# A Few Recent Client Headshots (C&C Appreciated)



## Letterbox (Jul 31, 2012)

Just opened the doors to my first studio, and I've been pushing headshots, which are a new market for me.  Critique appreciated.

1.



2.


3.


4.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 31, 2012)

Newly opened studio, and entering the headshot market...and shooting them as horizontals with cut-off head tops, as in shots #1 and shot #2? Not a good idea. Have you done any research into what a headshot is expected to be? Shots 1,2,and 3 look very unprofessional. Compositions are not good, and the guys in #1 and #3 are lighted in very unflattering set-ups.

actors headshots - Google Search


----------



## Letterbox (Jul 31, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Newly opened studio, and entering the headshot market...and shooting them as horizontals with cut-off head tops, as in shots #1 and shot #2? Not a good idea. Have you done any research into what a headshot is expected to be? Shots 1,2,and 3 look very unprofessional. Compositions are not good, and the guys in #1 and #3 are lighted in very unflattering set-ups.
> 
> actors headshots - Google Search



Derrell, thanks for your feedback.  With the exception of the people looking for an ultra-corporate style, I'm making an effort to shoot something similar to what Peter Hurley comes up with.  It's something different that people seem to love.

Check him out:  Peter Hurley: Headshots June 2012 - PH2PRO Photographers


----------



## fjrabon (Jul 31, 2012)

for what you're going for, the lighting in #1 is too uneven. The page you linked doesn't have any shadows like that on the face.  1 and 2 you actually cut into their heads, not just the top of their hair like the page you linked.  There's more dead space in 3 than any of the photos you linked.  4 is good, but just a generic 'here is your pharmacist today!' shot.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 31, 2012)

Letterbox said:


> I'm making an effort to shoot something similar to what Peter Hurley comes up with.  It's something different that people seem to love.



I'm very familiar with Hurley's work. Unless, I'm mistaken, you're not shooting with a $50,000 Hassy and lens, or a $15,000 Keno-Flo lighting setup.

Of the images you posted, #4 is the only one I'd be happy with if I were you.

#1 is tonally flat, and doesn't have any pop to it. Cutting off the tip of his head in this shot is a miss.
#2 the focus is off a tad, you have some really bad hotspots and again you chopped her head off.
#3 holy blown highlights Batman! I understand the high key look you were going for, but this lighting is way too harsh. The facial expression is a miss as well. I don't know how you were directing the model.
#4 is definitely your best image here. The lighting is spot on and the model's expression is perfect IMO.

Congrats on opening your studio. I can't knock the courage and planning it takes to get to where you're at now, especially since I don't have a studio. That said, you lighting needs a TON of refinement. Your posing needs to get a lot stronger. According to Hurley, his images are 80% the expression he can get out of his subjects. Your posing and direction on set is critical, and I don't see that here (perhaps except #4).

That's my $0.02


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Lighting is harsh... blown highlights on the face is not "High Key"....

So did you actually open a "brick and mortar" studio? Tell us more about that part of it...


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 31, 2012)

I get it.  I dont love them but I dont hate them either.  I think they are decent.


I would improve on the catch light on the eyes.  That is the trend now.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 1, 2012)

Yes, I'm familiar with Peter Hurley's work. I'm just not a fan of the lighting approach in shot #1...the result is rather muddy-looking, and the low mainlight placement on #3...ehhh...that doesn't work well with his expression or face. Here's another guy, a well-respected LA headshot specialist, who has a nice style.   KENNETH DOLIN PHOTOGRAPHY : LOS ANGELES, CA

If you want to cut the top of the head off, a horizontal usually means that there will be a goodly amount of empty, dead, uninteresting space. The horizontal framing in #1 and #3 is an issue, and a LOT of the issue relates to the way we look at a face in relation to the BODY that is is placed on top of...and I mean that literally, and figuratively. A horizontal lopping-off of a person, especially a man, at the neck does not show what kind of physique or build he has. Same with a woman similarly amputated right below the chin. The angle of the head is also CRITICAL...the man in shot #1 looks gay, because his pose is borndering on a feminine head tilt, AND he has no shoulders... Will these people get work when casting directors and talent people can not SEE WHAT they actually "look like", as a person, or as a "body"??? I doubt they would even get placed into the "possibles" file without at least SOME clue as to their body type.

The guy in #3...good face... BUT for some weird reason, you have his shoulders turned so one faces the camera, and we cannot see if he has broad shoulders, or anything...we can only see a floating head. If he has a killer physique, it doesn't matter, because the photo makes it look like he's a woman you are trying to slim down. If you want to be able to portray individual people, and make them look good, you need to truly understand HOW TO POSE people, and how to FRAME them. Some guidance from well-established professionals is what you need. Almost every time I bring this kind of stuff up here on TPF,somebody pipes up to whine about my comments on people pictures, with comments about how horizontals are okay: and they ARE perfectly okay when done with a full understanding of HOW to do them to LEVERAGE the person's appearance. There is an entire visual language, and a number of basics to showing off a person; one of the KEYS is to have some kind of a BASE to a shot of a person...not an amputated head, shown with no body and no shoulders, and no bust...that is the problem with shots #1 and #3.

We recently had a big brouhaha over "horizontal portraits". THe thing is, the newbies who whined about my comments seem to fail to understand the most-basic fundamental of a headshot: to make the person look GOOD. To LEVERAGE their strengths... The guy in #1 looks feminine and spindly...the guy in #3 looks slightly sinister, and we cannot tell much about his physique or body type...all we can see is one shoulder pointing right at the camera, and a MASSIVE shirt collar...his head just floats there. You need a course in posing basics, with the "secret" fundamentals taught to you.

Here is an ultra-quickie examination of a few really basic,basic things that EVERY "trained" professional shooter knows. And which most self-taught shooters have no idea about. 10. The Rules Of Good Portraiture


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 1, 2012)

there is a decided magenta cast in the last one.

 if you allow editing there are three benefits:


You would get more comments
You would get better help
I could show you a color corrected version.


----------



## ANDS! (Aug 1, 2012)

Not seeing this overblown highlights on picture 3.  The face looks fine (lighting wise), and theres no loss of detail.  It certainly looks like that at the small size, but not when you view the full picture.  Agree on picture 4 that there is a hint of color cast that could be fixed in two seconds.


1 and 2 I agree with the overall complaints, especially with the lighting getting away from you on 1.  Focus drops off in 2 sooner than perhaps you wanted (but at least a nice radius around the eyes is captured).


----------



## Letterbox (Aug 1, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback, everyone!  Obviously, I'm a bit surprised, but I appreciate it nonetheless.  It's been some time since I've been an active member on a forum like this, but I think it's important for all of us to remember that "by the book" isn't necessarily what our clients are looking for.


----------



## Letterbox (Aug 1, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> So did you actually open a "brick and mortar" studio? Tell us more about that part of it...



I work in the marketing field full-time, and moved to a new city just over a year ago.  I've been getting more and more inquiries for headshots (and other general portraiture) through my website, so I rented some studio space.  Before doing so, I'd have to leave a couple of hours early from my day job to squeeze in set-up time, shooting time, break-down, etc.  Now, I can leave the majority of my equipment set up in the studio, and sneak in sessions after work.  It's nice having a decent amount of space to work in, too.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 1, 2012)

Letterbox said:


> Thanks for the feedback, everyone!  Obviously, I'm a bit surprised, but I appreciate it nonetheless.  It's been some time since I've been an active member on a forum like this, but I think it's important for all of us to remember that "by the book" isn't necessarily what our clients are looking for.



Your wording is a bit obscure.
Do you mean that you don't agree with what was said or that our comments are not congruent with the general trend in customers or that we found fault with these portraits or all three.

Lew

(off-point:I see you live in Worcester, I grew up 20 miles east in Framingham and my brother went to Clark so I know the area reasonably well.)


----------



## tirediron (Aug 1, 2012)

Letterbox said:


> ...it's important for all of us to remember that "by the book" isn't necessarily what our clients are looking for.


Very true, however, and I'm going to be absolutely blunt since you've posted in the Professional Gallery; I don't think too many of anyone's clients are looking for work like your first three examples.


----------



## Letterbox (Aug 1, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Letterbox said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the feedback, everyone! Obviously, I'm a bit surprised, but I appreciate it nonetheless. It's been some time since I've been an active member on a forum like this, but I think it's important for all of us to remember that "by the book" isn't necessarily what our clients are looking for.
> ...



Very cool!  I just moved back to Worcester from FL last year.  It's nice to be home!

As for my wording, while I disagree with some of the exposure concerns, the rest of the critique is totally acceptable.  These four photos represent 3 different styles I've been working with.  I had been shooting most of my headshots most like #4, and getting a couple of inquiries now and again, but things have really picked up since changing to the horizontal/weird/tight crop and that lighting style.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 1, 2012)

ANDS! said:


> Not seeing this overblown highlights on picture 3.  The face looks fine (lighting wise), and theres no loss of detail.  It certainly looks like that at the small size, but not when you view the full picture.  Agree on picture 4 that there is a hint of color cast that could be fixed in two seconds.
> 
> 
> 1 and 2 I agree with the overall complaints, especially with the lighting getting away from you on 1.  Focus drops off in 2 sooner than perhaps you wanted (but at least a nice radius around the eyes is captured).



Question!!!! Do you calibrate your monitor? #3 has some of the worst overall highlights. If the large shot looks better.. give us a link to the larger version....


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Letterbox said:
> 
> 
> > I'm making an effort to shoot something similar to what Peter Hurley comes up with.  It's something different that people seem to love.
> ...



Can you decipher exactly why you need that setup in order to take shots like these? I'm curious as to how any of this information is relevant.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 1, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Letterbox said:
> 
> 
> > I'm making an effort to shoot something similar to what Peter Hurley comes up with.  It's something different that people seem to love.
> ...



James, I'm not quite certain why shooting P. Hurley's type of portraiture requires $65,000 in equipment... You could get the same effect with a 35mm, or even an APS-C DSLR, IMO.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Yes, I'm familiar with Peter Hurley's work. I'm just not a fan of the lighting approach in shot #1...the result is rather muddy-looking, and the low mainlight placement on #3...ehhh...that doesn't work well with his expression or face. Here's another guy, a well-respected LA headshot specialist, who has a nice style.   KENNETH DOLIN PHOTOGRAPHY : LOS ANGELES, CA
> 
> If you want to cut the top of the head off, a horizontal usually means that there will be a goodly amount of empty, dead, uninteresting space. The horizontal framing in #1 and #3 is an issue, and a LOT of the issue relates to the way we look at a face in relation to the BODY that is is placed on top of...and I mean that literally, and figuratively. A horizontal lopping-off of a person, especially a man, at the neck does not show what kind of physique or build he has. Same with a woman similarly amputated right below the chin. The angle of the head is also CRITICAL...the man in shot #1 looks gay, because his pose is borndering on a feminine head tilt, AND he has no shoulders... Will these people get work when casting directors and talent people can not SEE WHAT they actually "look like", as a person, or as a "body"??? I doubt they would even get placed into the "possibles" file without at least SOME clue as to their body type.
> 
> ...



I like this. I will say though that horizontal portraits can work if done well.

OP - I truly believe that you have what it takes to make these work, but 1 through 3 has some serious exposure and/or contrast issues that need to be addressed in future shots. I'd like to see what your next shots turn out like.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > Letterbox said:
> ...



Yep ^^^


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Aug 1, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > Letterbox said:
> ...



I wasn't trying to say that you MUST have a Hassy H4D or a full bank of Keno-Flos to do something similar to Hurley's work. Just that the gear he uses to create those laser sharp, perfectly lit portraits are a big part of his results. IMO, it's no different than trying to shoot night sports with a D3000 and a 70-300 with a max aperture of f/4.5, you just don't have the necessary equipment to get the exact result you're looking for.

If Hurley didn't have that glorious MF beast to resolve so much detail, and the Keno-Flo bank to provide such rich, soft, color-neutral light... I imagine his results would still be very very good, because of his skill, but they wouldn't seem anywhere near as unobtainably awesome as they do now.

As I said in the previous post, Hurley himself gives most of the credit to his posing and the expressions he's able to elicit from his subjects. I didn't say or infer that the gear was everything. 

The OP has received some great feedback, and I'm sure the next set he posts will reflect that.


----------



## Letterbox (Aug 1, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> ANDS! said:
> 
> 
> > Not seeing this overblown highlights on picture 3. The face looks fine (lighting wise), and theres no loss of detail. It certainly looks like that at the small size, but not when you view the full picture. Agree on picture 4 that there is a hint of color cast that could be fixed in two seconds.
> ...



Mine is calibrated, FWIW.  On my computer, if you click on the image, it brings up a much larger version (the uploaded version is much larger).


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 1, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...



I see what you're saying a bit better now. But it did come across as: "If you don't have this gear, you can't do it." (In my opinion of course)

I did look at Hurley's portfolio that was posted, and I was not terribly impressed. Lots of photos seemed to have issues where the edge of the white seamless was either in the upper right hand corner, or vertically down the left hand side of the frame. For headshots of this nature, I found it to draw too much attention. But that's just me.


----------



## Letterbox (Aug 1, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...



If anyone's interested, I'm using two SB-28's to light the background, and three Flolights to light the subject.  One left, one right, one under.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



I found the same when I looked.


----------



## ANDS! (Aug 1, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> ANDS! said:
> 
> 
> > Not seeing this overblown highlights on picture 3.  The face looks fine (lighting wise), and theres no loss of detail.  It certainly looks like that at the small size, but not when you view the full picture.  Agree on picture 4 that there is a hint of color cast that could be fixed in two seconds.
> ...



Nope.  But then I don't rely on my eyes.  The larger shot (obtained by simply clicking on the image - amazing) will show that there is detail where there needs to be detail - in the face.  Photoshop (again, doesn't rely on the eyes) confirms this.  The brightest spots are around the left cheek and forehead, but detail has been retained.  You my disagree with the aesthetics of the shot, but technically nothing has been lost here.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

ANDS! said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > ANDS! said:
> ...



Relying on a computer to tell you what is technically correct will hurt your photography forever. Rely on your eyes, because the highlights are overexposed.


----------



## ANDS! (Aug 1, 2012)

Well then maybe in the two years since I've aggresively been using a camera our definitions of "Overexposed. . ." has changed.  Now in my day, overexposed typically meant an area of a photograph whose detail has been lost to "the white" (and similarly for "the black").  There is maybe ONE part of the guys face that satisfies that, and turning to my handy dandy math algorithms in Photoshop shows that, nope - we haven't thrown Triple 255's.


"Too much light" is not neccessarily the same as a "blown highlight. . ."  But again, that's my Old Timey Know-How -


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 1, 2012)

Those are shots and they have heads in them so, yes, they are head shots. But they are not headshots.

Headshots are the simplest photos there are, and the most boring too, but there is a reason for that. Their purpose.

Considering what the purpose of a headshot is, "going by the book" in this case is the biggest favor you can do your clients.

Do you have any idea what the purpose of a headshot is? Do you have any understanding of how a casting agent looks at a pile of a 100-150 headshots and what he does when he comes across a horizontal one every 50 vertical ones? He couldn't care less that YOU thought you had to be creative and he skips to the next one without turning the pile around.

So, if your work is suppose to help your client get a job, how does your attitude help them?

Go learn.


And you are welcome to read my previous posts about headshots.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

ANDS! said:


> Well then maybe in the two years since I've aggresively been using a camera our definitions of "Overexposed. . ." has changed.  Now in my day, overexposed typically meant an area of a photograph whose detail has been lost to "the white" (and similarly for "the black").  There is maybe ONE part of the guys face that satisfies that, and turning to my handy dandy math algorithms in Photoshop shows that, nope - we haven't thrown Triple 255's.
> 
> 
> "Too much light" is not neccessarily the same as a "blown highlight. . ."  But again, that's my Old Timey Know-How -



So then rely on photoshop then, not the group of people telling you that they are overexposed/blown/ or whatever adjective you want to use to satiate semantics.


----------



## Letterbox (Aug 1, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Those are shots and they have heads in them so, yes, they are head shots. But they are not headshots.
> 
> Headshots are the simplest photos there are, and the most boring too, but there is a reason for that. Their purpose.
> 
> ...



First, I haven't said what my clients were using these shots for. Second, these clients (specifically 1-3) hired me because they liked the style I'm offering. The biggest favor I can do for my clients is give them what they hired me for, in my opinion, and probably theirs.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 1, 2012)

Letterbox said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > Those are shots and they have heads in them so, yes, they are head shots. But they are not headshots.
> ...



Go learn.

You don't need to say what your clients are using those for. If you are shooting headshots, they only have one purpose: getting their foot in the door to the interview/casting room.

Anything else is a portrait. So, either call it that or learn what a headshot is.

And I couldn't care less that the client liked your style. The fact that the client knows even less than you is no excuse to give him something that will do him/her no good.


----------



## ANDS! (Aug 1, 2012)

> Go learn.




Now I remember why I took a break from this place. . .  The OP may come off dismissive of your comments, but you come off needlessly condescending.  And I'm not sure why you're assuming all of these guys are actors.  I mean the guy in the doctors outfit could be acting as a doctor. . .or he just might be a doctor in need of a headshot for his practice.




> So then rely on photoshop then, not the group of people telling you that they are overexposed/blown/ or whatever adjective you want to use to satiate semantics.




So far all you've done is moan like a cow about "Blooooooown highlights -"  You haven't actually pointed out where on the mans face detail has been lost.  You've simply parroted what the overwhelming chorus (of what. . .two people) have said.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 1, 2012)

ANDS! said:


> > Go learn.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe because I know what a headshot is.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 1, 2012)

Well, I recently did a head shot session for a theater student.  He specifically told me to shoot some horizontal and brought some samples.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/professional-gallery/292780-actor-headshots.html


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Aug 1, 2012)

Letterbox said:


> First, I haven't said what my clients were using these shots for. Second, these clients (specifically 1-3) hired me because they liked the style I'm offering. The biggest favor I can do for my clients is give them what they hired me for, in my opinion, and probably theirs.



I really don't know why you bothered to ask for C&C if you're just going to make excuses for the technical and compositional errors that are pointed out to you.

Your clients probably know exactly 0 about photography in a technical sense. They care about one thing and one thing only...getting a callback. They are paying you as a professional, assuming that you know what's best for their image. Judging from the images you posted, you're not there yet. Now are you here for a generic pat on the back and an "atta boy", or do you really want honest critique from people who have a lot more experience doing this than you do?

There's nothing wrong with your style. It's just your execution that's a little off.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 1, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:
			
		

> Maybe because I know what a headshot is. And YOU don't. And neither does the OP...



Arrogance at its prime. Interesting for someone who talks such big game, but never posts any of his own work.


----------



## ANDS! (Aug 1, 2012)

> Maybe because I know what a headshot is. And YOU don't. And neither does the OP...​



​/slapshead  


I totally forgot.  That best way to impart advice is to be condescending and demeaning to the recipient.  


Gosh there is just so much that has changed.  Not the least of which is that in a medium as subjective as photography, that ones aesthetic impression/appreciation can be wrong.  What a brave new world - 

To the OP, it's pretty obvious you aren't going to be getting much constructive criticism here; at best you'll be receiving mild to good criticism overloaded with misplaced ego, snark and hubris.  Might I suggest POTN; hotbed of Canon users, but don't hold that against them.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 1, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Well, I recently did a head shot session for a theater student. He specifically told me to shoot some horizontal



In that case you shoot both and explain why the horizontal ones are no good. Then it is your client's choice... and his/her problem.
*
Dude.... lighten up!*


----------



## tirediron (Aug 1, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:


> ...If you are shooting headshots, they only have one purpose: getting their foot in the door to the interview/casting room... anything else is a portrait...


Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with you here CCloud... what about corporate head-shots? I know one photographer in Vancouver who makes her living almost exclusively off of headshots and 99% of her work is for corporate "Who's who" boards; almost none of it is for talent agencies. Be careful of being too absolute about anything!


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

ANDS! said:


> So far all you've done is moan like a cow about "Blooooooown highlights -"  You haven't actually pointed out where on the mans face detail has been lost.  You've simply parroted what the overwhelming chorus (of what. . .two people) have said.



You are a real professional, mature even.

I quoted Derrel and agreed with his post. Sometimes, redundancy is unnecessary and pointing out that you agree with a very detailed post shows that there are others that feel the same way. Just because I hopped on a bandwagon, doesn't make it any less true. To complain about people who are agreeing with a discrepancy shows your intent to do better. You are off to a great start. Next, instead of applying these critiques to your work and seeing how they come out, you should post up more photos of the same thing and ask for more CnC. Wash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 1, 2012)

tirediron said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > ...If you are shooting headshots, they only have one purpose: getting their foot in the door to the interview/casting room... anything else is a portrait...
> ...



I'll totally agree and disagree wth you.

The head shots you are talking about are not headsots. They are portraits. Corporate BS portraits...

Yes, the term has been over abused to the point that we think of what you are talking about as headshots but they are nothing more than head shots.

As I said to the OP, GO LEARN. 

Head shots are NOT headshots.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 1, 2012)

God this forum drives me buggy sometimes...

1. Op posts images.
2. Old schoolers beat on op for doing something that doesn't fit this or that model.
3. People with no experience cry foul on the old schoolers.
4. Op defends choices, citing either some other pro, what the client wants, or both.
5. Someone with no experience says that pros stuff sucks.
6. Repeat on 4,000 threads per day.

Etc.

Painful.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 1, 2012)

manaheim said:
			
		

> God this forum drives me buggy sometimes...
> 
> 1. Op posts images.
> 2. Old schoolers beat on op for doing something that doesn't fit this or that model.
> ...



What group of people do you fit into? Old schoolers, or people with no experience?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 1, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > c.cloudwalker said:
> ...


Okay... so then, (and I mean this seriously):  Could you explain to me what makes one a head shot and the other a headshot?  Let's assume they're both head and shoulders image.  One is of a young actor starting out, the other a lawyer with a large firm.  One goes to a talent agent, the other on a board in the firms lobby.  What'sthefrickin'difference?


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

manaheim said:


> God this forum drives me buggy sometimes...
> 
> 1. Op posts images.
> 2. Old schoolers beat on op for doing something that doesn't fit this or that model.
> ...



7.Someone complains about the forum and sums up the thread and passive-aggressively insults a few members in the thread.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 1, 2012)

Nope.. luckily I like horizontals.













c.cloudwalker said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I recently did a head shot session for a theater student.  He specifically told me to shoot some horizontal
> ...


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 1, 2012)

manaheim said:


> God this forum drives me buggy sometimes...
> 
> 1. Op posts images.
> 2. Old schoolers beat on op for doing something that doesn't fit this or that model.
> ...



So what is you incredible/amazing point?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 1, 2012)

Tired... It SOUNDED to me like OP was calling something a headshot... A term which apparently has a more strict definition than he realized.  To me a headshot was a shot primarily of someone's head... But I guess it's typically those shots actors and models use, which is clearly very different than what op has done here.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 1, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> What group of people do you fit into? Old schoolers, or people with no experience?



Closer to the latter than the former.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 1, 2012)

Ballistics said:
			
		

> 7.Someone complains about the forum and sums up the thread and passive-aggressively insults a few members in the thread.



I meant to add that one but forgot. 

Besides if I wanna insult someone I'll be more direct...  So I guess I need another number. Lol


----------



## tirediron (Aug 1, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Tired... It SOUNDED to me like OP was calling something a headshot... A term which apparently has a more strict definition than he realized.  To me a headshot was a shot primarily of someone's head... But I guess it's typically those shots actors and models use, which is clearly very different than what op has done here.


I guess we all get to learn something, don't we?


----------



## ANDS! (Aug 1, 2012)

Ballistics said:


> ANDS! said:
> 
> 
> > So far all you've done is moan like a cow about "Blooooooown highlights -"  You haven't actually pointed out where on the mans face detail has been lost.  You've simply parroted what the overwhelming chorus (of what. . .two people) have said.
> ...



So that's a no on "Here are the blown highlights so the OP can be careful with their lighting next time. . ."?


For what its worth, Derrel's post said nothing about the lighting in Picture #3.  Just sayin' -


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

ANDS! said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > ANDS! said:
> ...



So now you want my specific opinion? Make up your mind. You've already gone to say that because photoshop doesn't have them at 255, they aren't blown. Hotspots do not have to be @ 255 to be perceived as blown.

For what it's worth, while Derrel didn't mention #3, others in here did.


----------



## Ernicus (Aug 1, 2012)

I like turtles!


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 1, 2012)

The lighting in #3 is just not flattering and it's uneven. 

Regardless of how "avante garde" or w/e the OP is trying to be....There are some things that are less than aesthetically pleasing, and that lighting setup is one of those things.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 1, 2012)

Ernicus said:
			
		

> I like turtles!



No you don't.

Shut up.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 1, 2012)

> Hotspots do not have to be @ 255 to be perceived as blown.



Well here is one thing we don't agree on.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

ANDS! said:


> Well then maybe in the two years since I've aggresively been using a camera our definitions of "Overexposed. . ." has changed.



Like I said, #3 *looks* overexposed. That's really all that matters to me, no matter what your definition may be. Not what photoshop renders the pixel color as.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> > Hotspots do not have to be @ 255 to be perceived as blown.
> 
> 
> 
> Well here is one thing we don't agree on.



Go on.


----------



## Letterbox (Aug 1, 2012)

Is this what I can expect every thread to turn into as a TPF member?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 1, 2012)

*YES!​*


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

Letterbox said:


> Is this what I can expect every thread to turn into as a TPF member?



Arguments over technicalities, compositions, rigid critiques, severe disagreements. This is what you should HOPE every thread turns into. I wish my C&C threads looked like this.

You can look at it like one big pissing match...

OR, you can look at it like I do: One big learning experience. 
People here who are certain about something (including myself)
have their egos checked and their pride forced down their throat, 
only to be taught valuable lessons about photography.


----------



## ANDS! (Aug 1, 2012)

> Like I said, #3 looks overexposed.




No you said:




> Rely on your eyes, because the highlights are overexposed.




Which is where we got into this conversation about. . .




> You've already gone to say that because photoshop doesn't have them at 255, they aren't blown. Hotspots do not have to be @ 255 to be perceived as blown.




I, and the great multitudes of the Googleverse, disagree with you.  For the great majority, a blown highlight is a bright spot in an image which has lost its detail.  By that definition the only real "blown highlight" is the tip of the guys nose; hardly what I would classify as "blown highlights gone wild - " or that the overall image itself is overexposed.



Letterbox said:


> Is this what I can expect every thread to turn into as a TPF member?



Yes.  Or perhaps only the ones where the great hand of Photography-Know-How comes down and (poorly I might add) chastises you for the error of your ways. . .


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

ANDS! said:


> > Like I said, #3 looks overexposed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Semantics. The highlights DO look overexposed. As for the term blown - I said that they do not have to be 255 to be *PERCEIVED* as blown. In otherwords, there can still be recoverable detail, but if it just looks like a white spot, which most of the highlights do, it can be perceived as blown. In his left cheek, the tip of his nose, and in between his eyebrows are all too hot.


----------



## Ernicus (Aug 1, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Ernicus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




but...but...

I really do


----------



## ANDS! (Aug 1, 2012)

> Semantics.




Ohhhhhhh. . .ok.


The area around his left cheek and between his eyes may be a bit hot.  Far from blown, and certainly I don't perceive it as blown since there is still quite clear detail in both areas.  


Yes the tip of the noce got away from LB - however exposure wise, it's not taking anything away from the photo and is certainly far from the Blown Highlight Armageddon that was mentioned on the first page.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

ANDS! said:


> > Semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you agree with me that they are overexposed.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 1, 2012)

Ballistics said:
			
		

> Go on.



I don't think that there are "perceived blown" areas. At least not on my screen. I think that there are calibrated monitors and uncalibrated monitors. ;-) 

I would say that they're a tad overexposed, but no areas are blown. I compared via my editing station and my phone.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Aug 1, 2012)

Letterbox said:


> Is this what I can expect every thread to turn into as a TPF member?



What exactly did you expect when you ask for C&C, and then argue with the people who were generous enough to give you some of their time to reply with thoughtful critique?

Option 1: Carefully consider the C&C you receive, discuss and ask for clarity if necessary, then decide which you want to synthesize.
Option 2: Make excuses, argue and complain.

If you want to get better, it's an easy choice.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They are very hot on my screen. I've calibrated my monitor as best as I could without any third party software and have been extremely satisfied with prints. Having said that, if the term "blown" has no wiggle room, then I'll just stick with very hot.


----------



## Letterbox (Aug 1, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> Letterbox said:
> 
> 
> > Is this what I can expect every thread to turn into as a TPF member?
> ...



James, get real.  This thread has turned into people arguing about whether "blown out" is defined as 255 or if there is "perceived blown," and several other permutations of similarly minuscule disagreements.  Keep in mind, I'm not one of those people.  This is *not* how anyone gets better.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 1, 2012)

Ballistics said:
			
		

> They are very hot on my screen. I've calibrated my monitor as best as I could without any third party software and have been extremely satisfied with prints. Having said that, if the term "blown" has no wiggle room, then I'll just stick with very hot.



I agree with the term "very hot" which is a definite noticeable effect of overpowered flashes or wide aperture to overexposed the image. It's how I've even described some of my flashed photographs that I've had to reject with my girlfriend.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

Letterbox said:


> This is *not* how anyone gets better.



Cry about it? 

This is human interaction, some personalities are analytically and technically (no matter how minuscule) driven. The thread still has it's value, along with it's side bars.

This IS how people get better.

This is the second thread where a person with single digit posts has complained about the forum as if they pay a membership fee.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 1, 2012)

Letterbox said:


> Is this what I can expect every thread to turn into as a TPF member?



Believe it or not, we are offering advice! And reasonable advice, based on experience. Your lighting is very harsh... If you soften it up, you will have much more attractive shots.. no matter what you call them.


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 1, 2012)

ANDS! said:


> > Like I said, #3 looks overexposed.
> 
> 
> 
> .



ANDS!.... one question! Would you have delivered #3 to a client? Seriously?


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 1, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tyler... would YOU give a client a shot like #3?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 1, 2012)

I would deliver 3... gosh.. you guys are harsh.  These are not "bad".  We see a lot of bad photos here on the forum.  These aren't in that category.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> I would deliver 3... gosh.. you guys are harsh.  These are not "bad".  We see a lot of bad photos here on the forum.  These aren't in that category.



I don't think I'm harsh.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 1, 2012)

Schwettylens said:
			
		

> I would deliver 3... gosh.. you guys are harsh.  These are not "bad".  We see a lot of bad photos here on the forum.  These aren't in that category.



But he has a "shadow eye patch."



And he's orange....


----------



## Robin Usagani (Aug 1, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




He is not a whitey like you


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 1, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Tyler... would YOU give a client a shot like #3?



I don't recall discussing whether I'd deliver that to a client or that even being on the table. If there was something I was unsure about, I would consult multiple talented photographers that I know and decide how to proceed from there.


----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 1, 2012)

Schwettylens said:
			
		

> He is not a whitey like you



It's my natural defense. Blind the enemy and then flee on my spindly, pale little legs.


----------



## Letterbox (Aug 1, 2012)

This is getting hilarious.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 1, 2012)

Letterbox, your thread is blown!


----------



## MTVision (Aug 1, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:
			
		

> Letterbox, your thread is blown!



Wrong Bitter. It's not at 255 yet....


----------



## cgipson1 (Aug 1, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I put it on the table.. because I know you would not deliver a shot like that... No matter how much you argue about it!  lol! Of course, we will never get a straight answer on it, will we?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 1, 2012)




----------



## rexbobcat (Aug 1, 2012)

Letterbox said:
			
		

> This is getting hilarious.



Hilariously insightful I assume?

:trollface:


----------



## ANDS! (Aug 1, 2012)

> So you agree with me that they are overexposed.




No.  OVerexposed for most people has a very clear meaning.  A bit hot in a few places yes; something easily fixed in the space of 30 seconds in Photoshop.




> ANDS!.... one question! Would you have delivered #3 to a client? Seriously?




If that's what the client wanted.  I would make my own personal tweaks to it, but depending on the level of expertise here and what the person wanted I would have no problem turning that over.  As Schwettylens said (I just got that), some of you are being ridiculous in your assessments.  Heres how I saw this thread go down:


OP: Started a bidness.  Here are some professional jobs.
Chorus: Pro?!  Hoo hoo.  
OP: This is what the client wanted.
Chorus: Client is foolish.  Go read a book.
ANDS: (No text.  Just bright light of knowledge shining down)
Chorus: Oh god him again.
OP: What a cluster****.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

ANDS! said:


> No.  OVerexposed for most people has a very clear meaning.  A bit hot in a few places yes; something easily fixed in the space of 30 seconds in Photoshop.



They, being the highlights, weren't fixed though. I'm done though. You say the same things that I say, but then say that you don't agree. It is what it is.


----------



## Ballistics (Aug 1, 2012)

ANDS! said:


> OP: Started a bidness.  Here are some professional jobs.
> Chorus: Pro?!  Hoo hoo.
> OP: This is what the client wanted.
> Chorus: Client is foolish.  Go read a book.
> ...



Another self-righteous thread summary. Great, you're one of _&#8203;those._


----------



## tirediron (Aug 1, 2012)

*Buh-bye.*


----------

