# Modeling Headshots: Luke



## NJMAN (Apr 21, 2008)

This was from a recent session.  He is trying out for a modeling agency, and just wanted a few headshots.  Very nice guy.  I tried to mix up the lighting and backgrounds a bit.  C&C always welcome.  Thanks for looking. 

1.






2.





3.





4.





5.





6.





7.





8.





9.





Thanks for looking. 

NJ


----------



## Nmink100 (Apr 21, 2008)

NJ - These are really great. The best thing about them is how darn SHARP they are!
How do you get your pics so TACK SHARP!?
I'm always amazed at your focus!!
How do you do it?
What are your settings?


----------



## Ajay (Apr 21, 2008)

I agree, great shots!  He's a good-looking guy.  Nice variety I think for these kinds of shots.  The only one I don't really care for is #8.  Something about the position of his head and his smile is a little too goofy looking I think.  Great job though!  And yeah, how do you get them so tack sharp?


----------



## NJMAN (Apr 22, 2008)

Nmink100 said:


> NJ - These are really great. The best thing about them is how darn SHARP they are!
> How do you get your pics so TACK SHARP!?
> I'm always amazed at your focus!!
> How do you do it?
> What are your settings?


 
Thank you very much Natalie!  The 85mm f/1.8 helps a lot for sharp images.  That is by far my favorite portrait lens.  Most of the shots were done with the 85, and the rest were done with the 28-135 for a wider angle.  An aperture of 2.8 on the 85mm seems to work best for me to get good focus and sharp detail.  On the 28-135, the lowest aperture (3.5) works quite well.  In this series, the ISO was at 200.  I will check the exact EXIF data later today, since I dont have access to it right now.  



Ajay said:


> I agree, great shots! He's a good-looking guy. Nice variety I think for these kinds of shots. The only one I don't really care for is #8. Something about the position of his head and his smile is a little too goofy looking I think. Great job though! And yeah, how do you get them so tack sharp?


 
Thanks Ajay!  See my response above for technical details.


----------



## Vaporous (Apr 22, 2008)

I think he and the agency will be pleased! Awesome shots.

Two very enthusiastic thumbs up here


----------



## Alpha (Apr 22, 2008)

Good job on the shots, but your boy has some issues with those lifeless, sleepy eyes. Agency-quality headshots but not an agency-quality model.


----------



## JimmyJaceyMom (Apr 22, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Good job on the shots, but your boy has some issues with those lifeless, sleepy eyes. Agency-quality headshots but not an agency-quality model.


 

I disagree, this boy is young and as of yet inexperienced but he definately has an interesting look.  There are lots of male models out there with that dopey eyed look mainly because girls think it's pretty hot.    Perfect skintone and big full lips to boot.  
Great job NJ.  I like the crops on these.


----------



## NJMAN (Apr 22, 2008)

Vaporous said:


> I think he and the agency will be pleased! Awesome shots.
> 
> Two very enthusiastic thumbs up here


 
You are very kind, thank you Melis!



Alpha said:


> Good job on the shots, but your boy has some issues with those lifeless, sleepy eyes. Agency-quality headshots but not an agency-quality model.


 
Thanks, I really appreciate your comments.


----------



## NJMAN (Apr 22, 2008)

JimmyJaceyMom said:


> I disagree, this boy is young and as of yet inexperienced but he definately has an interesting look. There are lots of male models out there with that dopey eyed look mainly because girls think it's pretty hot.  Perfect skintone and big full lips to boot.
> Great job NJ. I like the crops on these.


 
Thanks for commenting Kathi. I do want to add that his skin was almost flawless thanks to good genetics from his mom and dad. I did very little processing on the skin, since it was so near perfect. As far as him being a marketable model, I wouldn't know. But I've seen much worse than him.


----------



## Holly (Apr 22, 2008)

Great photos.  Number 5 his pupils look odd. They are not fully rounded on the bottom. Kind of like you used the fill in and didnt use it small enough and create the roundedness to be taken away.


----------



## NJMAN (Apr 22, 2008)

Holly said:


> Great photos. Number 5 his pupils look odd. They are not fully rounded on the bottom. Kind of like you used the fill in and didnt use it small enough and create the roundedness to be taken away.


 
Thanks for the nice words Holly.  There is an explanation for the eyes in #5.  What you are seeing is a speedlite pointed at a small reflector that was sitting on the floor and tilted towards the subject.  I tried to have it look like sort of a campfire light coming from the ground and filling the subject's face from below.


----------



## phakimata (Apr 22, 2008)

I love the shots, but I think you over did it with the eyes (except for #4 and #9).


----------



## NJMAN (Apr 22, 2008)

phakimata said:


> I love the shots, but I think you over did it with the eyes (except for #4 and #9).


 
Thanks for the comments and critique.


----------



## Alpha (Apr 23, 2008)

JimmyJaceyMom said:


> I disagree, this boy is young and as of yet inexperienced but he definately has an interesting look.  There are lots of male models out there with that dopey eyed look mainly because girls think it's pretty hot.    Perfect skintone and big full lips to boot.
> Great job NJ.  I like the crops on these.



Look, perhaps he might be okay as a catalog model, but there are 9 shots here with nearly identical looks. Sensing a trend? I bet it's in the shots NJ didn't post, as well. There are lots of different kinds of models, sure, but Paris Hilton's the only one to have ever gotten anywhere with a single look.


----------



## Ajay (Apr 23, 2008)

Hey I like the new av, NJ!


----------



## NJMAN (Apr 23, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Look, perhaps he might be okay as a catalog model, but there are 9 shots here with nearly identical looks. Sensing a trend? I bet it's in the shots NJ didn't post, as well. There are lots of different kinds of models, sure, but Paris Hilton's the only one to have ever gotten anywhere with a single look.


 
While I appreciate your analysis on this subject, this thread is really about the images and not whether he can get a modeling job or not after one shoot.   Actually, I think he would be quite pleased to get a job as a catalog model, since he has never done anything like this before, and doesn't have any expectations.  He just wanted to get a few headshots to send out to various agencies in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.  He is in college and doesn't really know what he wants to do yet.  I was more than happy to do this for him, and hopefully it lands him a side job somewhere during the summer.


----------



## Alpha (Apr 23, 2008)

NJMAN said:


> While I appreciate your analysis on this subject, this thread is really about the images and not whether he can get a modeling job or not after one shoot.



Sort of true. 

But we coach our models all the time. I'm not saying you ought to be instructing his every move, but insofar as you're aware that a portfolio full of the same look is a bad thing, I think you owe it to your model (or client, in this case) to communicate that in some respect. Remember that it generally takes models quite some time before they're able to effectively visualize what they actually look like while posing. So given that your subject is an amateur, he's most likely blissfully unaware that he's giving the same look in every shot, and may not even notice upon looking at the finished series. I think one's job as a photographer, with respect to clients goes well beyond tripping the shutter and post-processing. It requires you to identify and to correct any problems with the shots, and I think that this qualifies. 

Just my thoughts. I hope that doesn't come across as condescending. 

-Max


----------



## NJMAN (Apr 23, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Sort of true.
> 
> But we coach our models all the time. I'm not saying you ought to be instructing his every move, but insofar as you're aware that a portfolio full of the same look is a bad thing, I think you owe it to your model (or client, in this case) to communicate that in some respect. Remember that it generally takes models quite some time before they're able to effectively visualize what they actually look like while posing. So given that your subject is an amateur, he's most likely blissfully unaware that he's giving the same look in every shot, and may not even notice upon looking at the finished series. I think one's job as a photographer, with respect to clients goes well beyond tripping the shutter and post-processing. It requires you to identify and to correct any problems with the shots, and I think that this qualifies.
> 
> ...


 
No, I dont think that was condescending at all. I agree completely. I too firmly believe that its my job to direct the poses, expressions, clothing choices, etc. as well as I can, and as part of the whole session package. Anything less would be a disservice to them. It's always good for me to be more aware of the importance of directing my subjects properly. I think I've been getting better at that lately, but I could always some improvement. Thanks. Your points are valid.


----------



## ricitius (Jun 19, 2008)

I'm about to dome some headshots for a friend. At the moment I'm wondering whether to do it in a studio or outside. What would you agree would be best? Or should I mix it up a bit. Here is a link to the photography I have do so far. www.flickr.com/photos/ricitius
I haven't really used any kinds of light other than  a lamp or two while indoors. Thanks.


----------



## NJMAN (Jun 19, 2008)

ricitius said:


> I'm about to dome some headshots for a friend. At the moment I'm wondering whether to do it in a studio or outside. What would you agree would be best? Or should I mix it up a bit. Here is a link to the photography I have do so far. www.flickr.com/photos/ricitius
> I haven't really used any kinds of light other than a lamp or two while indoors. Thanks.


 
Hi ricitius,

Cool, thanks for pulling my thread back up!  

I took a look at your shots.  Not bad.  Keep trying and practicing. 

I would do some of both, outdoor and indoor if you can.  There really is no best way.  Its what you prefer doing.  Personally, I love doing portraits outside the most.  I can use light is so many different ways outside, just as long as I channel it properly, and get some nice directional light on the subject's face.  Try to shoot in the shade if you are outside on a bright sunny day, or wait until early morning or early evening for nice soft warm light.  Also, use a reflector if you can.  Its all about good quality light and proper exposure.  

If I must shoot indoors, all I use are a couple of speedlites (canon 580ex and 430ex), and I set them to master and slave.  I use either use a shoot-through umbrella or a regular umbrella with the speedlights, and I also use a reflector for fill light.  Again, getting the good directional light and proper exposure is where its at.  I tend to favor short lighting as opposed to broad lighting, as it gives more dimension to the face.

Hope this helps.


----------



## JIP (Jun 19, 2008)

I think your shots are excellent however I have to agree with some of the others here about the eyes.  Part of your responsibilty is to direct the guy and having him look at the same point somewhere at the bottom of your camera  is just not so good.  I think if the guy is inexperienced you need to tell him while you are shooting to change the expression in some of the shots and mabye look at the camera at least once.  I want to repeat I think technically the shots are excellent but to have the guy looking like he is reading off of a tele-prompter in every shot is very distracting.


----------



## NJMAN (Jun 19, 2008)

JIP said:


> I think your shots are excellent however I have to agree with some of the others here about the eyes. Part of your responsibilty is to direct the guy and having him look at the same point somewhere at the bottom of your camera is just not so good. I think if the guy is inexperienced you need to tell him while you are shooting to change the expression in some of the shots and mabye look at the camera at least once. I want to repeat I think technically the shots are excellent but to have the guy looking like he is reading off of a tele-prompter in every shot is very distracting.


 
Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for the tip.  It all helps.  Thanks JIP.


----------



## ricitius (Jun 19, 2008)

Yeah for sure I'll keep on practicing and taking more pictures. I think I'm leaning towards more of an outdoor shoot due to me not having equipment  besides my camera and stock lenses. Do you have any recommendations on any common light solutions found around homes to get the same effect. I remember on the  David pictures on my flickr (www.flickr.com/photos/ricitius) were done with a lamp without a lampshade and a mirror.

Thanks ahead of time. I appreciate all of your advice.



NJMAN said:


> Hi ricitius,
> 
> Cool, thanks for pulling my thread back up!
> 
> ...


----------



## NJMAN (Jun 20, 2008)

ricitius said:


> Yeah for sure I'll keep on practicing and taking more pictures. I think I'm leaning towards more of an outdoor shoot due to me not having equipment besides my camera and stock lenses. Do you have any recommendations on any common light solutions found around homes to get the same effect. I remember on the David pictures on my flickr (www.flickr.com/photos/ricitius) were done with a lamp without a lampshade and a mirror.
> 
> Thanks ahead of time. I appreciate all of your advice.


 
Well, there are plenty of things you can do for do-it-yourself (DIY) lighting. For example, you can make your own homemade reflector out of a sheet of white foam core from your local craft store, and even wrap it in aluminum foil for some added reflectivity. However, with foil wrap, you might get a sheen on your subject's skin that you may not want. I prefer to use white reflective surfaces myself.

Although, you are making do with what you have for lighting, Im afraid a regular lamp isn't going to cut it in the long run. I would consider investing in a speedlite flash at the bare minimum and one or two accessories to bounce the light (bounce card, reflector, umbrella, softbox, etc.), or you may be able to get some inexpensive continuous lights from a photography supply vendor. Canon and Nikon make very nice speedlites, or you can go cheaper and get a sunpak or vivitar. But I don't think they balance ambient light. You just set them manually for more or less power.

If nothing else, you could try a 300-watt flood light from your local home improvement store, but those get very hot and take quite a bit of power. In any event, you will need something with more power, since ordinary light bulbs increase your chance of oof (out of focus) pictures caused by motion blur or camera shake. Sorry if Im telling you stuff you already know. I'm no expert on lighting by any means, and only throwing out some ideas that I've seen on this board and other photo boards. 

One person on this board I think is much better at DIY photography is Garbz. He's had some great ideas in the past, and I think he knows how to build a homemade softbox quite well. 

Good luck in your endeavors.


----------



## Cubase (Jun 20, 2008)

The photos are stunning. I'm shocked how sharp and clean they are.

Anyways I think that with that hair the kid won't have many chances. Something has to be done to that hair. Everything else on him is ok, yet I think his nose is a bit large


----------



## NJMAN (Jun 21, 2008)

Cubase said:


> The photos are stunning. I'm shocked how sharp and clean they are.
> 
> Anyways I think that with that hair the kid won't have many chances. Something has to be done to that hair. Everything else on him is ok, yet I think his nose is a bit large


 
Whether he has a chance or not is irrelevant to the critique of the photos, but thanks for the compliment.


----------



## RowmyF (Jun 21, 2008)

Hey NJ - great job ! 

I especially, especially like #5...just terrific.  You can see every pore on his face (in a good way  and it just grabbed me...


----------



## Deadeye008 (Jun 23, 2008)

Very nice NJ! The 85 1.8 is my favorite portrait lens. You showed off its capabilities very well here!


----------



## NJMAN (Jun 23, 2008)

RowmyF said:


> Hey NJ - great job !
> 
> I especially, especially like #5...just terrific. You can see every pore on his face (in a good way  and it just grabbed me...


 
Thanks Rachel, much appreciated! 



Deadeye008 said:


> Very nice NJ! The 85 1.8 is my favorite portrait lens. You showed off its capabilities very well here!


 
Hey thanks Justin.  Im glad you like the 85mm too.  Thanks for commenting!


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Jul 2, 2008)

i dont like the facial expressions at all. they do seem rather lifeless and forced like hes 'smiling' half-assed. 

two cents!


----------



## NJMAN (Jul 3, 2008)

Do'Udren's Eyes said:


> i dont like the facial expressions at all. they do seem rather lifeless and forced like hes 'smiling' half-assed.
> 
> two cents!


 
If you are going to critique on the quality of the images, such as lighting, exposure, color, dof, focus, sharpness, etc., thats one thing.  But if your only comment is on how you don't like his smile or expressions, don't bother.  Thanks.


----------



## mmcduffie1 (Jul 6, 2008)

Not much I can say about these. Nice shots. Pretty much nailed it. Cept the post title was headshots and they aren't all headshots. HA! i knew i'd find a problem.


----------



## Richelle (Jul 7, 2008)

Great shots but I have one tip. My friend owns a talent agency and I have been working wiht her and her clients. One thing she does not like is a solid white or black background. I'm not sure if this is an industry preference or hers but I thought I would pass it along.


----------



## NJMAN (Jul 7, 2008)

mmcduffie1 said:


> Not much I can say about these. Nice shots. Pretty much nailed it. Cept the post title was headshots and they aren't all headshots. HA! i knew i'd find a problem.


 
Hee hee, thanks for finding the discrepancy.  I'll try to be careful with my titles next time.   Thanks for the nice words. 



Richelle said:


> Great shots but I have one tip. My friend owns a talent agency and I have been working wiht her and her clients. One thing she does not like is a solid white or black background. I'm not sure if this is an industry preference or hers but I thought I would pass it along.


 
Good to know.  Thanks for the tip Richelle.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 7, 2008)

Richelle said:


> My friend owns a talent agency and I have been working wiht her and her clients. One thing she does not like is a solid white or black background. I'm not sure if this is an industry preference or hers but I thought I would pass it along.



Surely this is her preference. I've seen countless fashion and beauty spreads against white backgrounds. They're a staple of the industry, not an exception.


----------



## AprilRamone (Jul 7, 2008)

Cubase said:


> The photos are stunning. I'm shocked how sharp and clean they are.
> 
> Anyways I think that with that hair the kid won't have many chances. Something has to be done to that hair. Everything else on him is ok, yet I think his nose is a bit large


 
Sorry, but this made me laugh.  I think this kid would get jobs mainly because his hair is so unique.


----------



## NJMAN (Jul 8, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Surely this is her preference. I've seen countless fashion and beauty spreads against white backgrounds. They're a staple of the industry, not an exception.


 
Yes, I kinda figured.  Im glad, because I love using white backgrounds.  Thanks for confirming this. 



AprilRamone said:


> Sorry, but this made me laugh. I think this kid would get jobs mainly because his hair is so unique.


 
I completely agree!


----------



## Richelle (Jul 8, 2008)

Alpha said:


> Surely this is her preference. I've seen countless fashion and beauty spreads against white backgrounds. They're a staple of the industry, not an exception.


 
I'm pretty sure fashion and beauty spreads are not the same as headshots. In headshots and zed cards most do not prefer a solid white or black backgrounds- especially black because it doesn't enhance the picture.  Print ads and spreads are totally different. Again, just repeating what I heard from my friend. Her agency is www.youthtalentconnection.com if you want to see some of her headshots. She mostly works with children so maybe backgrounds are different.


----------



## Katz (Jul 11, 2008)

I liked the quality of shots and think that the exposure themselves were very good, I would have liked to seen a little more variety in posing. Just to see something different. Irregardless of what the model looked like, the pictures did seem a bit repetitive to me. 

But your sharpness was tack on!


----------



## NJMAN (Jul 11, 2008)

Richelle said:


> I'm pretty sure fashion and beauty spreads are not the same as headshots. In headshots and zed cards most do not prefer a solid white or black backgrounds- especially black because it doesn't enhance the picture. Print ads and spreads are totally different. Again, just repeating what I heard from my friend. Her agency is www.youthtalentconnection.com if you want to see some of her headshots. She mostly works with children so maybe backgrounds are different.


 
Thanks for the link.  Interesting. 



Katz said:


> I liked the quality of shots and think that the exposure themselves were very good, I would have liked to seen a little more variety in posing. Just to see something different. Irregardless of what the model looked like, the pictures did seem a bit repetitive to me.
> 
> But your sharpness was tack on!


 
A little repetitive, yes, fair enough.  Thanks for your input.  I appreciate it.


----------



## AdrianBetti (Jul 11, 2008)

What sort of other post processing did you do? Any sharpening?


----------



## NJMAN (Jul 15, 2008)

AdrianBetti said:


> What sort of other post processing did you do? Any sharpening?


 
I go through a specific processing workflow, which includes adjusting exposure, noise, color, white balance, and of course sharpness.  As a final step, I microsharpen in PS after resizing for web viewing, and before posting to the web.  If I don't do that, it just looks too soft after resizing.


----------



## visualpoetry (Aug 11, 2008)

I think they're great - especially #2.


----------



## NJMAN (Aug 12, 2008)

visualpoetry said:


> I think they're great - especially #2.


 
Hey, thanks very much for the nice comment!


----------

