What is the difference between a portrait and headshots

<p>Hi There,<br>

I specialize in headshots and am really interested in your opinion regarding the difference of a headshot and a portrait photograph.<br>

The major difference in my opinion is the client's rights of usage, our customer need to have full discretionary rights of images so they can add the headshot to web, marketing and branding needs. Where as in portraits the image is the photographer copyright material to be used in a more artistic and less commercial ways such as art shows, books and so forth.<br>

Please add your opinions,<br>

Thanks in advanced,</p>

 

<p>A headshot is simply a type of portrait. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no implications regarding usage.</p>

<p>Strictly speaking, I think the difference isn't so much in the usage, as simply in the picture itself.<br>

A headshot is what is it, a shot of a head, while a portrait can vary from a close up to a full out, to even shooting the subject as a small object in a relevant much wider surrounding (environmental portrait).</p>

<p>Although even if the 'classic' definition emphasizes that in a portrait the face and expression should be predominant, with the intent to display the likeness, personality and even the mood of the person, as far as that's concerned nowadays only too often (see eg many 'streetportraits' shot during holiday trips, or pictures in 'popular' magazines) they're simply either shot in sniper mode with a long lens from a distance without any personal contact with the subject, or crops cut out of a larger picture.</p>

<p>The copyright of the picture should always be/remain with the photographer (although with some jobs that can be bought or even claimed - as is eg the case with a major magazine publishing company in the Netherlands - by the client).</p>

<p>The usage is simply a matter of whatever has prior to the shooting been agreed upon. A photographer may see the picture he took as an artistic accomplishment, while the client may only think it a nice picture which he can use for whatever purpose he thinks fit.</p>

<p>This is a headshot (of which you're very familiar):<br>

https://d38zhw9ti31loc.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Crystal-headshot-new.jpg</p>

<p>Whereas these are portraits (two very different beasts):<br>

http://www.laboiteverte.fr/les-portraits-de-yousuf-karsh/</p>

<p>The headshot follows a fixed "formula" for everyone. The portrait is unique for the individual. </p>

All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares.

Squares are a subset of rectacngles.

Headshots are a subset of portraits

All posed photos of human beings (whether an individual, a couple or a group) are portraits. They may be full-lenhth, bust

or head shots.

 

None of these distinctions has anything whatsover to do with copyright or usage rights granted by the photographer.

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>The headshot follows a fixed "formula" for everyone. The portrait is unique for the individual.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

 

This is just not true. A portrait is a photo of a person. Inventing a new dictionary doesn't work.

<p>A portrait can be a full length one or simply a picture or drawing of the face whereas a head shot is only the shot of your head.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your comments, as a professional photographer I insist that clients rights to use the headshot is what truly defines a headshot.</p>

<p>I think the difference is semantic. For me, "Headshot" implies "snapshot". "Portrait" implies a more purposeful technique, including greater attention to lighting and pose.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>""Headshot" implies "snapshot". "Portrait" implies a more purposeful technique, including greater attention to lighting and pose."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most of the examples I've seen are example the opposite. As an actor and theater director I've seen hundreds of actors' headshots. While individual photographers tend to have distinctive styles, there's no longer any rote model or style for all headshots. Headshots vary quite a bit, depending on the intended usage (TV/movies, advertising, theater, etc.), the photographer, and the actor's personality.<br /> <br /> If anything the better headshot photographers have a knack for working with subjects to convey their personalities within the context of the headshot. You have to enjoy working with actors and entertainers because they tend to combine the maddening combination of ego, insecurity, earthiness, vanity and all those things we call charisma. The best headshot photographers can convey those personalities while helping the subjects to look their best, to get the job. My own headshot (decades out of date) was the only posed, professional photo of me that looked like me and seemed like me to folks who knew me. It was a bit formulaic and very 1980s, but the photographer understood how to make that connection and ease the process.<br /> <br /> In contrast, many professional studio portraits I've seen appear rote, formulaic, with no apparent connection between the photographer and subject. They're competent, well posed and exposed, well lighted, and completely disconnected from the person being photographed.<br /> <br /> Some portrait photographers could learn a few tricks from working alongside headshot photographers who work with entertainers.</p>