|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
What is a beauty shot?
Another thread brought up an interesting conundrum. Over the past 15 years I have read, been taught, and have taught that a beauty shot is a headshot from the shoulders up that focuses on the product and/or styling on a model. In other words, what you would see in a ad for MAC or Este Lauder. When I suggested that a "beauty shot" was just that, I was told by another person (not a photographer) that a beauty shot did NOT have to be limited to the upper body of the model. I'm confused. Really? How do you show a product on the face of a model without focusing on the face of the model? Here are references for what I am saying so no one thinks I pulled this out of my ass: (A beauty shot is a headshot similar to a makeup or hair advertisement, with emphasis on the model’s facial features.) - From the Book "Professional Commercial Photography" - By Lou Jacobs Jr. Here are beauty shots: http://www.jedroot.com/photogr/mt/thompson-beauty.php http://www.gavinoneill.com/engine/SID/1000133.htm And some threads on beauty shots: https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 810&page=1 https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 024&page=1 Oh and I realize that sometimes a fuller body shot accompanies a beauty shot to show a accessorie piece cut off by the closeup, but we aren't not talking about EDITORIAL, we are discussing BEAUTY SHOT.  Mar 16 11 05:46 am Link I believe your definition is correct.Sometimes it does not have to be as tight to the face as seen in cosmetic ads.Terms keep evolving these days like edit and retouch seem to be interchangeable these days.The term glamour also seems to be interpreted differently by different folks.To some glamour means nudity and that is not really right. Mar 16 11 05:59 am Link some of the vogue in beauty covers aren't strictly head/upper body shots. Only a few though. Mar 16 11 06:11 am Link S de Varax wrote: I found 4 and they were because the magazine it's self had a theme, like "Summer", "Shape up", or they were designers inspired. Mar 16 11 06:18 am Link Laura Dark Photography wrote: Yes probably. Mar 16 11 06:20 am Link S de Varax wrote: agreed Mar 16 11 06:29 am Link Laura Dark Photography wrote: You are correct. You need to exercise caution when "another person" tells you an opinion. Since the puter age I've noticed the semantics of things change quickly. My "guess" is that Professionals would agree with you. Mar 16 11 06:30 am Link Beauty is about the state of mind and state of being possibly with elements or art that take you towards this state rather spiritual over an interaction with the world as is with the same photo for fashion. Colours textures, cultural hints , all lend to beauty , the state, the emotions are all mix. A picture of a full length beauty with as much as a single wrap of cheesecloth, with blush on the cheeks is as much a beauty picture as any other. Yet a styled fashion accessory shoot even if nude apart the hand bag is not beauty as it has the connection to the reaction to the world, rather than the inner self. How many pictures meet this criteria , probably not enough. Mar 16 11 06:33 am Link Neil Snape wrote: I realize that "beauty" can be many different things. But what is in question here, is, what is the industry standard description of a "beauty shot"? Mar 16 11 06:41 am Link I realize that "beauty" can be many different things. But what is in question here, is, what is the industry standard description of a "beauty shot"? In otherwords, if you are hired by a client to shoot "beauty shots" what exactly are you shooting? Exactly. Mar 16 11 06:44 am Link hahaha I saw the entry into the Beauty Shot Contest. Your image was actually one of the FEW true "Beauty Shots" Even the admin guy was kindly trying to explain the definition of a true Beauty Shot. I consider it to be like a Makeup ad in the Mall. The easiest way for me to answer is to add links to who I consider some of my favorite Beauty Shot photographers. (and I'm NOT trying to highjack a thread). they all have sections Titled: Beauty Shots or are known in the industry at Beauty photographers http://stepheneastwood.com/ http://www.monikarobl.com/ http://www.philippesalomon.com/ Mar 16 11 06:59 am Link This thread is going to upset the "know-it-alls" that want their pretty pictures to be classified as beauty.  Mar 16 11 07:13 am Link Christopher Hartman wrote: I just want to know from someone who gets paid by Fashion and Beauty Clients, like MAC, Este Lauder, Vogue Beauty, etc. when they are put into contract and being paid to produce a "beauty shot" what do they produce. Mar 16 11 07:23 am Link It's all in who the client is. If you're talking "beauty shot" with a fashion/beauty client, you'll probably be in perfect sync. If you're talking "beauty shot" with General Motors or Ferrari, it's a different deal, even if the concept is similar. Different parts of the industry use the same words to mean very different things (not just "beauty shot"), so it's up to us to make sure we're communicating clearly with one another. Another example is a head shot. For theater or motion pictures or television or modeling, the head shot is vital, but not necessarily the same thing. Just be sure of your client's wishes. Mar 16 11 07:32 am Link of course I am younger and don't have the expertise but I completely agree with Laura and did have an entry yesterday. I sort of confused Beauty Shot with natural beauty shot and didnt load the perfect one. If had asked for beauty or beautiful more full length would have made a little more sense. Mar 16 11 07:38 am Link Laura Dark Photography wrote: Your definition of Beauty shoot is right on. Mar 16 11 07:42 am Link Industry standard doesn't exist, but what you define as beauty for the industry does count. You need only look at what the niche market are doing, so called beauty photographers ( kinda in there myself) and you'll see full length beauty as well as lots of waist up. Hair shots for example, you've got to show a lot more than the face to show what the client wants to see. Hair is right in there, a perfect category for beauty. I've shot for YSL beauty, full length body shots for skin cremes. So have all the others I know who do beauty. Yet not surprisingly some have a very narrow idea of what is the easier way of defining something. Mar 16 11 07:51 am Link Michael McGowan wrote: So if you were asked to produce a "beauty shot" on a modeling website...what would produce? Mar 16 11 07:52 am Link Laura Dark Photography wrote: I'm wondering if it was Angela's thread that inspired this thread. I'm a totally outsider know-nothing-at-all, but I like to think I know some things. And the photos some of the photographers and models were posting to try and show that a beauty shot doesn't need retouching was...well...comical. They were "nice" shots but not even remotely close to what I envision as a "Beauty Shot" Mar 16 11 07:58 am Link Laura Dark Photography wrote: Yes, the rules are not set in stone when it comes to art. Mar 16 11 08:02 am Link Laura Dark Photography wrote: I think the industry definition of beauty shot is as you put it. What then would be your definition of a head shot, a shot where the face is cropped out to show neck jewelry, or shot where the upper body is cropped to show some watch or wrist jewelry? Mar 16 11 08:06 am Link Laura Dark Photography wrote: Ooh, blast from the past. For me (and in that thread), a beauty shot was something that did two things: Mar 16 11 09:30 am Link Wow Laura! You're really letting the opinion of one person shake you up far too much. You posted more than once in the original thread. If you truly believe in your views, that should have been plenty. Coming to this forum and starting an entirely new thread about the same subject comes across a bit like an insecure Cartman bellowing "You will respect my authoritay!"  I bet the model that you are childishly trying to irritate with this thread is laughing her ass off at all the energy you've wasted on this.  I wouldn't have even commented on any of this, except you saw fit to drag my name into this, in the previous thread. After I get a snack, I'll post my detailed and official views on the term beauty shot. After all, if you're going to be tossing my name around loosely, it would benefit you to know what you're talking about. I'll be back in a little while. ta, Glen Mar 16 11 01:53 pm Link This all happened because a contest was run yesterday asking for 'industry standard' beauty shots. Problems occered because 'industry standard' wasn't defined from the get go, and what resulted was a collection of pretty pictures, with maybe 4 'industry standard' beauty shots. I'm not 'taking sides', but I will agree that Laura Dark's understanding re what she was taught is the same as what I was taught. Creating 'but what is beauty.....really???' philosophical tangents doesn't answer the question of what constitutes 'industry standard'. Mar 16 11 02:42 pm Link First off, I think it's a questionable use of time to attempt to precisely define an imprecise term. But since you made the invitation, here are my views. The term beauty shot isn't strictly defined by any globally recognized standards organization. At best, it is a de facto standard, meaning it's merely a reflection of what is typically done in the industry. With that in mind, there should be plenty of room for a few variations from the most common mainstream practice. After all, where would be the artistry and all the value that comes with artistry, if all our images had to look the same? Some beauty shots will show the entire head, some will crop off part of the head to concentrate more on certain details. Some beauty shots will not show the model's shoulders, while some others will. I personally wouldn't object to an image that showed more than head and shoulders being referred to as a beauty shot, as long as it seemed to have the same goals as a more typical beauty shot, and it seemed to meet those goals reasonably well. Other than cropping/framing issues, most beauty shots do have other common traits. Most beauty shots involve a model that is generally perceived as beautiful. The model is also typically photographed in such a way as to emphasize that beauty. However, beyond the model, the typical beauty shot also places a great deal of emphasis on makeup, hair style, and accessories. Not all beauty shots will have dramatic hair, but many do. Not all beauty shots have dramatic makeup, but many do. Not all beauty shots feature accessories, but many do. I think by now, you should get my point. Within this genre, there are definitely variations in approach. The exact limits of what can and cannot be a beauty shot are not sharply defined, and in my opinion, they shouldn't be. Let's leave a bit of room for innovation, artistry, and individuality. Yes, your idea of a beauty shot fits perfectly into what is typically considered a typical beauty shot. In other words, the most common variety of beauty shot. However, do understand that there is room for some variation. Extended arguing over exactly where the precise limits of a imprecise term lie, is a bit like arguing over how far up is. It's a silly exercise that I don't want to participate in. I think my opinion on what a beauty shot is has been articulated well enough at this point. Mar 16 11 03:05 pm Link Laura Dark Photography wrote: Beauty shots of hands, feet, legs, back, hair, eyes and any parts of the model will also work. Defining it as a head shot would be wrong. Mar 16 11 03:19 pm Link Glen Berry wrote: Actually Glen you are taking the thought behind this thread and twisting it. I wasn't being sarcastic or demanding my way, I was asking an honest question. If I am wrong, I want to know I'm wrong. Other people come to me and ask for direction for photography and if I'm sending in the wrong direction, well, that wouldn't be very nice would it? Mar 16 11 06:58 pm Link Leonard Gee Photography wrote: Then contact Lou and let him know. Mar 16 11 06:58 pm Link This to me is a head shot.  And this to me is more so, a beauty shot. Same model. Different objectives.  That is MY definition. Your mileage may vary STL Mar 16 11 08:12 pm Link Michael McGowan wrote: Beauty in my humble estimation is in the eyes of the checkbook holder... i.e. the AD on the assignment... have learned the fine art of carefully listening to what the the perceived concept is thought to be... therein lays the answer, at least possibly for a gainfully employed commercial lens person... Mar 16 11 08:50 pm Link Beauty shots are whatever you shoot for a beauty product or beauty editorial. By beauty product I mean anything from a spa to makeup to skin care etc. Beauty can be a from filled with just wavy hair, just hands, water droplets on skin, a full body nude or a moody portrait. Personally I don't like rigid standards. Watch out.. if you come to me for a lipstick add you might end up with a black and white photo.... Mar 17 11 01:29 am Link Laura Dark Photography wrote: here is good example. Mar 17 11 02:02 am Link In film and tv commercials the beauty shots are generally filmed first and defined as the shot that showcases the person, place or product at its best moment! Many times it will be a close up but as to how close Id say it really depends. This bridges over into fashion and photography and as stated can and should be used loosely. With that said I think if someone is asking you for a beauty shot they are probably referring to the definition you and a few others gave. Mar 17 11 02:07 am Link Awesome information here...I need more beauty shots to add to my port...And found your post very informative Thanks, Dawn-Marie (Model) Mar 15 12 05:43 am Link You can shoot beauty products in their jars or in context on a face. When it's in a jar it's called a product shot. On a face it's called a beauty shot. How it's framed has nothing to do with the definition, but shoulders aren't very relevant to eye make up, so wider than a face shot would be pretty irrelevant. Ponds face cream or Oil Of Olay could be used on face, neck, chest and shoulders, so that's a time when a wider shot could work. A close up shot of someone's face where the person, not the beauty product, is the subject is a portrait, even if it's shot in the style that beauty shots are shot. Mar 15 12 08:15 am Link To me (these days) it would be a shot focusing on the pure beauty of the model in it's least encumbered form. Typically therefore, headshots with clean makeup and unfussy hair and few or no accessories, or body shots taken to emphasise the pure beauty rather than the sexuality of the body. Many people would also include makeup and jewellery/accessories shots in the 'beauty' category, and I agree that sometimes this is appropriate, but not always. There is currently a fairly varied selection of images on the 'beauty' page of my website, but I feel they all qualify as 'beauty' in one way or another:- http://www.stefanobrunesci.com/beauty/ Just my $0.02 Ciao Stefano www.stefanobrunesci.com Mar 15 12 08:47 am Link ^^^ I agree with the above. I've been doing this for a long time. I would not limit beauty photography nor the definition to just a face shot. Beauty shots are about the relative emphasis of the spirit or products which are associated to the picture. For example I shot a lot of nail polish both feet and hands. This is still beauty photography> It is still the market that I want to be in ! Mar 15 12 08:57 am Link Pinkerton wrote: Michael McGowan wrote: I was reading through this thread to see if I could add my thoughts. I don't need to. Michael and Pinkerton nailed it. ^^ It has been my experience that, in the advertising industry, a 'beauty shot' refers to a hero shot of a clients product, be that a car, a bottle of detergent or high end cosmetic in end use on a models face. Mar 15 12 08:57 am Link Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think it very much depends on the particular discipline you're talking about. These would both be considered "beauty shots" for product photography. This one shows the products almost as an abstract, with almost no reference to the use or purpose of the product:  and this one shows the product in an idealized environment, again, with no reference to scale or purpose:  Mar 15 12 09:12 am Link I think the problem w/ that contest is they didn't define the "industry" or subgenre. It's like saying "industry standard fashion shot". What kind of fashion? High fashion? Editorial? Commercial? Catalog? Beauty has different subgenres as well...makeup, hair, jewelry, extreme (similar to high fashion but with crazy makeup/hair/styling), product (full body shots to show sexualize a product ad), and even catalog (e.g., different colors of fingernail polish on the same hand). And then some photographers think beauty = "hot girl" which is not the same as Beauty ;-) I tend to think of Beauty as makeup or the kind of photos you see in makeup aisles of stores. 3-4 hrs of photoshop for each image because of the extreme closeup showing all the crazy pore/hair/skin detail, etc. is what kills me when I try it :-P Mar 15 12 12:49 pm Link |
