Model headshot — rules, rent 85mm f/1.2L II?

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I'm going to be photographing an aspiring model soon for headshots (purely as an amateur favor / fun practice—she knows not to expect guaranteed results) soon. I had a couple of questions about standards in this field:</p>

<p>1. Is there a standard format? I've heard 8"x10" but I wasn't sure if that was just a <em>recommended</em> size and aspect ratio, or a practical rule. Also, for prints is the model's personal/contact info usually included in a margin, or is the print just produced borderless?</p>

<p>2. I don't have a real lighting kit yet, so my plan was outdoors, late afternoon, open shade, in front of an off-white stone backdrop, with a reversible white/gold reflector. Does this sound sufficient? The subject has dark eyes, so I was slightly worried about catchlights — is there an "outdoors in the shade" trick to get these without using a softbox or big window or something? Any other lighting recommendations?</p>

<p>3. Equipment-wise, I own a Canon Rebel XS (1.6x crop body) and a couple of lenses, the only really appropriate one for portraiture being an EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM. I love this lens, but I was considering renting the 85mm f/1.2L II just for the hell of it and to take advantage of narrower DOF (probably stopped down to f/1.4 or f/2). Do you think 85mm is a good length for headshots on a 1.6x crop body? Should I maybe consider a 50mm f/1.2 instead? Any other equipment suggestions?</p>

<p>4. Any "rules" or trends or tricks I should know about? Like, it is expected that a model have X, Y, and Z in a headshot? Heck, are headshots necessarily true headshots, or are models actually expected to use 3/4 shots or something else?</p>

<p>That's all. I realize not all of these questions may have definitive answers but I'll appreciate any advice you may have regardless. The plan is for this to be informal, fun, and <em>potentially</em> productive without being too involved; to that end I prefer to have most options and variables considered beforehand, for a minimum of on-site fuss.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>I haven't done headshots in some years. When I did, it was an 8x10 and the resume was on the back of the picture. They wanted an even light with no shadows on the face and it had to look like the person, without too much retouching. </p>

[brucecahn]

<p>Oh, and you don't shoot them wide open. The face is supposed to be in focus at least to the ears. Usually you need f11 with a 90mm lens on 35mm or full frame digital.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> For a head shot the 85 will be fine, better than a 50mm.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>

 

<p>Thanks for the comments. Really, f/11, wow. I guess that is logical though, these aren't "artsy" wedding photos with only the eyes in focus, anyone hiring will want to see most of the face in focus. Given that, does it make sense to rent the 85mm f/1.2 at all, or would the 85mm f/1.8 make <em>more</em> sense? They're approximately $75/week and $25/week to rent respectively, so it's not a big deal either way.</p>

 

</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Even though the 85 f1.2 is an excellent lens you don't really want to shoot it wide open, except for special effects, because the dof is so shallow you might wind up with only one eye sharp and everything else out of focus, which is not what you want for a head shot. I have used the 85 f1.8 but even then found through experimentation that the f stop that produces the best dof for a good headshot is around f5.6-8, if you want at least one ear in focus. My suggestion is that you experiment with a range of f stops to see what you and the model like best. Also, if you go to strobest.com you will find that you can rig up a really good set of lights for very little money. <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html">http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Hi Mike,<br /><br />I've read almost every article on the Strobist's site by now and a lighting kit is my no. 1 next photography step. But it's not something I'm planning on researching, organizing, buying, learning, and practicing before this shoot. Thanks though.</p>

<p>That was sort of my question: given apertures of ~5.6–8, plus all the other variables listed, might the 85mm f/1.2 actually have <em>no advantages</em> (or even some <em>disadvantages</em>) compared to the f/1.8 lens? I'm basically wondering if there is any point to the Canon 85mm f/1.2L for the specific use I've outlined, but perhaps that is a question better suited for the Canon forum as it's an in-depth comparison of lenses (not just their basic "stats").</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>A good quality, as well as an economical, lens set for portraits is the 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8 lenses. Optically they're excellent stopped down to f5.6. And it's also a lot easier on the wrist to hold the lighter weight 85 f1.8 for the several hours that a photo shoot can take than the heavier 85 f1.2. </p>

<p>But I've ceased using fixed lenses after descovering that they don't really fit my shooting style (I'm really lousy at "zooming with my feet") and now use the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 which is sharp wide open and, because it's designed for the APS-c sensor, is also light weight, especially in comparison to the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, which I also own but rarely use because of the above mentioned sore wrist problem.</p>

<p> <a href="http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/114071368">http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/114071368</a></p>

<p> </p>

[marc_david]

<p>I did some outdoor headshots and portraits last weekend, I used both 85 1.8 and 24-70 2.8 depending on the situation. It was a very sunny day so there were not many instances where I could even use 1.8 ( I was using flash for fill so was limited to 250 tv.) F4 was my primary aperture for shade, with hairlights and fill flash. Would have rather used a reflector or some substractive lighting as my results are fairly flat, but did not have an assistant.<br>

Here's one of the images from that shoot at F4/250th with fill flash: http://www.flickr.com/photos/darcmavid/4024710515/</p>

[mark_hartman]

<p>Hi Gabriel,<br>

I think you'll be fine with either 85mm, but you can skip it completely if you like. I have the 1.8, but if you've always wanted to rent the 1.2, and the cost is not going to bother you, go for it. Especially if you have it for a whole week! </p>

<p>There really is no reason not to take some shots wide open, just don't necessarily take them all that way. Just be careful if you focus and recompose wide open. The band of "in focus" area will be quite small and you may not get the focus where you wanted it. </p>

<p>If she's going to get into modeling, she's going to need more than just a head shot anyway. I think the rules posted so far are more to do with actors. Most models won't just have a headshot with a resume on back, but rather a whole portfolio of images to show a variety of looks and emotions.</p>

<p>If you both have the time, take a variety of shots. Go for it and have fun. Post the results!</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Well, I already put in a rental order for the f/1.8, which I am sure will be fun anyway since I don't own any lens that fast. :-) Cheers everyone, —GL</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Actually I just switched the order to the f/1.2—might as well have some fun right? ;-)</p>

[evan_browning]

<p>If you got 1.2, may as well use it for what it provides! Try experimenting wide open shooting only the eyes within the frame. A buddy of mine showed me some gorgeous results overexposing by 2 stops like this. try it out!</p>

[herma]

<p>If you want a fast lens that takes great portraits, spend $80 and buy the 50mm 1.8. A cheaply made, but surprizingly effective lens. Remember that this 50mm becomes about 85mm. Experiment with different f stops. Around 3-4 you still get plenty of blur but and a nice DOF.<br>

Every photo requires some basic adjustments, thsi is not the same as photoshopping.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>I've considered the 50mm f/1.8 before, but I always then look at the 50mm f/1.4 and wonder if perhaps I shouldn't just spring for that, and then I remember I already have THREE lenses near this focal length (60mm macro, old 35-105mm, 18-55 IS) and I should probably get something else that will give me a bit more variety... etc.</p>

<p>Eventually I will pick up a fast lens. It may well be the nifty fifty for its über-cheapness, but I'm in no rush to decide. Thanks for the recommendation though.</p>

<p>By the way, if anyone wants to give recommendations on reflector brand/size/type go ahead. I was thinking of a 32" five-in-one collapsible round reflector with light stand and clamp.</p>

[robertjewett]

<p>FORD's standard is 9X12. They want everything shot with a long lens. For headshots, avoid the 50mm it isn't as flattering.</p>

<p>They were happy to rip up my first submission. : )</p>

[Alan Marcus]

<p >Without a studio and the usual complement of high-grade lighting, better to work outdoors. Try various backgrounds but keep your model in the open shade. As to lenses, if your camera were a full frame film or digital (no crop factor) you would be steered by books and teachers towards the use of a 105mm lens. Now your camera has a 1.6 crop factor this means the imaging chip is smaller by 62 ½ % and the means the 105mm is too long for you. Now we can do the math and figure out what is the focal length of choice for portraits, it hovers round 105 ÷ 1.6 = 65mm. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now you need to know that the 105mm recommendation for the full frame and the 65mm for your camera is no accident. Neither are these lengths engraved in stone, its just a suggested starting point. Here is the explanation.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >People have a preconceived notion of how they look. This mental picture is based on the view one sees of themselves in the makeup mirror or shaving mirror. If we used a lens that’s too short the nose will reproduce microscopically too large and the ears too small. People will say, I don’t photograph well, they will not know the perspective is distorted. Our countermeasure is to use a lens that delivers the familiar perspective. This is the 105 for the full frame and the 65 for your camera. This longer than normal focal length forces you to step back while composing. It is this elongated camera-to-subject distance and not the focal length that does the trick. The result is an image that more closely duplicates the perspective pre-visualized by your client. Often we can’t use such a long lens because our shooting area won’t permit elongated camera-to-subject distance. That’s OK, just use the longest setting you can be comfortable with. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Technical stuff: The 105 comes from 2.5 times the diagonal of the film (chip). For the 35mm the diagonal is 43mm. Now 43 x 2.5 = about 105. For your camera the chip diagonal is about 25mm. So 25 x 2.5 = about 65mm. Hollywood uses 3 times the diagonal for close-ups on the big screen. </p>

[michael_ray8]

<p>Headshot is a pretty vague term. Some are really tight and some are loose, even full length. The very shortest I'd go is 85mm, unless you're going for some time of novelty effect. My main lens is either the 80-200 or the 85 1.4. And when I'm using the 85, I shoot wide open, for the unique look it gives.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Gabriel, it also depends on how you are going to shoot. If you shoot fast paced, with little or no time to change lenses and dont have a second body with different lens, I agree with Michael, I like a zoom, here a 70-200. My first series was taken at base of fire escape at 80 mm, but she climbed up the ladder 20 feet and I was then shooting up from 35 feet and saw a loose head shot. Rack it out to 200mm. Got it. Few minutes later,( the day for night shots were shot before), nuked back of window with a hand held speedlight and shot at 70 mm. One lens. Love that lens. That and a sigma 50 1.4 take care of 90% of my portraiture. That's just me. Rachel was recently seen on America's Next Top Model. </p><div></div>

[bob_bill]

<p>Next shot at 70 mm.</p><div></div>

[bob_bill]

<p>Oh, here's the base of the ladder at 80 mm. </p><div></div>