headshot critique
- Started
- Last post
- 20 Responses
- GeorgesII0
lovely,
you perfectly captured the vintage playboy look.- btw: was expecting dead people,
thanks for not posting dead peopleGeorgesII - +1alicetheblue
- btw: was expecting dead people,
- doesnotexist0
i feel something's missing. i can see the Amelia Earhart photo reference, maybe it's the backdrop? the gray doesn't say iconic to me, but clouds would. maybe not pouting would help too hehe
- mekk0
i expected something else..
- Ramanisky20
very nice
- idiots0
needs more contrast
use a telephoto lens or something longer to prevent the distortion you get from your close proximity to your subject (the scaling from ear to nose to knuckle seems off in the 3rd pic)
i'm not sure about your lighting, seems too much fill not enough spot (you could get great patterns on her face from that had on pic 4)
light the face
- fadein110
yeah nice except number 2 - looks weak compared to rest - not enough contrast and lighting flat
- Continuity0
I like the feel of them, but they are also a bit flat. Idiots is right that there needs to be more contrast.
Also, the second pic really isn't working for me; it looks more like a lighting test than a final shot, and that's to do with the shadow beneath her head.
- jaylarson0
I like what I see. the 2nd appears to be the weakest, although it isn't bad.
and another note:
http://gizmodo.com/5857279/this-…- too bad there isn't an 85. that's my fav now.jaylarson
- jay, you using the 85 mm - F/1.8 - Canon EF?idiots
- i think jay's a nikon guy.johnny_wobble
- if the lens fits...idiots
- wow huge change from 35 to 24.HijoDMaite
- huw_cy0
Thanks for all the comments so far. I agree that the 2nd is the weakest. These were all shot with a nikkor 50mm under pretty bad lighting conditions (at night with only lamps + lamp shades etc) not that I'm making excuses or anything...
A telephoto would have been nice but I actually quite like the intimate feel the shallow focus gives you.
How about a little colour..
- you can get localized DOF from a tele, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the lensidiots
- hmm it would seem so. Could you explain a little more?huw_cy
- You def captured a good look, here. Like this one a lot.Continuity
- Better look. More relaxed and less freaked out looking.goldieboy
- as long as you have a large aperture, small number (1.2-2.0+) you have a narrow DOF to work withidiots
- the aperture size is important, not the lens length in achieving a shallow DOFidiots
- nb0
The first image in the original post is much stronger than the others.
Here's why:
• Depth of field makes her right eye appear very sharp, without obscuring the other eye, or ear.
• Nice wrap lighting, the light is focused on her face
• Shadow from the nose matches the corner of the mouth and corners of the eyes in shape.
• Proper placement of "cinema" highlights in the pupils.
• Good overall balance, the subject is anchored in the frame.The other images don't have these^ qualities.
The only things I don't like about the first one is the lack of detail in her hair (from underexposure) and her hand over her mouth is unnecessary and hurts the composition.
- thanks for the comment, some good stuff in there.. I'm not exactly what you'd call experienced so this is a helpfulhuw_cy
- doesnotexist0
can always add some 'intimate focus' by blurring objects closer to the lens in photoshop.
- k_temp0
1) Is great.
2) She seems hidden under a shadow, not loving the back light that confuses my eyes on where to focus.
3) I like the spot light in her face but i feel a little more black wouldn't hurt to add more drama and/or suspense.
4) Her cheeks looks spotty sort of like a bad Photoshop application.
- desmo0
Nicely done. Could do with a bit more contrast. Looks a tad muddy.
Also, the colour version looks a bit under exposed.
but overall, really good!!
- vaxorcist0
I'd like to know a bit more of what your aim was..... besides the "female icon" idea....
my random thoughts:
Seems like 1960's, french, starlet, young, slightly naive, feeling off-kilter.... vulnurable, maybe a bit nervious energy there....
Lighting could use a bit of contrast, and/or angle/softbox/etc... but the lighting is more 60's french film than currently more contrasty look.. maybe you wanted that....
I agree with k_temp, 1 is nicest... 3rd is interesting in a way...
Telephoto lenses can make people look more "iconic" if that's what you're looking for... 200 or 300 mm, shot from slightly below, with a tilt of the chin and an eye slightly downwards... requires practice, but can look amazing if done right... also a bit of side/back light makes for a more iconic look.... in a studio, this may mean standing farther away from model, zoomed all the way in, with model far from background, and 4 or 5 lights....
Note that shooting people with a long lens can sometimes require TONS more lighting power, as you may want F8 or F11 for depth of field and with softboxes, that may need 500-1000 watt-seconds per head....
but of course, the shorter lens lends more "intimate" feeling, if that's what you're going for.....
- huw_cy0
The 'female icons' theme represents women like Brigitte Bardot, Hepburn, Twiggy etc. Our aim was to try and recreate some classics shots of these beautiful women while allowing the personality of the model to come through. So yes, some of the words you mention, like young, starlet, french film etc are spot on for the look we were going for. Things like:
- monospaced0
crush some blacks
- drgs0
lighting brings out skin imperfections
- vaxorcist0
ah.....
some semi-random thoughts:
Practice with your lighting... the Bardot and Twiggy shots have more contrasty edge, more careful feathering, deeper black edge. Note that a black edge, like the second one above (twiggy in sweater, I think) can be done with a large piece of black cardstock clamped to a stand just outside of frame to camera right, next to model.
Second, I look at your images, I think you may want to try more experienced models, and/or shoot a TON more with the models you have,.... the first and third are getting there, the other two have that "I am just a friend's roommate's sister, so I am modeling here for this photographer as a favor" look rather than the strongly involved look you want...
I once had a mentor tell me I need to be more careful who I cast in photo shoots, as some models are much more likely to give you the powerful presence than others, no matter how much you coax them...
- ArtOrDie0
From my experience with headshots (from the other side of the camera), the foreground subject needs to be razor sharp and have more contrast from the background. That said, I'm no photographer.
- pango0
in my opinion. the depth of field is way to shallow.