Natural Light Headshots

Hi. I posted some pics a little while back and got some help, but I

need more.

 

I've mostly ever shot in natural or existing light, but I'm new to

photographing people for that "headshot" look. I use a Digital Rebel

with the kit lens, and pretty much the only light I have available to

me is the sun. What I'm look for is advice on how to get good light,

what kinds of environments to look for, and so forth.

 

I've done two sessions now and have been pretty unhappy with each.

Either my lighting has been flat or too harsh, or I've been unable to

get good integration between the subject and background. The subject

is an actress who has pro headshots but, like me, wants to experiment.

My goal is not go pro with this but to learn and perhaps be able to

get pro level results eventually, for my own enjoyment.

 

Specific info I'm looking for:

1. Shooting in shade brings my ratios closer together, but it tends

to flatten out the light too much. Is there a good approach to this?

2. I don't have a good prime lens or a nice zoom, but I'm looking for

ways to minimize the background. Any advice?

3. Where do I want the light to fall on the face? I've been told

that I want to light the "mask" of the face, which I agree looks good.

What about the side? What are other approaches? Bear in mind that

what I'm looking is good lighting for an actor's headshot.

4. In general, when shooting outdoors, what quality of light, what

scenarios are best for headshots and portraits?

 

I thank you in advance for your help :)

Sounds like you could use some diffusion in your lighting. Flat light is easier to meter, but the results are bland. I have a Photodisc diffuser which I allow sunlight to pass through and that breaks it up to kill the harsh highlights common on a hot sunny day.

 

Other options with Photodisc include a reflector, where the model is kept in shade, and you bring the light to her via a reflector. You can choose gold for warmer tones, or white or silver, depending on the conditions present.

 

Direct sunlight (to me), is difficult to shoot, because of the sharp contrasts between dark and light. Diffused sunlight has given me much more flexibility.

 

I'm no pro by any means, but this is a method I have tried and has worked for me. I'm sure there are other suggestions which will come that will offer other solutions.

 

Good luck.

Joel, headshots are now taking on a different look today because some of us are now shooting digital. If you're trying to achieve yesterdays, or the typical headshot look, then you will have to run film. Kodak T400CN @ 250/320iso is the bog standard for actor headshots, and is what you are accustomed to seeing. Your focal length should be 85mm to 135mm, and with your subject filling your frame you want depth of field via f5.6 max.

 

Great head shots are achieved outdoors, try for a cloudy or overcast day, or the shade, make sure you have a refelctor disc for a bit of bounce but most importantly to put catch lights in the eyes

Joel...a friend was reading this post as she waited for me to collect some gear; I'm on my way out the door to shoot with her.<p>She's a shooter...a really good shooter; she makes her living at it. And I think she pointed out the previous post by Eric because she wanted to see my blood boil...she figures it may translate to a little more "life" in the shots I take of her (I say this as she's beside me egging me on). One of her strong points is she is able to recognize technical BS when she see's it. Eric's post that states<p><i>If you're trying to achieve yesterdays, or the typical headshot look, then you will have to run film.</i><p>Is just that...it's technical BS.<P>I could go on here but we're in a hurry to shoot. I'll offer some suggestions later...but will close by saying both of us agree you have "an eye" if your stuff is as good as <a href="http://www.moserbrothers.com/daf/headshottest01.jpg"><b>this shot</b></a>.

Why not use a little flash, even the in-camera one? Headshots always look better (nay, even require) a catch-light in the eyes, so if you are outside, fill flash will provide it. It will also, obviously, brighten up the face. If you are looking for dramatic lighting effects, you will have to invest in some lighting, or get really lucky with natural occurences or assistants with reflectors.

This isn't an actor's headshot (you need a more dynamic pose) but I think it's a useful example. It was shot with a Sunpak 383 Super (w/ Lumiquest difuser) off camera and another generic flash on an optical slave. Metered with a Sekonic L-308BII. The lighting stuff cost maybe $100, total, and the meter is something you ought to have anyway. Incidentally, the print holds a lot more detail in the highlights. Anyway, my point is that is that portraiture is all about controlling light, and it's both cheap and easy to control ALL of the light, so why not? Natural light is great, but if it's not working for you, ditch it.

 

I think that working with studio light is really helpful to the understanding of natural-light portraiture. Because things are so easy to control in the studio, you learn very quickly how different angles and light placements affect your subjects. You can get a really solid grasp on the basics in a very short amount of time. Then, when you go out on location, you already know what good light looks like. If it's not working, you know what you need to change -- sometimes it's adding one or more reflectors, sometimes it's using a little bit of fill flash, whatever it takes.

 

That said, I hate studio portrait work and rarely do it anymore. I don't even like to use flash. But then, I don't do that many headshots now, either.<div></div>

Eric's post is very strange, by the way. . . I've seen some great headshots done on digital. And I'm not sure about TCN400 being the standard headshot film, either -- a lot of people I know do them on FP4+ or PanF+. Depends on what lab you use, probably. A pal of mine used to shoot a lot of HP5+ in 645, but he had a lab that did traditional B&W pretty well.

 

Anyway, digital is perfectly viable for headshots; it's relatively easy to achieve that "headshot look." You need to light a bit differently, and you might need to mess with the Curves tool in photoshop later, but it's definitely feasible.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005r9w">this</a> was a good thread about natural light portraits. <p> One of the problems with outdoor portraits is reducing the light, or restricting it's omnipresence while maintaining an interesting and dynamic ratio. Look for structures that are open on two or more sides with enough distance between the light "sources" (windows doors, etc) that you can vary the lighting ratio by altering your position in the structure. Buildings that are open on all sides and are fairly large offer lots of variety in background and light intensity. Don't forget to vary your point of view (ground level, from a platform of some sort) and the physical attitude of your subject (sitting, laying, standing). These altered angles of subject attitude change the apparent direction of your light by altering it's angle of incidence on your subject (and the background).Also, I cannot overemphasise the importance of the "background", in tone, color, texture and optical quality... t<div></div>

and with 60seconds more in PhotoShop... t<div></div>

Jim Vanson,

 

We're talking actor head shots...not church pin ups.

Tom, those are awesome grabs!

Andrew,

 

I am strange! But i am, and i thought the original question was, talking about actor headshots. notice the word actor. and my first posting stated 'bog standard'. There are many types of headshots, but actor head shots have a standard stipulated by the agencies. and we are finally getting them to accept colour and digital. However, the last few years, the b&w ACTOR headshots have had a certain look and that's due to t400cn. shooting pro's in this market have two or three clients a day, drop the film off at the lab at days end, and off to the reproduction lab the actor goes and chooses a font for thier order of a hundred copies. doing a headshot on conventional b&w and retreating to the darkroom means you have time to do this. busy pro's don't. i wish i did. now it's done for the art and love.

 

fp4 is awesome, panf isn't for everyones picture.

Thanks, everyone, for the awesome advice. I appreciate the different techniques and points of view and plan to put the information to good use.

 

Attached is a brand new headshot done today. I used the garage and, believe me, the crudest of blankets for a backdrop. But I am happy with this result. I got lots more, but no time to present them right now. Let me know what you all think...<div></div>

Oh, regarding Eric's advice on types of headshots...

 

I've heard everything at this point, from various agents and actors and everyone inbetween, and what constitutes a good headshot seems to be subjective as anything, though each agent speaks as if his an objective view. I don't know. On one hand, absolutely, every headshot I've seen seems to fit a certain mold. On the other hand, I hear many actors say that they're taking more natural, less-posed, and COLOR headshots these days.

 

So I think Eric is right. And so is everyone else. As a director myself, I have certain ideas about what I like. So who knows!

 

And when I find Who, I'll get the straight dope.

 

I think the scenario of an open garage is a good one. It's sort of a giant, wraparound softbox, and it stayed that way for hours. Had I wanted to do it, I could have put up some clothe to block light from one side to get less fill, but I liked the look; maybe next time. One thing I didn't get was a huge volume of light. I shot at 400 ISO, at f5.6, and the shutter speed hovered between 1/30 and 1/60.

 

Now I'm going to try to find a good backdrop, and by that I mean a big ole sheet of paper to tape up. This is not my private garage but a shared one, so I need something I can put up and take down quickly. I may try putting some light on the bg to give it a pattern and to help seperate the figure from it. Also, I'm looking into a longer zoom.

 

Again, thanks everybody. I'll get right on those suggestion, see if I can get some better stuff.

Joel, that's a perfect 'actor' headshot that any agency would refer further to you. Nice catch lights, pupils are small, not destracted by a back ground...good work man!

Eric...please excuse me for doubting the fact that you and your buds were changing the face of photography by only shooting digital (or was it traditional film). I didn't realize that I was questioning the grand puba. I'll just sulk off and admire church pinups as you call them...Hey! I guess you're an authority on those too! Keep skating boy.

<i> I'll just sulk off </i><p>

 

Hey! Don't leave.<p>

 

One of the strongest points of this forum has been the use of examples rather than just yakking, pre-dating its incorporation into photo.net, right Tom? I intend to keep it that way.

The photo in the garage would benefit more from a hairlight than from a background light, in my view. Also, what's so hard about the photo of the girl taken outdoors? She's backlit, the lens is wide open, maybe a little fill, that's it, nothing special.

With the risk of sounding like a gear head - do yourself a favor and "invest" $60 in the Canon 50/1.8 lens -- it makes a great 80mm portrait lens on the 300D. Additionally, with risk of stateing the obvious - photography is all about lightning; the amount, the quality, the direction, the capturing... Shoot early in the morning or late in the afternoon/early evening when the light in warmer outside.</p>

 

The following photo was taken this weekend w/ a 10D and a 50/1.4 set at ISO 100 and 750/f1.8 </p>

 

<center><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1820881&size=md"></center>

Eric...please excuse me for doubting the fact that you and your buds were changing the face of photography by only shooting digital (or was it traditional film). I didn't realize that I was questioning the grand puba. I'll just sulk off and admire church pinups as you call them...Hey! I guess you're an authority on those too! Keep skating boy.

 

Jim,

 

I guess you've never been into a production office, agency office or a reproduction lab for actor head shots. I'm no grand what ever you called me, and while bringing it up, your interjection into this thread was rude. a request for actor head shot style pix was posted. Your pic would stick out like a sore thumb in any of the above mentioned offices. it is a great pic, it belongs in a frame on grandmothers night stand.

<i>a request for actor head shot style pix was posted</i><p>

 

That's not what the poster said. He said: <i>The subject is an actress who has pro headshots but, like me, wants to experiment.</i><p>

 

An experiment is different than stock portrait headshots. Now how the poster wanted to experiment wasn't made clear, and he hasn't come back to clarify, but a variety of examples may help him with his question.<p>

 

Also, I will point out that Jim and others have posted photos here, and some people have not. As I said above, posts with examples have always been highly valued on this forum, and will continue to be as long as I am the moderator.

First, all you guys who've come in here to fight, please either help out or GET OFF MY WAVE! Hehe, thanks.

 

David, thanks for the advice. I'm not sure a hairlight wouldn't look incredibly cheesy in this case. Personally, I think rim lighting in general is very specific in style, and I wouldn't use it unless it was either subtle or seemed naturally-occuring. I do, however, understand what you're getting at. Regarding the outdoor pics, I guess there's nothing 'wrong' with them, other than their being kinda crappy, but they definitly aren't headshots, which is specifically what I'm going for. Again, thanks.

 

Patrick, no problem, I've actually been looking up prices for that exact lens, first because - like you say - it's a nice portrait lens, but also because it's a prime, which I don't have and for which I am constantly getting punished. Your lighting suggestions are basic, but that's ok; I think the lack of basics is what dogs almost every photo. I like your image. Cute kid. Nice exposure.

Jeff,

 

Sorry for the confusion. What I mean by 'experiment' is 'experiment with headshots'. However, anything that's similar in approach or technique is more than welcome. I found the natural light 'church' image helpful, as well as the recent pic.

Jeff, and everyone else following this 'fight'...

 

I didn't come here to argue, just a mere responce to Joels request, then had my insight called 'technical BS' by someone that couldn't offer any quality input. Sure, i got defensive. But Joels results and comments made this worth putting up with. I'm here for a good time, not to interupt with insults. e

Your comments and help are very appreciated, Eric. Sorry I didn't thank you directly; I meant to.