Meaningless Headshots?

I agree with Brian...except that the girl

doesn`t look sad to me, vulnerable maybe.

So I think the first one

is more of a portrait- and she is beautiful.

 

Ryan that`s a really nice shot too.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005oMD">A discussion about portraiture on the People photography forum.</a>

This was shot to illustrate a true tale of guts and determination; this guy fell out of a tree stand while hunting and had to survive a November night in the woods with a broken femur and one useless arm. He was fortunate not to die of exposure; a tough guy.

 

This headshot ran with the story, instead of the environmental portrait that was planned, because it fit the story. Guts and determination.

 

But is this guy's "character" all guts and determination? No. I have shots of him with a wide variety of expressions on his face. This only shows part of his personality, the part that fits the story. It only shows the part we want to see. It is superficial; there really isn't any complexity to it.<div></div>

I'd like to second the sentiments of David Cunningham and Marc Gouguenheim. Certainly, Jeff did not mean that headshots in general are useless, but rather that they added little value to the type of environmental shooting he does. If you work with entertainers, as I often do, headshots are far from meaningless. Yes, many a headshot is little more than a mugshot, but a fine headshot can be the key to someone's success. Most people, to one extent or another, radiate a characteristic quality. It could be a friendly warmth, a charismatic glow, a mien of gravity, a look of comfortable self-confidence, or perhaps a devilish grin. Whatever it may be, a good headshot should capture it and few do. I have ended far too many sessions knowing that, try as I had, that quality was never captured. It is a moment of defeat I have felt far too often. On the other hand, many years ago I shot a portrait of a senior gentleman where everything came together. I managed to catch that impish grin that was the cornerstone of his characteristic look. He liked the portrait(headshot) and ordered two 8X10's for his daughters. He called me one night and said he had just gotten off the phone with his daughter. She was so moved by the picture that when she looked up at that portrait it brought tears to her eyes and made her feel like he was right there with her, even though they were separated by nearly 3000 miles. That folks is probably the most meaningful photograph that will ever be produced by this photographer.

<p>

I also think that headshot "styles" have changed dramatically over the past

years. Instead of the typical "mugshot" that so many people are accustomed to

seeing on TV and in the movies, there has been a shift to shooting a bit more

environmental and quite a bit more in the direction of finer portraiture. Here's

an example of a recent shot I did for a NYC actor

<center>

<img src="http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3sdka/images/james.jpg"width=

600 height=400><br>

Copyright, 2003, David Cunningham<br>

<a href="http://www.dmcphoto.net">www.dmcphoto.net</a>

<p>

</center>

Heres some pix I did for the Macarthur Foundation of Camilo Jose Vergara, a photographer. The one headshot the foundation used on their website. The portrait PDN used for an article about him winning the award.

 

<p>

<img src="http://lotusphotography.com/headshot1.jpg"> <img src="http://lotusphotography.com/portrait1.jpg">

People are making head shots for a variety of purposes, so defining what is successful is going depend on that fact. In terms of enduring artistic value, I think Marc has identified a key element, <i>intensity</i>. I interpret that to mean that the subject of the portrait is portrayed as feeling or experiencing something intensely, and that intensity is powerfully conveyed in the photographic image. I also think that the exhibited intensity must be perceived as genuine. I don't think celebrity has anything to do with it.<div></div>

I look at portraits, from the shoulders up, and if something in the photograph allows me to, my imagination takes over and lets me believe that I have some new idea about who that person is or might be, or adds an echo or resonance for all the faces I have ever seen.

I have a folder of headshots including my first studio shots (last

images in the folder).

 

I use Eos3 + 10D and 50mm or 70-200.

 

My aim is to create an image which interests you (for whatever

reason- your choice) even though you do not know the person.

 

I have quite a few books and I often feel that some famous

names (photographers) get away with murder in their images

because the image is a "NAME/STAR etc.

 

In case you think it I am not trying to draw comparisions between

my images and famous photographers. Not for a while yet! LOL

 

<a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=330694&rati

ngs=true" >Headshots here</a>

 

Louis

wow! what a read! thank gawd we're talking about headshots and not about life imitating art, or is that the other way around?

<i>"if something in the photograph allows me to, my imagination takes over and lets me believe that I have some new idea about who that person is or might be, or adds an echo or resonance for all the faces I have ever seen."</i><p> Excellently stated. What crop a frame imposes or portion of the world might be included are academic points suitable for light conversation and a refreshing beverage...cheers... t

I like this forum. Some good honest discussion here. Having worked in a corporate world for some 10+ years, I wish I would have been able to record all of the fake facial expressions that people would constantly "put on" as part of their self-conscious neurotic climb to the top. Perhaps one of these days there will be a photographer out there who will make a series called "Fake smiles", "Stress grins" or "Asskissers". After attending numerous directorial meetings, they were easy to pick out after a while. I guess I was never really corporate material, even in my fifties making paper Airplanes out of memos and throwing them at...other people in the room. I wouldn't worry too much about the term "meaningless head shots" and would prefer to say, "This picture sucks" and "This one is OK."

I could look at headshots all day long -- if they're well done. I am an amateur aspiring to have a career as a headshot photographer in NYC. For my own pleasure, I take pics of a number of subjects, in a number of genres, I suppose. But my dream is for performers' headshots to be my bread-and-butter. That's why this thread caught me. An actor's headshot should never be an "empty likeness." If it is, the photographer didn't give a crap. Any portrait has the potential to capture the essence of a person's spirit, the spark that makes the person unique, their sense of humor, their vulnerability, or the weightiness of the life the person has led. Yes, an actor's headshot has to also fill the purpose of getting them work -- in fact, it's probably the most important tool in an actor's arsenal, besides their acting training (and even then, often training can come second if the headshot is really enticing and represents the person well). I mean, think about it... who would even want to bring someone in for an audition if the photo didn't show some aliveness? Casting directors don't want talking heads; they want vital human beings. The very specific needs of an actor's headshot demands a great deal of skill and places enormous responsibility on the photographer.

 

IMHO, it doesn't matter if a portrait was shot wide-angle with costumes and buildings in the background, or zoomed in close enough to see their pores -- if the photographer has effectively worked to bring a bit of that person's soul into view, it's a successful portrait.

An actor�s headshot should make it plain to a casting director what �type� the actor is. People who look at headshots for a living know exactly what type they are looking for. It�s the photographer�s job to provide an image that attempts to visually describe the persona of the type of character an actor might play. It�s about getting work, not massaging egos; or pretending we�re shooting Vogue covers. Most headshots are over-done, over-charged and often times ineffectual as work photos. My advice to anyone contemplating becoming a "professional" headshot photographer? Aim higher.

Jamie, I'm very happy with my goal and vison, and feel is it quite high. Your snooty "advice" reveals that you obviously don't have much respect for actors or headshot photographers. Please stick it where the sun don't shine. Furthermore, I feel you do not truly understand what a headshot should be. A well-done headshot definitely should not narrow the subject to a certain type but, rather, allow casting agents and directors to see the essence of the actor and be able to imagine them in as wide a range of roles as possible. Actors can get really bogged down by the idea that they need 6 or so headshots in various outfits and character types. Oftentimes, an actor doesn't even see the full range of their own potential (for that matter, do any of us?). Unless an actor is only seeking very specific character roles, playing a specific type in a headshot is unnecessary. There are generally commercial shots (smiling), and theatrical shots (non-smiling and often with dramatic lighting). An actor really only needs one of each, and should expect a good headshot to be useable for 3-5 years, unless dramatic changes in hair and/or weight have been made.

 

An actor can move us enormously in their work by shedding light on the human condition, bringing an inner life into view. My aim is to do the same for them with my headshots, and being able to do so is what moves me. I guess you might consider shots of Chinatown and sidewalks a more exalted form of photography, but I consider being a positive force in someone's career efforts rather soul-satisfying. Being a judgemental snob about photography doesn't do it for me, but hey Jamie, go knock yourself out.

Sorry Diane, didn't mean to piss on your parade there. I'm sure you'll make a fine headshot photographer. There's good money in it too. ;-)

yeah at $300+/- for 72 exposures in about an hour it can be a good living, if you live in NYC or LA. In smaller burbs it can be an easy adjunct to a portrait business. I too, have lot of respect for acting, singing and dancing, seriously. But with all the equipment I have to lug around (and buy!), I'm also pretty envious of any artform that can be practiced totally naked... t

" I too, have lot of respect for acting, singing and dancing, seriously."

 

Me too Tom, I photographed live theatre and grand opera for 14 yrs. Took a few headshots along the way too.

Hey, Jamie, apology accepted. When you posted, "didn't mean to piss on your parade" I really laughed out loud!! Thanks.

diane, could you post some examples of your headshots..?

<p>

i'd be interested to see some...

Jane Bown has had a fifty year career out of headshots.

Bown or Brown, Chris?

It's Bown, I believe. She has a new book called "Faces."

In that case, you're both officially wrong. :-) It's Jane Brown, and 'Faces' came out

three years ago. And she shoots exclusively with a 50mm lens and Tri-X, and does

not exclusively shoot, or specialize in, headshots.

 

http://www.observer.co.uk/special_report/gallery1/0,6903,212485,00.html

 

http://www.observer.co.uk/special_report/gallery1/0,6903,212487,00.html

AZ: Follow your own links...The articles give her name as Jane Bown, not Brown.