I dunno what it is about the first one (b&w), but I just don't care for it. The pose is fine... I like her eyes. I think perhaps playing with the b&w toning could help.
The rest of the images are pretty nice. The two guy pics look like some really nice studio work (especially the last one). And I like the candid of Joelle too (better than the b&w), but the addition of a catch light in her eyes would help liven her up.
they all good, i dont know about the one on location, they green background make the pic very unoriginal, the exprresion is great but maybe a big dof or something
th studio shot are pretty good, clean i think they light was 2 strobes right?
yes, it's a kid, but this is a pretty edgy headshot angle/formula now. it breaks all four sides, the vignetting brings you in, and the eyes create a diagonal that keep your eyes moving. Not for every occasion, but I liked the results.
Yeah I really like the angle in that, the catchlight in the eye is also really cool,
The bright picture of corey was lit with one umbrella in front and to the left a little bit and one umbrella lighting the background. I had the background light set pretty high to blow out the background but you could see pieces of the umbrella behind him to I cloned them out and dodged around the shoulders to extend the look.
is there really much difference in a portrait and a headshot?
Or maybe better stated aren't a lot of portraits suitable for headshots?
Is there a technical difference between them?
This image could be used as a headshot but has a little too much shadow and detail loss, placing it more in the zone of a portrait. Portraits don't need to deliver any very specific information whereas a head shot does. Here for example, you can't tell the exact color of her eyes.
Brads edit of the same image places it squarely in Head Shot territory (even though the background may be a little too dark) because it tells the casting directors exactly what they need to know. Hair texture/color, eye color, skin tone (even though it's been touched a bit) lips etc. Head and upper torso shots are en vogue these days and full body shots can work as well, depending what it is you're trying to seel to the casting people.
Portraits are a wide open game where headshots have a specific job to accomplish.
is there really much difference in a portrait and a headshot?
Or maybe better stated aren't a lot of portraits suitable for headshots?
Is there a technical difference between them?
I think if you want to get technical, headshot would be a sub-set of portraits.
Headshots (to me) are generally evenly lit, not very "artistic", straightforward, and show the model in a mostly natural and un-edited state (blemish airbrushing aside). They are almost always looking directly into the camera.
One thing to note in headshots, the angle is important. high and low viewpoints give differing feelings to pictures, and can emphasize dominance or submissiveness of the subject, while even-angle shows more equality and peer-oriented look. generally, actors get high-angle or strait to make them look a bit submissive or at least congenial. CEO's and executives will many times be shot from below to make them look more important and powerful to the viewer.
Closeness and distance are also factors. Close in portraits that break all the sides make the viewer feel more in tune with the person, closer. While the percieved distance in a photograph make the subject somewhat less attainable and distant.
So a CEO taken from a low angle and a bit back, emphasizes his/her importance, power, and their position in an ivory tower, and how much they are set apart from you, the viewer.
An actor/model set close, from a high angle makes you feel invited to know them, more intimate, and like they are more willing to accept your authority. Important for big-wigs that are hiring to remain feeling as if they are in control after all, and increases the chances that they are going to see that picture and want to work with that model/actor. Though, for a powerful Actor that is established, it's less likely to see a high-angle shot because they are the ones with the power now.
pawdrix,
that clarifies things for me also. The idea of getting the accurate portray of the person vs more creative interpretation of the person. I have been doing some headshots lately too and I often feel they are the same as portraits, I think i will go back thru the client I am working on and reevaluate my post-processing to make sure they do as you have talked about.
Btw, I really do like the shot. The dark background helps not to have any distractions from the subject imo
thanks for your thoughts!!!
Originally posted by pawdrix:
This image could be used as a headshot but has a little too much shadow and detail loss, placing it more in the zone of a portrait. Portraits don't need to deliver any very specific information whereas a head shot does. Here for example, you can't tell the exact color of her eyes.
Brads edit of the same image places it squarely in Head Shot territory (even though the background may be a little too dark) because it tells the casting directors exactly what they need to know. Hair texture/color, eye color, skin tone (even though it's been touched a bit) lips etc. Head and upper torso shots are en vogue these days and full body shots can work as well, depending what it is you're trying to seel to the casting people.
Portraits are a wide open game where headshots have a specific job to accomplish.
