# Corporate Portraits



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Now most people know I don't shoot people often (hardly ever!).... and I don't really do paid work either. In this instance, I was asked to do some corporate shots for a website. I am hesitant to put them up here, since I have not done shots like these in well over twenty years... but I figured I would give ya'll the chance to rag on me if you want to. Comments Welcome!  (oh.. and that slightly darker spot... was on the wall! Not on my lens! I did clone it out on the ones I delivered! lol!)




Corporate Portrait 1 by CGipson Photography, on Flickr




Corporate Portrait 4 by CGipson Photography, on Flickr




Corporate Portrait 3 by CGipson Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Mully (Dec 18, 2012)

A little too much chest.... Tighten them up and pull some of the red out.


----------



## MK3Brent (Dec 18, 2012)

Consistent photos, good job Chuck. 

The way I see it... sometimes we have to post up stuff to pay our dues, even if we ourselves don't like them.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Mully said:


> A little too much chest.... Tighten them up and pull some of the red out.



I agree they are a little too loose for the classic portrait, but I shot a little wide, as the website designer's request... they are doing some cropping of their own, and doing a B&W to Color Mouse-Over on them. Not sure about the red... I will check the channels and see ( I do like things warm). Appreciate the feedback, as it has been a long time since I have shot anything like this (Late 80's).


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

MK3Brent said:


> Consistent photos, good job Chuck.
> 
> The way I see it... sometimes we have to post up stuff to pay our dues, even if we ourselves don't like them.



Thanks... I appreciate it! Yea.. I don't mind good C&C once in a while! lol!


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Dec 18, 2012)

Make them stand in angle more.  Also I think the lighting is too even from both sides and I am not a fan of 2 catchlights apart like that. Make it a little more dramatic.


----------



## frommrstomommy (Dec 18, 2012)

After someone sharing that Peter Hurley video I keep looking at jaw lines now.. lol


----------



## Pallycow (Dec 18, 2012)

They might have wanted them squared vs. at an angle.  I do agree about the double catch light though, I'd probly clone one out.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Make them stand in angle more.  Also I think the lighting is too even from both sides and I am not a fan of 2 catchlights apart like that. Make it a little more dramatic.



Again.. I agree... and I did get some angle shots. But the Website Designer asked for straight frontals.. as they are doing this for a web based corporate directory. I didn't want to get the lighting to dramatic for the same reason! Thanks for the advice though...


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Pallycow said:


> They might have wanted them squared vs. at an angle.  I do agree about the double catch light though, I'd probly clone one out.



Yep.. wanted them square on. Yes.. probably should clone out the fill light... Thanks!


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Dec 18, 2012)

Feminine head tilt is when the head is not facing the camera straight and go toward the shoulder.  Come on man.. this isnt feminine.  



Derrel said:


> Why is this man posed with a *feminine head tilt*???
> 
> Are you even aware of what that is???


----------



## kundalini (Dec 18, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Why is this man posed with a *feminine head tilt*???
> 
> Are you even aware of what that is???



Trudat, but I prefer the lighting..... and the skin tones.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 18, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Feminine head tilt is when the head is not facing the camera straight and go toward the shoulder.  Come on man.. this isnt feminine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong explanation. There are two shoulders on every person. His head is tilted toward the LEAD shoulder. This is as fem as it gets.


----------



## Pallycow (Dec 18, 2012)

While he may be facing the camera, it's still a fem tilt and I'll go ahead and say it, *<Moderated> *.  Not in a good way. Just from that slight tilt towards the shoulder facing front...which what I read counts as a fem tilt. Guess it varies... *shurgs*

Lightings good, it's a good shot, so I'm not bashing it, *<Moderated>*.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 18, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Feminine head tilt is when the head is not facing the camera straight and go toward the shoulder. Come on man.. this isnt feminine.


Apparently you are not aware.

_11. Proper Head Tilt- Never tip a man&#8217;s head to the high (feminine) shoulder as he will look feminine. Women's heads can be tipped toward either shoulder, but the feminine shoulder is more appealing.

_
That's taken from an article that is widely distributed on the internet.

The Rules Of Good Portraiture


----------



## Pallycow (Dec 18, 2012)

kundalini said:


> Robin_Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > Feminine head tilt is when the head is not facing the camera straight and go toward the shoulder. Come on man.. this isnt feminine.
> ...



Good to know I didn't mis interpret my reading last week.  lol.  Thought's that's how it read when studying portrait posing.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Dec 18, 2012)

yup.. Napoleon does look gay.  Look.. .what you are saying is head "TILT".  There is no tilting on my photo.  The face is straight!


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Dec 18, 2012)

this is tilt.. notice how my head is tilted?


----------



## Pallycow (Dec 18, 2012)

are you high?  those are two completely different poses and different head tilts.


----------



## Brandon Hill (Dec 18, 2012)

I'm getting some popcorn for this thread....  :mrgreen:


----------



## tirediron (Dec 18, 2012)

FWIW Charlie, based on the stated requirements, they look good to me, but I agree, the red channel does seem just a tad high.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Dec 18, 2012)

LOL.. people do bully here.  My bad, it is tilted a few pixels.  Sorry.. the head looks pretty straight here with my naked eyes without rulers.


----------



## Pallycow (Dec 18, 2012)

am I missing something or did you post wrong images?  I still see two catchlights in the eyes.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Pallycow said:


> am I missing something or did you post wrong images?  I still see two catchlights in the eyes.



Yea.. I know.. I just noticed that, and deleted the post... lol! Let me figure it out...


----------



## kundalini (Dec 18, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> yup.. Napoleon does look gay. Look.. .what you are saying is head "TILT". There is no tilting on my photo. The face is straight!



The head is tilted slightly towards the lower (masculine) shoulder. There is an approximate 30° rotation of the shoulders. He appears to have his weight on his rearward heel. Both elbows are bending. The artist caught a nice loop lighting for the subject. There is an interesting, yet non-obtrusive, background elements. 

I wonder why this is a classic portrait?



EDIT: Sorry John, I got distracted before I hit reply. You're right.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Ok.. boneheaded stunt.. posted wrong images...

these are edited per the suggestions.. hopefully better?


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Dec 18, 2012)

Yeah, much better.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Yeah, much better.



Thanks!


----------



## Pallycow (Dec 18, 2012)

Shoulda confused them and edited out fill light on some and main light on others. 

hehehe


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Funny story behind my being asked to shoot these! The company has had three other "Professional" photographers in to shoot headshots and such this past year... and they all had major issues. Like shadows in the background, really bright flash glare highlights, focus and color issues, really uneven contrast, etc...!

I was asked to do some other shots (landscape stuff for website) for them based on some of my Flickr landscapes.. and then they asked me to do these. And I have been trying to stay away from this stuff... lol! I much prefer bugs!


----------



## Brandon Hill (Dec 18, 2012)

i really did.  i made popcorn for this.


----------



## Pallycow (Dec 18, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Funny story behind my being asked to shoot these! The company has had three other "Professional" photographers in to shoot headshots and such this past year... and they all had major issues. Like shadows in the background, really bright flash glare highlights, focus and color issues, really uneven contrast, etc...!
> 
> I was asked to do some other shots (landscape stuff for website) for them based on some of my Flickr landscapes.. and then they asked me to do these. And I have been trying to stay away from this stuff... lol! I much prefer bugs!



lol.  I much prefer my bugs and flowers too.  Only started shooting people to make money to buy more gear.  Don't really like shooting people.

ex girlfriend's sister asked me to do their corp shots too, based off my facebook stuff, which is really my playground of not so great photos.  lol.  They had a "pro" do their last ones...silly poses...busy backgrounds, blah blah.  

I often wonder how folks get paid for crap.


----------



## Pallycow (Dec 18, 2012)

Brandon Hill said:


> View attachment 29053
> 
> i really did.  i made popcorn for this.



either your wb is off or you don't have enough butter on the lower popcorn.  I'd guess the latter.  Butter evenly man.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Pallycow said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny story behind my being asked to shoot these! The company has had three other "Professional" photographers in to shoot headshots and such this past year... and they all had major issues. Like shadows in the background, really bright flash glare highlights, focus and color issues, really uneven contrast, etc...!
> ...



Lot of new 6 month pro's out there... pretty amazing actually! But what can you do? I b1tch about it constantly, and it just gets me banned! lol!


----------



## tirediron (Dec 18, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Yeah, much better.


This!


----------



## Brandon Hill (Dec 18, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Pallycow said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



ha. 6-month pros.  good one.


----------



## kundalini (Dec 18, 2012)

I'm afraid you just aren't grasping the discussion here, Robin.  They're called fundamentals for a reason.  Not to worry, you'll do just fine, I'm sure.  You have progressed quite nicely over the years.  More is ahead of you.


----------



## Brandon Hill (Dec 18, 2012)

Pallycow said:


> Brandon Hill said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 29053
> ...



that phone shot reveals the sweet buttery uneven light of my iMac.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 18, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> You guys are silly calling my portrait feminine tilt.  There was no intention of tilting the head.  Yeah sure his head is tilted a little.  Perhaps i should have rotated the whole photo a little and it will be the exact same pose and you wont call it a feminine tilt.  Yeah, I messed up leveling the eyes but I wouldnt call that a feminine tilt.  My opinion.. whatever.  If I do want to tilt the head, I tilt the head.



That's because it *is* a feminine head angle...feminine head tilt...feminine "POSE'. The portrait of Napoleon you posted--it is the EXACT, POLAR OPPOSITE of the one you posted. We are not being silly...me, Kundalini,and KmH have ALL very simply agreed that your example of a male corporate portrait violates a concept of masculine and feminine posing that goes back literally hundreds of years. The angle of the man's head in relation to his lead shoulder is what is called a feminine head tilt. Look it up. Please do not call us "silly" because we have studied posing and visual communication. As a "corporate portrait" of a heterosexual male, the sample you contributed shows fundamental disagreement with well-known posing methods for men, and for females.

Charlie's portraits are very "neutral"....and if I might say, rather boring...shoulders squared to the camera...not very dynamic in terms of body pose...very stiff-looking. But definitely not projecting a feminine subtext, as the original you provided sample did. The Napoleon portrait: see how there is a very slight tilt to his head, and it is toward the BACK shoulder...see how your man is tilting toward the front shoulder, in a coy, coquettish manner? He looks foppish.

That Napoleon portrait was done by a classically-trained painter, who was painting perhaps the most-powerful military man of the entire modern,post-Biblical era. It is the epitome of a "masculine pose". Apparently you're not understanding the visual language, and are failing to sense the "vibe" that a feminine head tilt gives.


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Derrel said:


> *Charlie's portraits are very "neutral"....and if I might say, rather boring...shoulders squared to the camera...not very dynamic in terms of body pose...very stiff-looking.*.



Yep... had each subject for just enough time to click the shutter five or six times... so kept it simple.


----------



## kathyt (Dec 18, 2012)

Robin_Usagani said:


> You guys are silly calling my portrait feminine tilt.  There was no intention of tilting the head.  Yeah sure his head is tilted a little.  Perhaps i should have rotated the whole photo a little and it will be the exact same pose and you wont call it a feminine tilt.  Yeah, I messed up leveling the eyes but I wouldnt call that a feminine tilt.  My opinion.. whatever.  If I do want to tilt the head, I tilt the head.



Good lord! I liked your image. Was your client happy? Did you make money? If so, then great! Were these TPF members lead to believe your image was a female because of the "feminine tilt? If not, then who gives a sh*t how many pixels it's tilted one way or another!


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Hey John... just close my friggin thread! Looks like NO ONE will let this crap go....


----------



## tirediron (Dec 18, 2012)

*Closed per OPs request.*


----------

