# Hon Headshots



## Samerr9 (Dec 23, 2012)

Hi all

Here are the headshots.. C&C is much appriciated.

Thank you.

1.






2.





3.


----------



## StoneNYC (Dec 23, 2012)

Critique on what category? The lighting, composure, setting? Etc?


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1  /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Samerr9 (Dec 23, 2012)

Everything  

It is nice to hear what other photographers think of your work in all aspects. If they like something or dislike and why..


----------



## StoneNYC (Dec 23, 2012)

Lighting is smooth and even skin is (photoshopped?) porcelain smooth.

Depends on what it's for, if its for her as a headshot/portfolio for modeling/acting, it's fine, if its for you and you want to do more than take head shots, the. It's "boring" and you don't have any full body images so we only get a small scope of your capability as a lighting photographer, the white background is nice and soft but uninteresting.  Don't get me wrong they are very nice, well done, but you asked for criticism.  I see these and say oh how nice.  Not WOW how did he/she do that?!!

Keep at it, you're probably doing better than me 


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1  /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Samerr9 (Dec 23, 2012)

StoneNYC said:


> Lighting is smooth and even skin is (photoshopped?) porcelain smooth.
> 
> Depends on what it's for, if its for her as a headshot/portfolio for modeling/acting, it's fine, if its for you and you want to do more than take head shots, the. It's "boring" and you don't have any full body images so we only get a small scope of your capability as a lighting photographer, the white background is nice and soft but uninteresting.  Don't get me wrong they are very nice, well done, but you asked for criticism.  I see these and say oh how nice.  Not WOW how did he/she do that?!!
> 
> ...



The skin is photoshoped for sure, but it is not overdone.. You might see it softer as I didn't sharpnes after I resized.

The title is "Hon Headshots". So it is expected to see headshots only.. Kilndly check the other thread titled "Hon" also in the professional gallery for full body shots with different lighting setups. And yes those were taken for her to biuld up her portfolio.. 

Thank you for your comments again


----------



## StoneNYC (Dec 23, 2012)

Samerr9 said:


> StoneNYC said:
> 
> 
> > Lighting is smooth and even skin is (photoshopped?) porcelain smooth.
> ...



I'm on my phone so sorry I missed the headshot part, in that case very good.

And overdone is a matter of opinion. I'm both a photographer and part of the American Acting world, here, they are starting to ask for CELL PHONE shots, why? Because of all the photoshopping, people show up and look nothing like their images, so many actors are not getting headshots as much because the casting people don't trust them.

Personally I thought it was too much, but I'm a purist.  It's obviously enough that I noticed that first before I even noticed the lighting techniques.  Again I'm biased.

Your welcome, hope it wasn't too harsh.  

Good job 


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1  /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Dec 23, 2012)

On 1 and 2, her face looks out of focus compared to her sharp, clear hair. I suppose it's due to some kind of skin smoothing? ALso, in 1 and 2, her outline looks oddly sharp...a bit too much blow-back from the background light I think is causing that cut-out effect. I also cannot understand why these are shot as horizontals, with all that empty white space on either side of her. Overall, these are not the usual type of work I am used to seeing from you.


----------



## Ms.Nash (Dec 23, 2012)

I would like it better without that large stray hair running down her forehead - it's all I can look at


----------



## tirediron (Dec 23, 2012)

If it's a headshot, why can't I see all of her head?????


----------



## e.rose (Dec 23, 2012)

Something looks weird to me with all the edges... especially with her hair, but all the edges in general.  Did you cut her out of a different background, and/or mask her out and change the background so it was a solid, bright white?

I dunno how to explain what I'm seeing.  Just something doesn't look right.  The shadows on her arms don't seem consistent with what the background is doing.  Or something. 

Someone with better control over terminology and the English language get in here and explain what I'm trying to explain!


----------



## Samerr9 (Dec 23, 2012)

StoneNYC said:


> I'm on my phone so sorry I missed the headshot part, in that case very good.
> 
> And overdone is a matter of opinion. I'm both a photographer and part of the American Acting world, here, they are starting to ask for CELL PHONE shots, why? Because of all the photoshopping, people show up and look nothing like their images, so many actors are not getting headshots as much because the casting people don't trust them.
> 
> ...



No need for appologies, we are here to share our work and get feedback. 

About skin retouching, you explained that very clearly.. it is a matter of taste  On my screen with 100% crop I am really happy with the details and I agree it looks little overdone when resized. Thank you 



Derrel said:


> On 1 and 2, her face looks out of focus compared to her sharp, clear hair. I suppose it's due to some kind of skin smoothing? ALso, in 1 and 2, her outline looks oddly sharp...a bit too much blow-back from the background light I think is causing that cut-out effect. I also cannot understand why these are shot as horizontals, with all that empty white space on either side of her. Overall, these are not the usual type of work I am used to seeing from you.



Thank you Derrel for your time commenting..

Regarding the face sharpness, other than the skin softening.. it is not sharp honestly! I was close by the model at 200mm f4! Only the eyes are really sharp.. I was using a tripod and one of the focus pts on the side so I don't loose the focus when recomposing.. Well, I saw alot of pros doing simular composition and I really liked it! I know it is not in the compostion rules but I feel this exception it is kind of simple and artistic.. For my taste I really liked it and Hon loved the photos, and that is what I care for more.. 

Finally about the background, it is little confusing to me also. I did washout any remaining details in the white in post.. but I had a look at the originals unedit and I think it is the same! The metering was f11 on the BG and f4 for the light bouncing back on the model's back..  I did that before and didn't have this result. Probably because I was shooting at 200mm f4, the depth of field is very shallow sp more of the out of focus hair was lost.. That is the only explanation comming to me now.. 



Ms.Nash said:


> I would like it better without that large stray hair running down her forehead - it's all I can look at



Me too  It was only me and her. Here is where you really benifit from a good MUA.. Thank you for commenting..



tirediron said:


> If it's a headshot, why can't I see all of her head?????



Because the face will be smaller in the frame as I zoom out and I wanted to show the connection in here.. 

Again, it is not in composition rules.. I just saw simular work and I really liked it, so I tried it and I really like the results!

Thank you 



e.rose said:


> Something looks weird to me with all the edges... especially with her hair, but all the edges in general.  Did you cut her out of a different background, and/or mask her out and change the background so it was a solid, bright white?
> 
> I dunno how to explain what I'm seeing.  Just something doesn't look right.  The shadows on her arms don't seem consistent with what the background is doing.  Or somethin
> 
> Someone with better control over terminology and the English language get in here and explain what I'm trying to explain!



I tried to resolve this issue of the edges when replying to Derrel and I felt the same when I was typing  why is it difficult to explain sometimes 

Thank you for commenting..


----------



## e.rose (Dec 23, 2012)

Would you be willing to post one of the originals unedited?  I'm curious to see how the background looks in those.


----------



## Samerr9 (Dec 23, 2012)

e.rose said:


> Would you be willing to post one of the originals unedited?  I'm curious to see how the background looks in those.



Sure, why not?!


----------



## SCraig (Dec 23, 2012)

tirediron said:


> If it's a headshot, why can't I see all of her head?????


This^^  I really dislike headshots with the top of the head hacked off.  They just look sloppy and poorly composed to me.


----------



## Samerr9 (Dec 23, 2012)

SCraig said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > If it's a headshot, why can't I see all of her head?????
> ...



At the end it is your opinion but look around you, in ads, magazines etc.. Best photographers cut of heads, it is modern style.. To me, I like it way better than all empty space over the heads that you can also see alot but not in ads nor magazines..


----------



## SCraig (Dec 23, 2012)

Samerr9 said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...


Because photographers are printed in magazines or because they chop the top of heads off does not make them "Best" in any way whatsoever in my opinion.  I know many amateurs that are far better than many so-called "Professionals".  Cutting the top of the head off may be a modern "Style" but so is turning everything yellow which I also dislike.

They are your photos and you may do as you wish with them but in my opinion there are far more people that prefer to see heads without the top chopped off than there are who like to see them chopped off.  In my opinion it is a fad that will blow over sooner or later.

I also did not state that you had to leave a lot of space over the head, just not chop the top of it off.  Barely clearing the top is just fine with me.


----------



## ewick (Dec 23, 2012)

Just my opinion but I am not a big fan of both catchlights being the same brightness especially in close up shots. Again... just a matter of personal taste. I would have either made the lower catch light (reflector?) less brighter or cloned it out completely.


----------



## Samerr9 (Dec 23, 2012)

SCraig said:


> At the end it is your opinion but look around you, in ads, magazines etc.. Best photographers cut of heads, it is modern style.. To me, I like it way better than all empty space over the heads that you can also see alot but not in ads nor magazines..


Because photographers are printed in magazines or because they chop the top of heads off does not make them "Best" in any way whatsoever in my opinion.  I know many amateurs that are far better than many so-called "Professionals".  Cutting the top of the head off may be a modern "Style" but so is turning everything yellow which I also dislike.

They are your photos and you may do as you wish with them but in my opinion there are far more people that prefer to see heads without the top chopped off than there are who like to see them chopped off.  In my opinion it is a fad that will blow over sooner or later.

I also did not state that you had to leave a lot of space over the head, just not chop the top of it off.  Barely clearing the top is just fine with me.[/QUOTE]

Maybe it is a fad.. But for me it does something important, it gets you closer to the eye.. then you can get a better connection with the subject.. Best photographers vs amatures, surely there are very good photographers that they are not known as best photographers for a reason or another.. But at the end if your photography is just for a hobby you can do what ever you want, but if it is business.. you have to change with the change of the market and style every now and then because you want to sell not only do what you like.. 

Everything yellow? If you mean in my photos, I have suffered with comments on my color balance untill I got my screen calibrated regularly and I don't have these comments anymore since a long while.. Then I would recommend that you calibrate your screen if you are talking about professionals doing that, it is true that they do it alot but in fashion shots and not portraits.. 

Finally I didn't say that you said keep alot of dead space on top, I am just saying that I see that alot everywhere espcially in forums and I don't like that.. So if more people are doing that.. it doesn't mean it is correct and viceversa..


----------



## SCraig (Dec 23, 2012)

Samerr9 said:


> Everything yellow? If you mean in my photos, I have suffered with comments on my color balance untill I got my screen calibrated regularly and I don't have these comments anymore since a long while.. Then I would recommend that you calibrate your screen if you are talking about professionals doing that, it is true that they do it alot but in fashion shots and not portraits..


No, sorry.  It is certainly NOT With your shots, the color in yours is excellent.  And, yes, my screen is regularly calibrated.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 23, 2012)

I don't mean to offend, I like the lighting and the girl is very pretty, but in the first photo does her wrist REALLY look like that? I swear to god it looks like her ulna (yeah I Googled, what of it?  ) bone is distorted. It might just be the perspective and lighting but...yeah...

If that's how it really is then I'm sorry.


----------



## Samerr9 (Dec 24, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> I don't mean to offend, I like the lighting and the girl is very pretty, but in the first photo does her wrist REALLY look like that? I swear to god it looks like her ulna (yeah I Googled, what of it?  ) bone is distorted. It might just be the perspective and lighting but...yeah...
> 
> If that's how it really is then I'm sorry.



Honestly I noted that earlier but I thought no one noticed.. that said, her ulna is normal but as you said maybe the prespective distorted it.. I had to google that to know what you were talking about  

Check out my other thread "Hon" also in the professional gallery and check out her beautiful figure and ulna  There are full body shots in there.. 

Thank you for commenting.


----------



## vfotog (Dec 25, 2012)

Samerr9 said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...




I think the problem you all are having is because you're confusing headshots with fashion shots and portraiture. These aren't really headshots, which are by definition and usage, not cropped so tightly. Headshots generally include the whole head and are for getting work. These are too cropped for that, but then these are really fashion shots instead. Fashion shots are often cropped; it's nothing new. Think any fashion mag cover or cosmetics ad.  The posing is an issue for me; don't like the ulna in 1 and her right arm in 2. Also would recommend that if the model is going to have portfolio shots done, she retouches her roots. It would make her hair look cleaner and shinier and more attractive.


----------



## Arpith (Dec 25, 2012)

I actually like the close up shot of the gal. The cutting of a part of the head in that image doesn't bother me that much whereas in the mid close up it's kinda bothering me a little. But yeah, at the end it's all about different perspective of different people


----------



## StoneNYC (Dec 26, 2012)

I have to admit I've cut of the head before, here's an older photo that shows my amateur ways of headshot cutoff... Haha









~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II  /  Canon: 1V, AE-1  /  Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DiskoJoe (Dec 26, 2012)

You really should have worked the shots so that she looks naked. #2 gives it away that she is not.


----------



## Samerr9 (Dec 29, 2012)

vfotog said:


> I think the problem you all are having is because you're confusing headshots with fashion shots and portraiture. These aren't really headshots, which are by definition and usage, not cropped so tightly. Headshots generally include the whole head and are for getting work. These are too cropped for that, but then these are really fashion shots instead. Fashion shots are often cropped; it's nothing new. Think any fashion mag cover or cosmetics ad.  The posing is an issue for me; don't like the ulna in 1 and her right arm in 2. Also would recommend that if the model is going to have portfolio shots done, she retouches her roots. It would make her hair look cleaner and shinier and more attractive.



Thank you for the comment and the tip on the hair roots and the end.. I think this is helpful and I will be taking care of that in future shots.. 

Regarding the fashion/head shots confusion. I don't mean to be offensive to anyone and  to in specific, but I want to get this off my chest.. If someone doesn't like a certain style that doesn't mean it is wrong and others can not do.. Please google "best headshots" and click "images".. 85% of the photos are landscape orientation and heads chopped off.. Again, I am not saying what I am doing is THE correct thing.. I just saw simular photos and I liked it so I took shots like that I liked them and the model loved them! I have read the composition rules and I made such images and will do again because in my opnion it is nice, simple and different! 



Arpith said:


> I actually like the close up shot of the gal. The cutting of a part of the head in that image doesn't bother me that much whereas in the mid close up it's kinda bothering me a little. But yeah, at the end it's all about different perspective of different people



Thank you for you comment and opinion 



StoneNYC said:


> I have to admit I've cut of the head before, here's an older photo that shows my amateur ways of headshot cutoff... Haha
> 
> 
> ~Stone
> ...



I did such crops also when I started, I thought it is artistic  But this time I did it on porpose and most famous pros do that.. please google best headshots and tell me what you see 



DiskoJoe said:


> You really should have worked the shots so that she looks naked. #2 gives it away that she is not.



Thanks alot for this comment.. That is very true and when I saw it I was like I wish I can take them again without it.. but it was too late.. I will be getting them in strapless tops next time for simular type of shots..


----------

