# Headshots for CC



## swoop_ds (Jul 14, 2010)

Here is a friend I shot today (that sounds awful!). . . anyways, CC welcome.  They are a bit PPed but she loved them!














Thanks,
-Dave


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 15, 2010)

Not sure if I like the PP Dave.  You are making the photo noisy too.


----------



## iAstonish (Jul 15, 2010)

1. Her chin is cut off in the shot.
2. I like the framing in this one, I think it works well.
3. Top of her head is cut off and it looks a bit too soft.

You need to be more aware of your framing.


----------



## KmH (Jul 15, 2010)

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


----------



## swoop_ds (Jul 15, 2010)

Thanks for the cc guys, I agree about the framing, orientation, and to a degree the PP. Th noise is due to how I shrunked the files to put them online. Ill have to look at that and get less noise next time. 

Is a horizontal portrait really that vile?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 15, 2010)

Excuse me but horizontal headshots is the same as telling your customers they won't get the job.

I imagine this new fad comes from some photogs trying to be different. The problem is that if a casting director is going through a pile of headshots and 90% of them are vertical, he's going to get really tired, really fast of those horizontal ones and will skip them. I would.

Second: how much is a bit of PP? Headshots are meant to show the person as they really are... Not as they can be.


----------



## swoop_ds (Jul 15, 2010)

Point well taken about the orientation. Maybe calling them head shots was misleading, she just wanted some pictures that looked good. She doesn't intend on looking for work with these.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 15, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Excuse me but horizontal headshots is the same as telling your customers they won't get the job.
> 
> I imagine this new fad comes from some photogs trying to be different. The problem is that if a casting director is going through a pile of headshots and 90% of them are vertical, he's going to get really tired, really fast of those horizontal ones and will skip them. I would.
> 
> Second: how much is a bit of PP? Headshots are meant to show the person as they really are... Not as they can be.



Dizactly.:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Morpheuss (Jul 16, 2010)

I love her green eyes in the first one and I like the pose in the third one.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 16, 2010)

The first two don't do much for me...  I think mostly due to the angle of her head.  You've got some motion goin' on in the third.  That little bit of lean helps.  I can really see some eye color here too.

All three are quite warm.  I like that.  All three are lit pretty much straight-on.  I think you could have done much more if you modified your lighting a bit, moving the main off to the side achieving a bit more shaping...  modeling.

Pretty girl.  Nice range of expressions.

I just can't understand the adversion to the horizontal format.  It's not "new."  I doubt it's an attempt to be different.  It's a pefectly legitamate choice.

-Pete


----------



## Derrel (Jul 16, 2010)

KmH said:


> 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.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 16, 2010)

swoop_ds said:


> Point well taken about the orientation. Maybe calling them head shots was misleading, she just wanted some pictures that looked good. She doesn't intend on looking for work with these.



Gotcha. Be careful how you title your threads. A headshot is a very specific type of shot.

As portraits, I have no problem with the horizontal. I tend to get tired of seeing mostly vertical ones and, anyway, variety is the spice of life.

My problem with yours is that we have 3 shots with 3 different skin tones and 3 different eye and hair colors. The 2nd one seems to have a green cast to it. To me anyway.


@ Pete:
I just can't understand the adversion to the horizontal format. It's not "new." I doubt it's an attempt to be different. It's a pefectly legitamate choice.

I agree with you for portraits. Not for headshots. See my last post. Just imagine yourself as a casting director with a pile of some 2-300 headshots, every 10th or 15th one being horizontal. I think you'll stop turning that pile real soon.


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 16, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Anybody who has studied formal portraiture, or who has studied composition or design...




Oh...  like me.


I agree that "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."  This is, of course, correct.  But choosing not to fill every square inch of the frame doesn't mean "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."  They simply chose not to do so.

-Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Jul 16, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> @ Pete:
> I just can't understand the adversion to the horizontal format. It's not "new." I doubt it's an attempt to be different. It's a pefectly legitamate choice.
> 
> I agree with you for portraits. Not for headshots. See my last post. Just imagine yourself as a casting director with a pile of some 2-300 headshots, every 10th or 15th one being horizontal. I think you'll stop turning that pile real soon.



I get what you're saying.  But when I look at an image and consider it's ultimate use, I remember it can be presented in other ways.  I think of that 8x10 glossy and imagine a horizontal shot can be dropped in along with some copy...  statistics and contact info.  Of course, as Derrel pointed out, the head size will be much smaller.

-Pete


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 16, 2010)

Christie Photo said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody who has studied formal portraiture, or who has studied composition or design...
> ...



:thumbup:

The guidelines are a very good first step when learning photography but, once you know them, it's even more fun to get away from them. Of course, one also has to consider what the photo is going to be used for. For example, what would be the point of shooting a horizontal portrait if it's intended as a full page image in a magazine?

And if one wants to get away from the whole discussion, one can always shoot a Hassy and not worry about it. The square format worked incredibly well for me since album covers (CD or vinyl) are square. It also worked very well for promo shots as, on an 8x10 print, it left just enough room at the bottom for the artist/band name and contact info.

So, yes, jobs often come with parameters you have to meet but for anything that doesn't, just have fun. I tend to believe that this is exactly what is meant by "It's about time people started taking photography seriously, and treating it as a hobby." But, hey, I could be wrong on that one.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 16, 2010)

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 (Jul 17, 2010)

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


----------



## kundalini (Jul 17, 2010)

nebcat said:


> 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 (Jul 22, 2010)

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 (Jul 23, 2010)

Derrel said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Horizontal, is the new portrait orientation. uke:uke:
> ...


 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 (Jul 23, 2010)

Clawed said:


> 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


----------

