jonathan_brewer1

Use your meter to find out the intensity of illumination coming from each individual light you use, after you establish that, you have to mentally switch gears, to considering what the illumination of each light is doing in the scene,...................... where the illumination of several of your light sources combine to form a highlight, you need to meter what that combined illumination is.

 

Depending on how your light sources illuminate your subject matter, they will leave shadows, do you want to see detail in those shadows? You'll need to think through how you're going to use your meter to establish an exposure that shows detail in those shadows that doesn't become problematic for your rendering of the highlights in the same scene.

 

Try some of what you've heard here, experiment with it, there's no substitute for doing it, and after a while, I think this is going to start becoming clear to you.

The best/most subtle diffusion outside of purchasing a soft focus/portrait lens in my opinion, is black toule netting, the black 'frilly' looking stuff you can get at flower shops, I bought ten feet of it a few years ago for something like $2.00.

 

You can double it, triple it up, w/a rubber band around the front of the lens, or in the case of my MF gear, I've stretched it out and fastened it in front the threaded accessory ring which fastens into my G2 bellows(Mamiya) so that I can take it on and off the lens/use other filtration.

Hi Jack..............you said this...............'My goal is to have pleasing shots straight out of the camera with NO PS work.'.......................This is incredible insight. The more you get right in the shot straight out of the camera, the more natural it's going to look, on a close up, you choose a plane of focus like the eyes, everything in front of/behind the plane of focus tends to go out of focus in a very gradual way, photoshopping parts of the face, throws this out of whack, and is one of the nuances that is missing that tells you the image has been heavily photoshopped.

 

Garry Edwards advice, is correct, make-up will to a certain extent address 'bad skin', I many times use a 36x48 Chimera 6' from the sitter, this presents a smooth light, with some falloff, the softbox or beauty light and make-up aren't going to do it alone. This also depends on your lighting ratio, this is of course a key light used in conjunction w/a fill, and/or a lot of fill, and some diffusion.

 

I'd also point out that diffusion is affected by the cameras distance from the sitter, what looks like strong diffusion at one distance doesn't do anything from another. Shooting a head and shoulders from 6' feet away, I tend to use less diffusion, and find I need more as I get closer in.

 

My take on this is that it's all these things, and no one thing by itself, in terms of getting the overall look. It's kind of like some of the ads you see from the softbox manufacturers, showing how a close-up of a model w/ultra soft and dreamy skin, where they neglect to tell you that in addition to the softbox, they used quite a bit of make-up, a lot of fill, and a lot of diffusion.

 

If you try to do it all w/make-up, it'll show, try to do it all w/softbox, just using a softbox w/do it, try to do it all w/diffusion, it'll stick out like a sore thumb, it's everything, all the little bits adding up to get the effect, I hope this gives you a few ideas.

 

www.imageandartifact.bz

" and the technique you suggested doesn't work if the shadow area is being illuminated by a reflector or a fill light"

 

I couldn't resist this.... Hey Jonathon, Asim did not mention anything about a reflector on the shadow side. So acording to your statement my technique would in fact work in this senario...........................Neither did you when you made your blanket generalization about...... 'pointing a light meter at the light source and not the shadow', that's the trouble with your advice, what you didn't say, the fact that you didn't qualify what you said, there are all kinds of shadows, black ones, shadows illuminated with reflectors, fill lights, and strong ambient light.

 

You gave advice in response to his question, 'point the light meter at the lights and not the shadows', and your advice doens't work when Asim decides to use a reflector or a fill light to boost the illumination in his shadows, and I'm pointing out to him and you and anybody else who cares to read this, with specifics, just when your advice isn't going to work, because you gave out nothing but a blanket generalization. You disagree, tell me w/specifics, I don't think you can.

 

Shoot some transparency film, set up a portrait shoot, set you key @F5.6, you fill @F4.0, point your meter directly at the key light, expose for F5.6, the meter reading your meter gives you, the highlights on the sitters face will be a half stop overexposed, does that sound right to you, Asim need to know when to use and when you can use the suggestions we give him, which is why you need to more specific than 'point the light meter at the light and not the shadow', when you give him advice.

Get lost Michael, go nag somebody else, I gave out specifics not rants in answer to your blanket generalizations, and it doesn't make any difference whether your website is good, bad, or indifferent, you gave out some bad advice, and I spelled out in detail WHY it was wrong, now you come back here later saying something that didn't have anything to do with what you said originally.

 

What you originally told Asim to do was to point his meter at the lights and not at the shadows, a grand sweeping generaliztion with no specifics, and to say this you just plain don't know what you're talking about, lighting is the interplay of light and shadow, and you use a light meter not only to measure the illumination of your light sources, but shadows, not just 'ink black shadows', but shadows that may be partially illuminated by ambient light, a reflector, or a fill light.

 

You suggested that you point a light meter at the lights and not the shadows, a sweeping generalization, which is just plain ridiculous, and I eplained to your why, you come back and try demean my position by labeling what I had to say as a rant, that's bullshit........I gave you specifics and concrete examples of why your suggestions don't make sense, and you've mentioned nothing to invalidate what I said.

 

When you talk about pointing a light meter at a key light used in conjuction with a fill because it wouldn't make much difference, that's just as ridiculous, a fill light's there to illuminate a shadow, and if you can see that illumination, it does make if difference, you say you can ignore that fact, and I say that's absurd.

 

I gave you specifics, examples, reasons why what you said didn't make sense, it's all up there above this post, give me the same thing back, facts, instead of an invite to see your website on which I will pass.

It doesn't make any difference why a light meter is called a light meter, it's a tool that will help you select where you want to see detail regardless of whether it's a detail or a shadow, to suggest to somebody to point it at the light and not the shadow areas is crazy.

 

If you're doing a portrait of someone illuminated by one light illuminating one side of the sitters face with no other illumination and you point the meter at the light, you get that side exposed perfectly and the shadow side of his face BLACK, nothing, no detail,...........if you want detail Michael, in the shadow areas in the above scenario using one light, you use another exposure.

 

'learn what lighting ratios are'... light ratios involves a key and fill light, the key light provides the illusion that only one light is illuminating the scene, and the fill is called the 'fill' because it fills in the SHADOWS, left by the key light, and illuminates that shadow area so you can see detail in that shadow area.

 

You can use your meter two ways when it comes to figuring out an exposure for say a traditional portrait, where you want to show detail in both the highlights and shadows,......you can bias the exposure away from the highlights and toward the shadows, and you do that by pointing the meter AWAY from the highlights in the direction of the shadow area, the degree to which you do this established the amount of detail you see in one area or the other...................or you can use a fill light to illuminate the shadows to a degree where it still looks like a shadow left by the key, but with detail you can see.

 

If you using a 3 to 1 light ratio, on a portrait that is frontally lit, let's say for the sake of argument that the key is F5.6, you fill is F4.0, the key creates highlights and leaves shadows, the much softer fill light will go everywhere, hitting both the highlights the key created, hitting the shadows the key left, two lights now make up the highlights, the illumination of both you key and fill, the shadows are illuminated by just your fill, give you 3 to 1.

 

On this portrait, you fill is HALF the illumination of your key, so for you to suggest that you should point the meter directly at the key and ignore the illumination coming from a light source(your fill light) that is HALF THE INSTENSITY OF YOUR FILL is absurd. Doing what your suggesting isn't going to give you a true starting point of what your illumination is in the above set up.

 

You do the above set-up, w/the 3 to 1 light ratio, with the key @ the above mentioned F5.6, the fill @ F4, the illumination of BOTH lights is making up your highlight on the face, this total from BOTH lights WON'T BE F5.6, DO THE MATH, the meter reading of both lights making up the highlights WILL be F6.7,................if you IGNORE the fill light, point your meter directly at the key, you'll get a reading for that light only of F5.6, AND YOU'LL BE OFF A HALF STOP(50%)because you're measuring only one light, when there are in fact TWO LIGHTS HITTING THE SPOT YOU'RE EXPOSING FOR.

 

I disagree 100% with the proposition of suggesting to someone trying to learn light metering technique that you point the meter at your light sources and not at the shadows, and the technique you suggested doesn't work if the shadow area is being illuminated by a reflector or a fill light.

 

Asim, after reading all this, try out what's been said here in the studio, and I believe what will make sense to you will become self evident, the one thing about this to remember is to get a clear and precise idea of what lights are illuminating what areas in a scene, that is no matter how you choose to expose a scene, establish in the most accurate way possible the illumination coming from your individual lights, don't ignore ANYTHING. Good luck.

 

Note: if the story has a bunch of visible HTML tags then you probably should have selected "HTML" rather than "Plain Text". Use your browser's Back button to return to the submission form.

'but i was wondering if there are any exceptions to this rule. for example:'................................asking this, in a way goes to the real issue regarding light metering technique.

 

You can use a light meter to measure illumination, if you do it correctly, you can have a good idea of just what that illumination is, the problem is that 'getting the right exposure' as some folks think they can do, is impossible, particularly in scenes w/multiple light sources and shadows hitting the subject matter at any number of angles.

 

You can correctly measure the illumination of each and every light source and shadow in a scene(in a studio, not in front of the Grand Canyon), and then you must decide how/what to emphasize/to show detail in the parts of the scene, according to your lighting scheme, these choices regarding exposures and illumination now become 'artistic' choices as to what you think looks right, as opposed to being a 'slave' to what the meter says.

 

There are countless pics around that have lighting effects that look 'dull', 'tired', 'boring', that were exposed at what was believed to be the correct exposure, it's not what the meter says, it's your interpretation of light and shadow in the scene and how that gives you an idea as to how to tell your story about what you're photographing.

 

The 'high energy' and 'sparkling quality' of a 'high key' portrait is only possible because of your ability to metally 'switch gears' and decide to use a final exposure that doesn't anything to do with the meter says, or exposing to give the shot a quality, that using the indicated meter reading cannot give it, that's the whole key to this.

 

What makes the shot 'look right', what exposure tells the story about the image you want to tell.

Incident meters usually come with a translucent dome over the sensor, the dome is the shape it is so that when pointed at the camera, you can simulate the effect of all the lights and/or shadows hitting a face for instance, in the same way the light/lights/shadows hit the translucent dome. The meter is pointed at the lens, and all the illumination(or lack of it) hits the meter(and it's translucent dome) relative to the lens axis(you see the lighting the way the lens sees it).

 

The meter pointed at the camera, measures everything, not individual lights,............................................. many incident meters come w/a flat translucent disc that you can use in place of the translucent dome, this disc is flat so that you can point the meter w/the flat disc at an individual light, and the meter will tend NOT to pick up any illumination from an oblique angle from another light source, said another way, the meter w/flat disc pointed directly at a light source gives you a reading of that light source and nothing else.

 

You do two things w/an incident light meter, you measure illumination from an individual light source, or you meter the sum total of the illumination of several lights/subject matter that is partly illuminated and partly in shadow. With subject matter that has both highlight and shadow, you have a choice to make, do you want to expose for the highlight or for the area in shadow, or do you want to show detail in both?

 

Revisiting your subject sitting in a dark room being illuminated by light coming from a window, that subject is in 'sidelight', one side of the face is illuminted, one side in shadow, point an incident meter(placed in front of his face) at the lens, equipped w/a translucent dome, and you'll produce the same 'sidelight' pattern on the dome of the meter, and the meter will give you a compromise reading incorporating both highlight and shadow.

 

Suppose you point the meter directly out the window and you get a reading of F8, ..........................now point the meter at the lens so that it's dome is in 'sidelight', half of the dome is being illuminated, half the dome is in shadow, the beauty of this is that since half of the dome is in shadow, your meter will now read F5.6, your meter in this position(pointing at the lens, w/its dome half illuminated, half in shadow), has told you to 'open up' for the shadow.

 

The illumination of your light source in the above example is F8, your reading w/the meter pointing at the lens, so that it incorporated the illumination AND shadow of your subject in 'sidelight' is F5.6, and is a compromise reading which if you use as your exposure will do two things, overexpose by one stop the side of the face that's illuminated by your light source, and provide you a little detail in the shadow side of the face.

 

The illumination hitting your subject matter is what it is, you either measure that correctly, or you don't, but YOU have the choice of deciding whether you want to 'bias' your exposure toward a 'highlight'/one lightsource among several lightsouces in the scene, or in the direction of shadow detail,.....you have the discretion of what to choose to emphasize by what exposure you use.

 

Shooting a sunset there was an old maxim in film production, point the meter directly away from the lens, take a measurement, and then open up a stop(to incorporate detail in the shadow areas), I'm not suggesting that you do it this way, what I do is make this a starting point for purposes of bracketing a backlit situation. Good luck.

 

www.imageandartifact.bz

Depends on the lens, and the format,...........and if you're using diffusion over a so-called 'normal' lens or a soft focus/portrait lens, there are portrait lenses that are just too much wide open, have a more pleasing look, give the skin and the overall image, a more natural look, between F5.6 and F8.

 

Selective focus is a give w/portraiture, at least w/me, but there are so many variables along w/selective focus and whatever you use as an exposure that affect how the shot will 'play', distance from the camera to the sitter, and whether you a 'beauty light, large softbox, or a large area silk, and of course whether or not you're playing around w/high key.

 

The answere is yes, it's true, IF that exposure makes the image 'look right', if it doens't, it's the wrong exposure.

Doing portraits of folks often involve the unspoken understanding of I 'want to look my best' and 'I want to share that feeling with the folks I show this portrait to',...........pretty is nice to look at, but pretty or not, the most important thing about a portrait is getting the sitter to give up a piece of himself/herself that comes through the lens, jumps up from the print and grabs you.

 

you capture a pose/feeling/expression/something the sitter is doing that 'looks' legitimate, looks like it came from within, comes through and 'grabs' whoever's looking at the image, and regardless of whether the sitter is 'pretty' or 'pretty ugly', you've gone a long way to creating a good portrait.

 

What's more of a challenge is capturing a mood/feeling that comes through, AND problem solving away the flaws the sitter maybe have a sensitivity about, while playing up their strong points.

 

The short answer is I don't believe anybody said that, if they did, they shouldn't have, that's my opinion.

That isn't Santa Claus in disguise, is it Jay?

Years ago, I loaded up w-----s NT on my computer, and then my computer wouldn't work and crashed before I could 'boot' it up, EVERY TIME, I call m-------- up, and they demand $85.00 to fix the problem over the phone,...................'you want me to pay you to fix your OS, which doesn't work in the first place?'........................and of course they said that they weren't about to waste time discussing it, as they were extremely busy, hanging up on me, THAT'S GREED.

I disagree, and I think you're mis-characterizing what I'm suggesting, I don't equate greed with the desire to make a profit, not then(in the early 80's), and not now, there was, and there is now, over and above the desire to make a profit, EXTREME GREED.

 

During the mid-eighties, I attempted to work out a deal to purchase one of the 'big name' manufacturers monolights, just one mind you, because they were a fortune, they laughed at me and said they didn't do deals and said(I'll never forget this), 'come back when you've saved their pennies'.

 

The original WL Ultras were in the same ballpark performance wise as the overpriced monolights from the other manufacturer I'm talking about, and it did make them look bad, and Paul C Buff did FORCE these folks to restructure their prices.

 

Did you ever get any work done from Steve Grimes before he died? This guy could've and probably should've charged more for the work he did ,but didn't, he didn't even charge what the market would bare for his prototype and machine work, and would bill you after sending your gear back to you. Some people incredibly, stiffed him for work, I once sent him a Toyo AII I purchased and asked him to examine the camera, after doing that, I asked him for a bill, he said 'forget it', I was a regular customer and that was that.

 

Besided using Steve Grimes, I use a machine shop here locally in L.A. called 'Turner Precision', run by the father w/his sons, I approached him with some work to modify some of my strobe gear, I'd been quoted xxxx-xxx for the job from approx. 7 other machine shops, most of which didn't want to do the job.

 

The folks at Turner were very busy, but they were also people oriented folks, I explained that I was a photographer and what I needed done, they charged me less than a $100.00 for the modification where I had been quoted as much as $1100.00 for the job.

 

You're a photographer in the early '80s and you want to use strobes, you want to start a portrait business, the cheapest monolight system from the folks I mentioned were SEVERAL thousand dollars, now you have the choice paying through the nose, and you can say nobody put a gun to your head to purchase that gear, and if that's your only alternative, then I guess you can use a flashlight, but there were always people who came along who gave you that other alternative.

 

There were numerous people I've dealt with over the years who performed a service for me, who didn't demand the most they could get for the service rendered,.......when they performed a service, and it was time to pay the bill, many times I got, 'forget it', 'catch you the next time around', 'this is on me', and for jobs costing quite a bit of money,..............there are people who people who don't always demand what the market will bear when they do business, they're also folks that will demand to the last penny whatever they can get, and there have been and always will be the ruthless and the greedy, the names used to be Rockefeller and Carnegie then, they're different folks now with hearts just as black.

The financially challenged/broke photographers/'very careful with a nickel' folks which included myself when I got my first strobe owe a debt of gratitude to Paul C Buff, 'back in the day', many of the big name strobe outfits expected you to 'pay through the nose' for their gear, and weren't too understanding regarding a tight budget.

 

White Lightning drove 'em crazy, and made some of them look bad, because here was somebody who could give you entryway into a world that before him was almost exclusively for photographers who were already making money. Some big name outfits bought WL units, took apart, because they insisted that 'these things shouldn't work', in an attempt to show everybody that WL unit were junk, and they couldn't do it, so Paul C Buff was providing a cost effective alternative and he did it without being GREEDY.

My website is at www.imageandartifact.bz ..............there's also an Ilford film called 'XP-2', which like the Kodak 400, can be processed C-41(like a color film) which will give this film varying degrees of a 'sepia' tone.

Then you are on your way, if I can be of any assistance, do not hesitate to contact me, my e-mail address is lifestories at earthlink dot net, I plan on living forever, but on the very slight chance that I don't, I don't mind sharing whatever I know with folks who want to know, I was helped when I started doing this, which is why I'll return the favor.

Will.............don't misunderstand me, use whatever tools you have to accomplish your goals, but you'd be surpised at how much you can accomplish with just one light, as to the skill, I'm 57, I started getting paid for my portraits at age 20, keep at it long enough and you'll develop skills, the only requirement is that you love doing it.

OMT..............on a natural shot, particularly a close-up, if you focus on the eyes, that will be your plane of focus, things will tend to go out of focus from there, the nose in front of the eyes, and toward the back of the head and the ears, with heavily photoshopped portraits, they tend sometimes to lose this quality.

Will..............thank you for the very kind words, they're much appreciated,....................as to the portrait of Dayna she was shot with a soft focus lens with 'high key' utilized in the exposure, the lighting ratio(Key versus Fill) was around 2.5 to 1, illumination coming from my lighting measure F11 metered by pointing my meter straight at the lens from in front of the subjects face, the lights were left at this intensity, and I bracketed exposure going wide open on the lens, this shot was somewhere around F5.6-4.

 

My point with this shot is that it looks more natural to do as much as you can 'in camera', when a shot doesn't work for me/my client, the shot goes in the trash, and I start over, I don't heavily Photoshop images to correct heavyweight flaws, I'm simply honest with myself in that my idea didn' work and take it from there. If I have an idea that incorporates photoshop as part of the idea, that's different, but I'm from the 'old school' as far as doing portraits.

Happy holidays Will

 

We were all new when we started, and we're all learning regardless of where we are on the learning curve, one thing that isn't done enough is to tell someone starting out what's good about an image and what he/she did right along w/any other issues.

 

First off, you have a great looking boy, timing/knowing when to match up a moment you see in the viewfinder with snapping the shutter is something you seem to intuitively know because this is an interesting expression on his face. Without the emotional content to grab hold of the viewer, a portrait doens't have a 'soul', you shot of your boys does, because you immediately wonder what he's thinking.

 

If I may refer you to a shot on my website as an example of a 'tight head' for you perusal, go2 www.imageandartifact.bz, go2 portraits, go2 'Rennae', this technique is called a 'Warner Bros. close-up' because the technique of cutting off the forehead as a means of getting in closer was made popular/used in several WB prod. first.

 

In getting in real close, you might want to consider backing up your light so that there is some 'falloff' on the face, around the sides of the face/cheeks, this creates shadow areas around the face and a more pleasant transition from the face to the nearby/very close framelines, shooting very close in, can be done, so I'd suggest you keep trying. Look at some movie classics, they're free seminars in portraiture/lighting/framing, if you never do anything else, rent 'The Innocents' a B&W masterpiece directed by Jack Clayton, also 'In Cold Blood', 'Double Indemnity', also 'Pick up on South Street', the two being 'film noir' masterpieces where you can see the lighting schemes, these movies will provide you with a clinic in portraiture.

 

Check out the lighting forum, much of what you want to include/edit out in a frame is dependant on the use of your lights. Check out classical paintings, the dress in these paintings may be a little out of date, but the establishment of lighting and composition in the best of these paintings is timeless.

 

I do have a portrait business and shoot portraits for hire, so I'll say this, all technique is, is the use of a tool/tools to exhibit the message of your 'art' in the best way possible, there are no rules, only things that work, if putting the eyes of a sitter in the top third of a frame makes the image work as portrait, use it, if it doens't, throw it out, but my suggestion is to learn as many techniques as you can, and then use what you need.

 

I also think it's a good idea to show, not just tell someone something with regards to a critique the ideas you have with regards to your use of techniques and style. In terms of backing you light up to create some fall-off/modeling on a face, I'll include this 'head n shoulders' portrait of Dayna, she loved the shot, and I would suggest to you that doing portraits for other folks is a great arena where you can learn/develop you problem solving skills.

 

Incidently, on portraits for clients, I prefer to use wardrobe and lighting to problem solve or as workarounds to anything that comes up. I prefer to use Photoshop as little as possible, because I think an image looks natural, the more you get right in the original shot, this shot of Dayna is pretty much what I shot, BTW she loves/wears contacts if you're wondering about the eyes.

 

Good luck.<div></div>

Ditto everything everybody has told you, Chimera softboxes are going to go on and on for years, I've also been following closely these Redwing 'knockoffs' of Plume Wafers, and the comments of those who've bought them, and barring some bad reports, I may bite on one in the near future.

Gerry...............Yes, Jennifer is my website, go 2 www.imageandartifact.bz ........go 2 'galleries' .....go 2 'Cyclops I' ...click on 'Jennifer'. After doing some head shots for her portfolio, we did this shot for the website, after a number of shoots with her, she's now as interested in serious photography as she is about acting.

 

Before we had approached her, she had just 'untangled' herself from an individual who 'feigned' wanted to do only her picture, and then tried to pursue a 'relationship' with her after getting her contact information. She did tell me she appreciatiated my 'righting the ship' in terms of meeting someone who shot in professional manner and kept it that way.

 

When we first met her we assured her that she was welcome to bring anyone with her for the initial shoot, and to come only if she felt totally comfortable, we insist on being professional always, and we gained her trust.

 

Act professional at all times when you do this as a business, myself and several others tried to get this message across in a real contentious thread, the folks that don't listen will have to find what happens when you don't. I took a young lady to court once for refusing to pay her balance for work I'd done for her, nothing complicated, she said she loved the pictures, wasn't going to give them back, and she wasn't going to pay a penny more than her deposit, and if I didn't like that I could sue her.

 

I collected, the judge 'laughed off' her accusation that I had acted in less than a professional manner, my wife and several other folks were there for every shoot, and that's why you get no sex jokes or risque behavior or anything other than respect from me when I shoot.

 

I agree with the above comments that both parties have to be careful nowadays, my suggestion for when you shoot somebody/a client for the first time(every time actually), have other people there for the shoot, invite the other party to bring whoever they wish to fee comfortable, keep it warm and friendly all you want, but with an eye to professionalism.

I was in my bank and became transfixed at one of the tellers, she had one of the most beautiful and striking faces I've ever seen, I simply got out of line, got my wife, we go back to the bank and my wife asks her if she'd be interested in doing some shots, turns out she'd always wanted to try acting, had been thinking of getting a head shot for a long time, but she'd been 'hit up' already by several 'phonies' carrying around a camera as an excuse to hit on women.

 

The idea of my wife being there relaxed her, you should have no trouble at all, refer them to your website, I think it'll be obvious you're serious, by the way, it's a classy website, good luck.

 

www.imageandartifact.bz

Sometimes the actor/actress will hire you, sometimes they'll request a certain type shot per their agent, the use of very heavy diffusion is frowned upon by agents and casting directors, also heavy use of props although in character props like caps or hats which don't cover the face are ok, there are two issues which can be seperate or combined in the head shot, which is the personality of the actor/entertainer, and/or as some character.

 

Also at some point actors/agents will ask you to do a series of different shots called a composite or 'Zed card', which is typically(but not always) something like three shots, consisting of a head shot, a medium shot, and a full length shot of the actor/actress.

 

Casting directors have stacks of head shots and Zed cards in countless numbers, when they cast for a part, or more likely their assitants take no more than a few seconds to look at a face, there's got to be something about that face/the personality/the sparkle/the smille/something, that grabs whovevers looking at the shot in those few seconds to generate enough interest to invite that actor to come in a do a 'cold reading'/audition for the job. Good luck.

 

www.imageandartifact.bz

I don't have a problem showing a brother/sister photographer the lens, and going out and shooting some film or doing some portraits, if you're in the neighborhood of Redondo Beach just outside of LA, contact me through my website, www.imageandartifact.bz.