on and let me know the settings in the basics panel please?


----------



## ronlane (Apr 21, 2017)

@weepete, if I had kept it, I would. That was all in Lightroom. I selected the brush tool and picked dodge from the drop down menu. Painted over the hair and then I used the sliders for exposure, shadows and highlights. I believe the exposure was about +0.40 or 0.50, the highlights were -0.50 or higher and the shadows were at something around +0.50 - 0.75 range. I just played with it to get the grey out but to give it some shine.

Hope that helps some.


----------



## weepete (Apr 26, 2017)

Thanks Ron, will give that a go!


----------

