# Headshots with Keely



## max3k (Sep 9, 2012)

1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



6.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 9, 2012)

Pretty girl! Too bad only one of these is in portrait orientation, and all the rest have her head chopped off!


----------



## max3k (Sep 9, 2012)

i fail to see how that is a bad thing...


----------



## theeph (Sep 9, 2012)

A lot of photographers find it a faux pas to chop the head off. Of course, a lot of photographers think it's perfectly acceptable. I tend to agree with the idea that it hurts the picture.

On another note, your exposures, except for 4, seem flawless.

4 seems flat and over exposed.


----------



## MK3Brent (Sep 9, 2012)

Yet one of the most popular and successful portrait photographers do both those things. 

It'd ridiculous how so many people get bent out of shape about camera orientation when it comes to making an image of someone's face.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 9, 2012)

max3k said:


> i fail to see how that is a bad thing...



Wait for it.


----------



## Samerr9 (Sep 9, 2012)

Lovely series, I really liked them especially with the ones with shallow DOF. What lens where you using and how did you manage to achieve that DOF using strobes? I am guessing the lighting was through strobes from the reflection in the eyes.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 9, 2012)

MK3Brent said:


> Yet one of the most popular and successful portrait photographers do both those things.
> 
> It'd ridiculous how so many people get bent out of shape about camera orientation when it comes to making an image of someone's face.



Maybe because so many amateurs do it... and do it poorly! Maybe the one pro you mention has the skills to get away with it... most don't!


----------



## max3k (Sep 9, 2012)

The shallow DOF is straight out of camera, no photoshop there. They were shot at f4 with a 5d2 and 70/200L f/2.8


----------



## tirediron (Sep 9, 2012)

*Moving to the People Gallery.*


----------



## max3k (Sep 9, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MK3Brent said:
> 
> 
> > Yet one of the most popular and successful portrait photographers do both those things.
> ...



Did I get away with it?  =)


----------



## MK3Brent (Sep 9, 2012)

What's she wearing anyway...


----------



## TenaciousTins (Sep 9, 2012)

I would have loved 4 and 5 if they were in portrait with her full head in the picture...6 is pretty and she is a GORGEOUS girl. Not your average "pretty girl" stereo type...she looks genuine, smart, outgoing, and generally interested in just being herself and not throwing out some posey posey type pictures-not that anything is wrong with those either-but I find these types of pictures/models much more attractive to look at.


----------



## MikeLem (Sep 9, 2012)

These are absolutely beautiful, with the exception of #5, where she looks like she's cross-eyed.  If I had to pick one, I think #3 is the clear winner.  Great work, man!


----------



## MikeLem (Sep 9, 2012)

max3k said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > MK3Brent said:
> ...



Yes, you absolutely did.


----------



## max3k (Sep 9, 2012)

I cut her head off in this one too!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 9, 2012)

max3k said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > MK3Brent said:
> ...



Almost.. but not quite! They are far better than most like this... they are properly  exposed and the lighting is nice, and the subject is lovely (and not a toddler!).  #6 is excellent... the rest would have been much better if we didn't have that major distraction of half her forehead missing. She is a lovely girl.. why not show her off at her best.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 9, 2012)

Question?  I assume you have see the work of the masters? Those paintings that are considered the epitome of art? The portraits that are so beautiful, they evoke emotion even in people that don't know art?

Any cut off foreheads in those? NO! Maybe there is a reason! Amateurs, noobs, rookies and MWAC's shoot that way a lot... and they advocate it just to be different!  

so what are you going to do?


----------



## MikeLem (Sep 9, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> the rest would have been much better if we didn't have that major distraction of half her forehead missing. She is a lovely girl.. why not show her off at her best.



Wholeheartedly disagree, FWIW.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 9, 2012)

MikeLem said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > the rest would have been much better if we didn't have that major distraction of half her forehead missing. She is a lovely girl.. why not show her off at her best.
> ...



Yea? Well.. I notice on your site that you shoot a lot of horizontal... with lots of meaningless dead space. You may like that, I don't! I see enough of it on Facebook and other such site.... all THOSE pro's, if you know what I mean!


----------



## MikeLem (Sep 9, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> MikeLem said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



The point I was trying to make was that max3k shouldn't consider your opinion to be the consensus and be discouraged.  Not trying to start a war.


----------



## rokvi (Sep 9, 2012)

Each to their own concerning orientation I feel. I see a lot of magazines doing it now. Not my cup of tea normally, unless everything else about the photograph is spot on.

And these are.

#3 and 6 are my pick for the best.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 10, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Question?  I assume you have see the work of the masters? Those paintings that are considered the epitome of art? The portraits that are so beautiful, they evoke emotion even in people that don't know art?
> 
> Any cut off foreheads in those? NO! Maybe there is a reason! Amateurs, noobs, rookies and MWAC's shoot that way a lot... and they advocate it just to be different!
> 
> so what are you going to do?



I loves me some dead space!


----------



## max3k (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm not swayed by forum peeps. I shoot what I like, how I like, and in the orientation that I like. 

Maybe you guys would like to send the top headshot photographer in the country a message about your thoughts?

Peter Hurley Photography: Actor's Headshots: Leading Ladies | Photographer in New York &amp Los Angeles


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

MikeLem said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > MikeLem said:
> ...



Not trying to start a war either! You have some nice stuff out on your site. The only time I like Horizontal is when the "dead space" is not dead space... when it is meaningful, and adds to the shot. For instance a horizontal portrait of someone taken in France, with the Eiffel Tower in the "dead space"... suddenly it is no longer dead space, if you see what I mean. If the "dead space" consists of the same background as what is behind the subject.... then why shoot horizontal? Some shot it might be appropriate for Gaze if the subject is looking that direction... but most aren't. 

This has become a lot more popular since facebook and other photo based online venues became so popular. That is because so many amateurs (and amateur PRO's) shoot this way, that it has become accepted as OK by many that don't understand why it is not always a good idea. Why not emphasize the subject.... instead of wasting half the photo to trees, grass, or blase' background?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

rokvi said:


> Each to their own concerning orientation I feel. I see a lot of magazines doing it now. Not my cup of tea normally, unless everything else about the photograph is spot on.
> 
> And these are.
> 
> #3 and 6 are my pick for the best.



MAGAZINES? 

#1 Magazine pages are in portrait orientation!
#2 Fashion photographers shoot the entire subject!
#3 The reason you see head cropping in magazines is that some guy in the AD Copy layout dept, decided to take a full photo and crop it that way... to emphasize a smile, the eyes, or cheekbones of a subject, but increasing the width of the face to a full page width... even at the cost of a forehead.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 10, 2012)

This subject always intrigues me because I think the landscape orientation is interesting when done well.  I suppose I should check my work for pointless dead space too.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Question?  I assume you have see the work of the masters? Those paintings that are considered the epitome of art? The portraits that are so beautiful, they evoke emotion even in people that don't know art?
> ...




Yea... and when you shoot a horizontal with dead space... there is a  reason for it, right? Not because you "forgot" to flip the camera over,  right?  Not because you are trying to emulate all of the crap you have  seen on Facebook, right?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

manaheim said:


> This subject always intrigues me because I think the landscape orientation is interesting when done well.  I suppose I should check my work for pointless dead space too.



Exactly! When WELL DONE! It is so popular with the masses, because they see so much of it online... and it is not the real PRO's posting that usually, it is the Fake MWAC FB Pro's.... and and a lot of amateurs. 

When well done.. with a meaningful background, it can be wonderful. BUT how often do we see the excuse "I forgot to turn the camera"? lol!


----------



## manaheim (Sep 10, 2012)

So how do you really feel about this?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

manaheim said:


> So how do you really feel about this?



What... I am not being subtle enough again?  lol!


----------



## jaicatalano (Sep 10, 2012)

I see the influence of Peter Hurly and that is why the head is chopped off. He is arguably the biggest headshot photographer around and he once said in a class I chop their heads off because you'd be a fool to not know it was there. 

Are you using portrait professional to touch up the photos? If you are I would say scale back a bit. She looks too perfect.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

jaicatalano said:


> I see the influence of Peter Hurly and that is why the head is chopped off. He is arguably the biggest headshot photographer around and he once said in a class I chop their heads off because you'd be a fool to not know it was there.
> 
> Are you using portrait professional to touch up the photos? If you are I would say scale back a bit. She looks too perfect.



Even Hurly only takes the very top of the head off... not the middle of the forehead (the OP did fairly well on that, as I mentioned previously). And on Hurly's horizontal shots ALL have meaningful backgrounds (not dead space) which is not true of the OP's shots..!


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 10, 2012)

Not that I want to wade into this heated debate...


> And on Hurly's horizontal shots ALL have meaningful backgrounds (not dead space) which is not true of the OP's shots..!


I just went to his site, and all the shots in the home page gallery look like the ones above...horizontal, heads chopped and blank white background.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 10, 2012)

Who cares what some guy does? "Appeal to Authority" is one of the classic rhetorical fallacies.

The only question that matters is, are the photographs any damn good? Why yes, yes they are.


----------



## jake337 (Sep 10, 2012)

I don't care too much about orientation.  More interested in the lighting and how the photographer captures their subjects essence.  

I feel the OP did a great job in both of those categories.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 10, 2012)

I like the girl and the photos are good to me. just wished you had done some diffrent crops. all of your landscaped crops look the same. cut at the same point of the head, cut about the same point below the shoulders. just for a group of images makes for a boring look.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

Big Mike said:


> Not that I want to wade into this heated debate...
> 
> 
> > And on Hurly's horizontal shots ALL have meaningful backgrounds (not dead space) which is not true of the OP's shots..!
> ...



Ok.. I must have missed those... I should have said "Most"! lol!


----------



## deepsixphoto (Sep 10, 2012)

I like these shots a lot! I haven't read the entire thread so I'm not sure if someone else mentioned it - but in #5 there is a bit of mess to her left like you cloned something out/were trying to remove a shadow. I do this frequently so I always look for it! It is very obvious on a white background.


----------



## Edsport (Sep 10, 2012)

I think too many rules are being applied to photography by people who think this rule or that rule should be applied. We don't all have the same taste as to how things should or shouldn't look. Just my opinion but who am i in this infinite universe lol...


----------



## Derrel (Sep 10, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> jaicatalano said:
> 
> 
> > I see the influence of Peter Hurly and that is why the head is chopped off. He is arguably the biggest headshot photographer around and he once said in a class I chop their heads off because you'd be a fool to not know it was there.
> ...



See, that's the kind of thing a person with visual sophistication understands..."meaningful background" versus dead, empty nothingness that somebody likes "because I like it that way." THe more-sophisticated a viewer is, the more he or she understands when a composition is working, or when it is NOT working. The issue I have in so many of these situations is not just the lopping off of the top of the head, or the lopping off of the head CLEAR DOWN TO THE FOREHEAD, but the utter lack of a "visual base" for the neck and head...when a head just "appears to float"...well...the composition is not very advanced. I'm *not referring to this particular OP's photos* as much as a commenting on a widespread, general issue that a lot of newcomers and self-taught shooters seem to fail to "see",over and over and over and over when this topic of camera orientation and subject/camera coordination comes up. 

When one crops down into the head, the face becomes larger, but the amount of compositional space thus added for the face comes at the direct expense of the LOSS OF ALL TORSO and typically most of the shoulders....leaving one with a close-up of a "floating head" or a "floating head and neck". The loss of the base for the neck and head makes a headshot done that way feel quite disconnected. Incomplete. Unsatisfying. ALl around, it;'s a negative to the viewer with advanced visual sophistication. And yet, when the reasoning behind the tradition is explained, it's met pretty much with, "But I LIKE IT this way!" protestations, and people who prefer a more-advanced form of portrayal of human beings are shouted down and derided. Kind of like young kids to day who "hate on" classical music....knowing full well that today's hip-hop artists are indeed, the shizz-nit. Without peer! Also--the CINEMA is NOT still photography.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > jaicatalano said:
> ...



Well put, Derrel!


----------



## jowensphoto (Sep 10, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Pretty girl! Too bad only one of these is in portrait orientation, and all the rest have her head chopped off!




Took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 10, 2012)

max3k said:
			
		

> I'm not swayed by forum peeps. I shoot what I like, how I like, and in the orientation that I like.
> L]



It should've ended right here.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

MTVision said:


> max3k said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yea... maybe COPYING Hurly will make him rich and famous! lol! If you can't be original, copy someone who is, right?


----------



## max3k (Sep 10, 2012)

MTVision said:


> max3k said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I forgot to add "for profit"

Paying customers trump forum jockeys any day


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Question?  I assume you have see the work of the masters? Those paintings that are considered the epitome of art? The portraits that are so beautiful, they evoke emotion even in people that don't know art?
> ...



More room for the big pro watermark


----------



## Derrel (Sep 10, 2012)

Show us *the woman*...NOT some boring, evenly lighted *seamless paper*. 

Every square millimeter of PAPER background one shows subtracts from the amount of the person shown. Orienting the camera "wide" to shoot a headshot against seamless paper compounds the loss of the "person". People LOVE, they absolutely LOVE, to look at photos of faces. Handsome male faces, and pretty female faces,and cute babies of either gender---people love looking at those things! Evenly-lighted, light-hued seamless paper in a photo studio....

Ehhhhh....limp....


----------



## amolitor (Sep 10, 2012)

An important reason that paintings never chopped anything is that you (mostly) don't paint larger than life size, traditionally.

A painting cropped this close would be a very small painting indeed.


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 10, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty girl! Too bad only one of these is in portrait orientation, and all the rest have her head chopped off!
> ...



Ironically your avatar is in landscape with the head chopped off.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 10, 2012)

max3k said:
			
		

> Paying customers trump forum jockeys any day



McDonald's is the best restaurant in America. WalMart is the best store. Why? They have LOADS of paying customers--the MOST customers in America in their respective categories. "Paying customers" who buy low-quality stuff are not really a good judge of what is or is not first-rate quality. I know a lot of chefs who some day dream of working at Mickey D's.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 10, 2012)

max3k said:
			
		

> I forgot to add "for profit"
> 
> Paying customers trump forum jockeys any day



I just have to add something about paying customers. Just because they are paying and they are happy doesn't mean that you are doing a good job. Now I'm not talking about you in particular.

 I just had my pictures done by a local photographer. EVERYBODY uses her and absolutely loves her. Thinks she's the best thing since sliced bread. And she is crazy busy and has tons of happy, paying customers <----- which is great right? Now I come along and get some pictures done by her - I'm not a great photographer by any means but I know what good photography looks like. I'm just talking the basics here - exposure, focus, color, etc. stuff you should have nailed down before you go into business. My pictures aren't the worst pictures in the world but they are far from great. I'm not happy with them at all. The exposure, colors are all over the place. The poses suck and she gave no direction. 

I feel like this photographer settled for mediocrity. People pay her and like her work so she doesn't need to work any harder to improve. 

People are always/usually going to be happy with pictures of themselves and/or others they have an emotional attachment too. Of course you want your paying customers to be happy and satisfied but don't you also want to know that you are doing the best possible? I'm not saying to take what everyone says here as gospel but the advice/opinion of other photographers is important IMO.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

amolitor said:


> An important reason that paintings never chopped anything is that you (mostly) don't paint larger than life size, traditionally.
> 
> A painting cropped this close would be a very small painting indeed.



And one reason there is no need to do it in photography is that you can print as large as you want to..... within reason of course.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 10, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> McDonald's is the best restaurant in America. WalMart is the best store. Why? They have LOADS of paying customers--the MOST customers in America in their respective categories. "Paying customers" who buy low-quality stuff are not really a good judge of what is or is not first-rate quality. I know a lot of chefs who some day dream of working at Mickey D's.



^^^ this is basically what I was getting at


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 10, 2012)

Derrel said:


> max3k said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think, like shaq at the free throw line, you missed the point.  max3k's point was that McDonald's is the HIGHEST GROSSING restaurant in america.  They have loads of paying customers because they deliver the product that customers want, not because that's  McDonald's idea of top quality food.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

MTVision said:


> max3k said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe she should copy the style of a famous, successful photographer.. that way she doesn't have to be original, or improve!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 10, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > max3k said:
> ...



You are right, CRAP!  And appropriate!


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 10, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> You are right, CRAP!  And appropriate!



 I ninja edited on you.

I don't want any confusion here but I wasn't trying to imply that the OP's shots or technique is crap.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 10, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > An important reason that paintings never chopped anything is that you (mostly) don't paint larger than life size, traditionally.
> ...



But in the first place we no longer paint or print life sized, and in the second place a life sized close crop of a face is still a reasonable print size. It's a bit intimate, but it's not ridiculously tiny, which it would be in oils. Not to say that there are not very small oil paintings, but in general, most of the time, it would have been considered quite tiny.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 10, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Maybe she should copy the style of a famous, successful photographer.. that way she doesn't have to be original, or improve!



I don't think that would even help her!


----------



## mjhoward (Sep 10, 2012)

MTVision said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You guys are brutal, and a bit hypocritcal.  So instead of "copying" the style of one famous successful photographer, the OP should copy the style of EVERY OTHER famous successful photographer out there that uses portrait mode and crops just above the head?


----------



## MTVision (Sep 10, 2012)

mjhoward said:
			
		

> You guys are brutal, and a bit hypocritcal.  So instead of "copying" the style of one famous successful photographer, the OP should copy the style of EVERY OTHER famous successful photographer out there that uses portrait mode and crops just above the head?



To clarify I wasn't talking about the OP....


----------



## brett_93_ex (Sep 10, 2012)

Very pretty.  I personally like 3 and 4.  Beautiful eyes.


----------



## kundalini (Sep 10, 2012)

Lovely model, very much "girl next door" look.  My preference is for #1 & #6 which shows a greater lighting ratio from lit to shadow sides.

Thanks for sharing.


----------

