How tight to make a headshot?

[ntiberius]

So some friends of mine want me to do B&W headshots for their first

acting resumes. I told them to go to a professional, but they have

*no* money, we're all students. I've got a little half-assed studio

setup in my room (3 photoflood lamps, a chair, a dark-purple

background), which unfortunately leaves about 6 or 7 feet between the

chair and the camera, before I hit the wall.

 

My equipment: Canon 300D, 50mm 1.8, 28-135mm 3.5-5.6, 18-55mm kit

lens. I also have a 420EX flash which I don't anticipate needing.

 

I'm going back and forth between using the 50mm and the 28-135mm at

the moment. Headshots are always 8x10, so I'll be doing some

cropping in photoshop. My concern is the sharpness and distortion of

the face--if I move the 50mm to fill the viewfinder frame, the nose

is obviously elongated. If I move the camera back 6 feet, the

proportions are fine... but after cropping, the face doesn't look as

sharp as it did when it was 3 feet from the face.

 

My other option is keeping the camera 6 feet away, using the 28-135,

and zooming until the face fills a fair amount of the viewfinder.

The distance would minimize distortion, and the size of the face in

the image would minimize the fuzziness caused by the zoom/crop.

 

So, my rather general question is, which of these options is the

best? Is it a good idea to try and fill the frame with the subject,

when you're shooting digital and will be cropping in postprocessing?

Which of my lenses would yield the best results, keeping in mind the

small size of my room?

 

Go easy on me; I'm new to photography and totally inexperienced with

studio setups. But all advice/criticism greatly appreciated! :)

[mike dixon]

While actor headshots can vary from location to location, you're

more likely to get something that fits your market by standing

back and zooming in with 28-135. Having the very sharpest

image possible isn't that important, but you don't want things

fuzzy from too much enlargement.

[brian_diaz]

Headshots do not have to be extremely tight. An 8x10 face can be a bit intimidating, and few actors can stand to have a camera shoved so close to them (and it shows in the photos.) For my headshot photos, I almost exclusively use a 50mm f/1.4 on my 10D, which acts like an 80mm, which is traditionally considered a perfect portrait lens length. Most of my shots are taken from about 5-8 feet away, which is usually close enough to see good facial details, but far enough away to give a sense of body, and it's a more comfortable distance for both of us.

<P>

I can't speak from experience about the 28-135, but I don't imagine it would produce better results than your 50mm.

<P>

Something else to consider is that you can get more distance between you and your subject if you are not on the same horizontal level. High angle headshots often work very well, especially for female actors. If you're on a good, sturdy chair, and your subject is sitting on the floor, you'll buy yourself a couple more feet.

<P>

I would also consider taking it outside. Open shade (not direct sunlight) works great for headshots, and the 420EX will produce some beautiful fill. I don't recall right off hand if the 300D supports high speed sync, but if so, it will help you use wide apertures for nicely blurred backgrounds.

<P>

Speaking of backgrounds, watch out for them. Remember that everything in the frame should direct your attention to the actor, particularly the eyes. If there is anything too distracting in the background (and in the studio, shadows are often very distracting) it will make it harder for a casting agent to look at the person in the photo.

<P>

Finally, here are some examples of what I've been talking about: <a href="http://briandiazphotography.com/gallery/">http://briandiazphotography.com/gallery/</a>. I hope this is helpful. Enjoy!

[brian_diaz]

Oh, I also wanted to mention that you don't have to crop your photo when printing. Many headshots (at least in NY) are printed on 8x10 paper, but with the original aspect ratio intact. This leaves more white space on the sides than on the top and bottom, and your image will be roughly 9 1/2" x 6 1/3". I think this fashion is to make it look like it was shot on film, even if it wasn't. There are even many reproduction houses that will digitally add in sprocket holes and ground negative carrier borders.

[ntiberius]

Brian,

 

Thanks very much for the information! In your experience, do professional headshots typically have the actor's name "watermarked" in an unobtrusive corner? I've seen them with and without, bordered and borderless. I can see how having a white border would help to accomodate the name, and limit the amount of cropping necessary.

 

Also, your gallery is very helpful for examples--thanks! Do you happen to remember your lighting setup for 005? That guy's face is shaped almost exactly like mine, and I like how the shadow on his cheek "carves" a bit more jawline.

[brian_diaz]

I don't put names on the prints I give to the actors. These prints are taken to reproduction houses (such as <a href="http://www.reproductions.com">Reproductions</a>) which have lots of options for borders and fonts for the name. If you put the name on the image itself, it restricts the options for postcards and playbills and such.<P>

As for #5, as I recall, I used one light bounced into a 45ish inch satin-lined umbrella above and to the left of the camera as a key and a second light bouncing off the room's white walls as fill. There may have been a hair light, but most of the evidence is above the edge of the frame. It was a really simple setup, and when shooting digital, you have the incredible advantage of being able to see what you're doing and make adjustments as you go along.<P>Good luck, and be sure to post some results.

[ntiberius]

Alright, here's my first stab at my self-headshot. All shots were at f/8. Key light at 45 degrees to the left of the camera (from the shooter's position), diffused light behind and a little to the right of the camera. These are the three "keepers" from 50 or so (stupid autofocus kept grabbing my shirt collar, and I couldn't get manual quite right remotely).

 

I haven't done much touching up yet (evening the beard, mostly). They feel a little flat to me, but before I get fancy with the lights, I want to make sure I've got some of the basics. Are any of the shadows particularly distracting? What about the shiny noses? How's the cropping [there's plenty of room on the originals for change]?

 

Advice greatly appreciated; be merciless.<div></div>

[ntiberius]

2<div></div>

[ntiberius]

3<div></div>

[brendan_turner1]

Neil,

While technical details are important to photographers, they aren't the first thing a

casting director is going to look at as they rifle (think one shot per second) through a

stack of headshots. Don't get me wrong, good lighting and a pro-looking image are

important to these people, but it's not the going concern.

 

When I've talked to agents, the main thing they say they want in a headshot is that it

shows the personality of the person, and shows them in a "real" way. Focus on the

eyes--there should be a 'spark' there that tells us about the person, thier confidence,

poise and overall amicable nature. They don't have to be smiling, but they shouldn't

look like a jerk. Your headshot #2 is the best for this. You look a bit withdrawn in #1

and #3 is a bit creepy. Tell your sitter to focus on bringing out their confidence and

good nature in thier eyes. Headshot photography is a motivational speaking job in

some way.

 

Go loose enough to show the person's build, or even have an arm in the shot or

something that gives clues to the persons physical dimension. In your shots, It's hard

to tell by the shirt being a bit loose, I can't decide if you're skinny or not, it's

decieving and a casting agent usually takes such deceptions out on the actors. If they

called a girl for an audition that needs a busty girl who you'd shot a week earlier with

her A-cup boobs pushed way up in an opened blouse, they'll more than likely not

look at her again, even if they do need the "leaner girl".

 

As far as lighting goes, you need to think if that on a per person basis. While a single,

medium softbox about 3-5 feet away from the subjects face and a bounce under thier

chin looks good on just about everybody, it may not be the best for everybody.

In your lighing it looks flat because you've eliminated all shadows by filling them from

the other side--save the nose-broadening ones on either size of your wide-looking

nose (I'm not saying your nose is big, it just looks that way in that light...it probably

looks a lot bigger than it is in real life)

 

Take a look at Helen Tansey's work, while I shoot a fair number of headshots myself,

I'd have to admit that she blows me away. It's her main source of income, 'nough said.

She's here, "http://www.helentanseyphotography.com/port1.htm" check out her

pricing page, it has some interesting information on it.

[alexdi]

Neil,

 

Your second picture is quite good, but I think you should retry the black and white conversion. I'll presume you shot in color RAW; if you didn't, please do so in the future.

 

The shirt and the eyes, in particular, could use more contrast. Channel Mixer in Photoshop, or even a double Hut/Sat layer a la Russell Brown, will correct this nicely. As it is, the picture looks somewhat flat.

 

I'd also throw in the slightest hint of grain, 2% or so, through PS's Add Noise. This is B&W, after all.

 

DI

[ntiberius]

Thanks for the comments. I've now gone through 4 or 5 hour-long shoots with different lighting configurations. In each session, I feel like I'm making progress with the technical stuff--the images are less flat, better exposed, and the shadows are less distracting--but I'm also finding that Brian's right; the expression is key. After screwing with the lights for half an hour, I'm in no mood to smile. ;)

 

What I did last night was use strike tape on my floor so that I can reconfigure the lights exactly as I had them, then just jump in sometime when I'm not tired, and shoot away. Shooting my friends is much more fun, and less tiring... but hey, I'm learning.

 

Also, I'm finding that for these shots, aesthetically, I almost always prefer the subject's head to be in the top third or half of the frame--any bigger is overwhelming. Of course, now that I'm framing them more loosely, I have to fuss over their collars, wrinkled clothes, and posture! Love it.

[ntiberius]

... and by strike tape, I mean spike tape. Also, I do shoot in RAW, and I agree that the images I posted need lack contrast. I was afraid of blowing out the nose in the channel mixer, but after going back to the original RAW file, I think I can tweak things for better overall depth. Thanks!

[ntiberius]

Here's a quick update... the expression isn't the best, but the framing is (IMHO) more interesting.<div></div>

[EricM]

I don't have alot of time, sorry for the brief post, but you�ll need a bit more help than this. Digital is fine and acceptable today, and also in colour. Your lighting looks flat. I recommend going outside with a reflector. If you have a film camera, use T400CN at 250. Good examples of winners are found here�

 

http://www.rocketrepro.com/rocketframe.htm

[LenMarriott]

Niel, All your samples look fine to me (experienced amature). The 'flat' lighting Eric speaks of could be remedied by cutting the fill light in half which would result in a higher lighting ratio, something in the 1:5 area (more suitable for male portaits). Use the longest lens you can get away with to minimize distortion. In that size of room there is no danger of distortion from TOO long a lens. Everything else looks like you are on the right track so don't put yourself down because you are NEW at it. Best, LM.

[brian_diaz]

I must say that "With Chair" is a dramatic improvment over the first 3. The increased contrast and background light really help! I would still like to see a stronger key (or weaker fill) so that on the nose there is one side with a highlight and the other with a shadow. The same will be seen on the cheeks.

 

Also, you could use a bit of judicious Healing Tool under the eyes. This is just what people who aren't wearing pounds of makeup look like. It has nothing to do with staying up all night, stressing over wheree the lights go. :)