T A Y L O R  wrote:
I'm very, very new to photography, but am trying to improve. I'm trying to learn about headshot photography and I'd love some constructive feedback on this image I took yesterday. Any helpful tips, critiques, links to resources for learning more, etc. would be really helpful. Right now I just look at this image and think "it's boring", but I don't know what to do to improve it.
(I'm very new to photoshop as well but did a few tweaks here and there.)

The original-




The edited version-

I like the high point of view and the horizontal composition -  the biggest drawback is lack of separation of your subject from the background.  Shooting at a very open aperture (low f/stop number like f2) would blur the background to a soft color and give a sense of immediacy. 

headshots are best when there is more control of the light as well.  open daylight or open shade often does not have the punch that makes for the sort of headshot I prefer at any rate.   If shot outdoor seek shade and add light from a flash or strobe through a large modifier close up and slightly above and / or to one side of your subject -   

window light can be good for headshots / portraits because of the contrast ratio this creates as well.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
I like the high point of view and the horizontal composition -  the biggest drawback is lack of separation of your subject from the background.  Shooting at a very open aperture (low f/stop number like f2) would blur the background to a soft color and give a sense of immediacy. 

headshots are best when there is more control of the light as well.  open daylight or open shade often does not have the punch that makes for the sort of headshot I prefer at any rate.   If shot outdoor seek shade and add light from a flash or strobe through a large modifier close up and slightly above and / or to one side of your subject -   

window light can be good for headshots / portraits because of the contrast ratio this creates as well.

Thanks! I completely agree, and was trying to shoot at my lowest aperture, but I'm using the kit lens (18-55 mm) so the widest aperture I can get is a 3.5. This may seem silly, but sometimes I can get the aperture to do exactly what I want, and sometimes I can't. With an image like this
the aperture did exactly what I wanted. But with this headshot the background didn't blur the way I wanted. Is that just because I don't have a wide enough aperture on my camera? Was he too close to the background? Did I need to be closer to him? (These are things I need to remind myself to play with more.)

The lighting yesterday was very variable. It was overcast, so I thought it would be perfect, but then the sun would come out... and then go away... and then come out again. I used a gold reflector and that seemed to give me the nicest light, but I will definitely play around with the modifier as well. I actually watched a video with instructions on how to use a modifier in harsh sunlight right after I shot with him. Next time. When I used the flash it blew him out way too much. He just looked pale and ghastly, but I can definitely try the flash + the modifier next time and see if that works better!

Window light is something I'd never considered. For headshots I pretty much thought my options were studio or outdoors. I'll definitely play around with that.

Thank you for the feedback, it's very helpful!

Camerosity wrote:
I rarely disagree with Gregor, but I'm going to here.

Shooting down at a model is rarely a good idea, imo, unless the model is more or less flat on his/her back and looking up at the camera, which is directly above.

First, the top of someone's head is rarely a flattering view. Also, shooting down diminishes the model and makes him/her look shorter. It's a subconscious thing. If you're looking at someone, and their eye level is below yours (the lens), the shorter they appear (in relation to the viewer).

The higher the camera (in relation to the subject), the more the subject is diminished. Even when shooting kids, it's a good idea to shoot from somewhere around their eye level. Rarely do I shoot anyone from above the person's eye level.

I like the fact that you lightened the model's hair somewhat. There wasn't much detail in the hair in the original version. But otherwise I prefer the unretouched version. Males generally don't require much retouching. They'd rather look swarthy than pretty. However, reducing the bags under the eyes wouldn't have hurt.

Ah absolutely! For headshots I've heard "don't shoot them from above!" from some people and "definitely shoot them from above!" from others. Before I went to shoot I was using one of my favorite headshot photographer's images as reference (Claire McAdams) and she shoots down sometimes. Thinking about it in retrospect I was mostly shooting down because I needed him to sit so he wasn't towering over me. But that's no reason I couldn't have crouched down to his level. I won't be lazy next time and will get down some more! Thanks for the input.

I wasn't sure how to reduce the bags under his eyes, but that's definitely a photoshop technique I'll google. I appreciate the feedback!

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
I too am not a fan of the angle but it's not horrible, I would crop it though. I never liked landscape head shots all that much unless it's really emotive, otherwise I just avoid it.

Digital Portrait Photography by Steve Sint, it's a good book on creating portraits and posing people for them.

Oh interesting, I never thought about that. Thanks for the book recommendation! I'll definitely check that out.

T A Y L O R  wrote:
I completely agree, and was trying to shoot at my lowest aperture, but I'm using the kit lens (18-55 mm) so the widest aperture I can get is a 3.5. This may seem silly, but sometimes I can get the aperture to do exactly what I want, and sometimes I can't. 

What shooting mode is your camera set to?

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
You can put a white foam core board or reflector under neath your model (on his lap) to reduce shadows under the eyes or makeup.

Reduce but don't eliminate. It would make for a flat looking face. Just an fyi...

This!

The lighting isn't anything special to me, it doesn't make me want to know more about this guy.

I think shooting down in headshots (at least as far down as you did here) is a terrible idea when getting started. I think it's something you can play with, and a sort of "breakable rule" that really good people can do really well, but I don't think it's a good starting point.

I also think the crop is a little off. I think his eyes should be a little higher in the frame. Especially when shooting from above, cropping into the head is usually more ok.

I do like your edit and I think it brings something more interesting to it.

Camerosity wrote:
I rarely disagree with Gregor, but I'm going to here.

Shooting down at a model is rarely a good idea, imo, unless the model is more or less flat on his/her back and looking up at the camera, which is directly above.

First, the top of someone's head is rarely a flattering view. Also, shooting down diminishes the model and makes him/her look shorter. It's a subconscious thing. If you're looking at someone, and their eye level is below yours (the lens), the shorter they appear (in relation to the viewer).

The higher the camera (in relation to the subject), the more the subject is diminished. Even when shooting kids, it's a good idea to shoot from somewhere around their eye level. Rarely do I shoot anyone from above the person's eye level.

I like the fact that you lightened the model's hair somewhat. There wasn't much detail in the hair in the original version. But otherwise I prefer the unretouched version. Males generally don't require much retouching. They'd rather look swarthy than pretty. However, reducing the bags under the eyes wouldn't have hurt.

Excellent points. I tend to like shooting up at the subject, not down. I always bring kneepads. Experienced models have also warned me not shoot the nostrils. FWIW

pdxROCKpix wrote:
What kind of head shots are you trying to do? Commercial, theatrical, business, modeling? They all have differences in what is expected.

Agreed. Some other suggestions:

Angle: I understood your height problem right away, as many of my headshot models are taller than I am. Having the model sit *can* work but not most of the time. But I usually bring an ultralight folding stepladder with me on a shoot -- you can easily get one at a hardware store. I also happen to use a Pelican hard case for my equipment, so in a pinch I can stand on that.

Landscape vs. portrait: That goes to the question posed above -- what is the end use? If it's a casting headshot for an actor, definitely portrait -- most of the time it will be backed up by a portrait-oriented resume. Plus if it's going to be used in a performance program, often landscape shots don't give the designer much to work with, because it has to work alongside everyone else's portrait-oriented shots (psst: they call it "portrait" orientation for a reason). However, if it's going to end up as a staff shot on a website, most likely it will end up in a square, a circle, or a horizontal rectangle, so landscape is fine for any of those results.

Cropping: If it's an actor, generally tight tight tight. But other uses may allow for looser cropping. Generally, though, you should at least aim for the eyes to end up near the line separating the top from middle third. On a tight crop that will mean cropping out the top of the head.

Lens: The problem with the kit lens is that while it is indeed f/3.5 on the 18mm end, even with the effective length (given your camera's cropped-frame sensor) being about 29mm, that's probably too wide to get you a good-looking portrait, especially if you get as close as you need to to make the f/3.5 give you good bokeh on your background (it will slightly fish-eye your subject, which isn't good). Instead, you probably want your lens fully extended to 55mm (effective length ~88mm) even though that puts the maximum aperture at f/5.6 rather than f/3.5. But even at f/5.6 you can still get some bokeh if you plan your shot well: how much blurriness in the background you get is generally a combination of aperture and how closely you're shooting your subject relative to how far the background is behind him.

But be warned that a lot of lenses don't perform their best when wide open; you may sacrifice some key sharpness on your subject's eyes (always the eyes, or at least the one eye closest to the viewer if the subject is at 3/4 view). You can do a lot in post, but sharpening in this case is generally not one of them.

My recommendation: If you're going to focus on headshots, it probably makes sense to invest in a decent prime. I have an 85mm f/1.8, and I love it. For you that makes it about 136mm, but a) that's not a deal-breaker, and b) when and if you move on to a full-frame camera later on, the lens will go with you. Even a cheap 50mm f/1.8 would work well for you for now, since that's effectively 80mm.

Hope this helps!

T A Y L O R  wrote:
[ was trying to shoot at my lowest aperture, but I'm using the kit lens (18-55 mm) so the widest aperture I can get is a 3.5. This may seem silly, but sometimes I can get the aperture to do exactly what I want, and sometimes I can't.

That's a variable aperture lens -- meaning the aperture will change sizes as you zoom in and out (when at the maximum aperture/lowest F-stop).
Doing headshots with that lens, you should be able to get a softer/more blurred b/g at 55mm F5.6 than you can at 18mm F3.5.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
You can put a white foam core board or reflector under neath your model (on his lap) to reduce shadows under the eyes or makeup.

Reduce but don't eliminate. It would make for a flat looking face. Just an fyi...

I did have a reflector in his lap but I'm still learning exactly how to use it to my advantage. I'll definitely play with that and keep a look out at the eyes.

Images by MR wrote:

What shooting mode is your camera set to?

I'm only shooting in manual right now because I'm still trying to learn. This was taken at 200 iso, f/4.5, 1/250 sec.

EdBPhotography wrote:
Headshots normally don't work well in a horizontal frame.  Since your subject is a bit heavier and has a round face, this makes him look that much wider.  Shoot vertical next time.

It also looks like you shot him at a downward angle and looking straight on.  This tends to make people look heavier and makes their bodies look more compressed.  You don't want to shoot too low either though, because the person will get a double chin when they look down toward the camera.  Best thing here would be to have him sit down on a chair and look slightly upward at you, but also have one shoulder angled toward you and his face turned slightly.  This narrows out the face and gives the image some perspective. 

Another thing I'd suggest, is to use a wider aperture.  Your background is way too busy and not very appealing.  3.5 isn't bad, so your focal range (18-55mm) is what's limiting you.  If you shoot with a longer lens, like an 85mm or 105mm, you'll likely get the blur you're looking for.  Long lenses can make a round face look wider, so I wouldn't go past an 85mm with this subject.  (This link will show you how different lenses look on the same person: http://gizmodo.com/5857279/this-is-how- … retty-face , and this one shows you how different lenses respond to scenery:  http://gizmodo.com/5857279/this-is-how- … retty-face )

The lighting is a little bland, but I'd say work on getting a good shot first and then start to work on lighting.  What you have there isn't bad, so the right lens and pose would have worked fine in that lighting situation.

Excellent, thank you! I've definitely considered getting another lens, since I have read about the advantages for portrait work, I just want to focus on improving on the things that I know I can improve on before investing more money.

EdBPhotography wrote:
One more thing...

Try to get the clothing to complement the background.  In your shots, the black t-shirt is a huge source of contrast.  The eyes go directly to it, even though there's nothing really there.  I also try not to use t-shirts, because of the way they cut the head off.

I prefer colors that either match the models eyes or blend well with the background.  So in this case, a beige or forest green shirt would have looked better.

Good to know! I'll definitely think about that.

Whitney Minthorn wrote:
First thing that really jumps out at me is the cameras point of view.  Images shot at or slightly below eye level will create much stronger images. 
I like that you considered using a reflector and it works good with the eyes, but it's not doing anything good for the models face.  It's illuminating the double chin area.
Retouching isn't bad.  It's nondestructive which is great. 
I would suggest using a longer focal length.

Excellent, thanks Whitney!

K I C K H A M wrote:

This!

The lighting isn't anything special to me, it doesn't make me want to know more about this guy.

I think shooting down in headshots (at least as far down as you did here) is a terrible idea when getting started. I think it's something you can play with, and a sort of "breakable rule" that really good people can do really well, but I don't think it's a good starting point.

I also think the crop is a little off. I think his eyes should be a little higher in the frame. Especially when shooting from above, cropping into the head is usually more ok.

I do like your edit and I think it brings something more interesting to it.

Ahh okay awesome! Thank you Kelli, that's really helpful!

B L ZeeBubb wrote:
Study "Short Lighting" and "Long Lighting". Wider faces tend fare better with short lighting. The linked examples are studio lighting but you can work with any directional light this way. Windows work well and there are often places near buildings that have good directional light.

Short lighting

Long lighting

I have to admit I'm not really following you on this one. Neither of the lighting seems to be flattering the subjects here? The short lighting seems a little underexposed and the long lighting instantly draws me to his double chin.

cheshiredave wrote:

Agreed. Some other suggestions:

Angle: I understood your height problem right away, as many of my headshot models are taller than I am. Having the model sit *can* work but not most of the time. But I usually bring an ultralight folding stepladder with me on a shoot -- you can easily get one at a hardware store. I also happen to use a Pelican hard case for my equipment, so in a pinch I can stand on that.

Landscape vs. portrait: That goes to the question posed above -- what is the end use? If it's a casting headshot for an actor, definitely portrait -- most of the time it will be backed up by a portrait-oriented resume. Plus if it's going to be used in a performance program, often landscape shots don't give the designer much to work with, because it has to work alongside everyone else's portrait-oriented shots (psst: they call it "portrait" orientation for a reason). However, if it's going to end up as a staff shot on a website, most likely it will end up in a square, a circle, or a horizontal rectangle, so landscape is fine for any of those results.

Cropping: If it's an actor, generally tight tight tight. But other uses may allow for looser cropping. Generally, though, you should at least aim for the eyes to end up near the line separating the top from middle third. On a tight crop that will mean cropping out the top of the head.

Lens: The problem with the kit lens is that while it is indeed f/3.5 on the 18mm end, even with the effective length (given your camera's cropped-frame sensor) being about 29mm, that's probably too wide to get you a good-looking portrait, especially if you get as close as you need to to make the f/3.5 give you good bokeh on your background (it will slightly fish-eye your subject, which isn't good). Instead, you probably want your lens fully extended to 55mm (effective length ~88mm) even though that puts the maximum aperture at f/5.6 rather than f/3.5. But even at f/5.6 you can still get some bokeh if you plan your shot well: how much blurriness in the background you get is generally a combination of aperture and how closely you're shooting your subject relative to how far the background is behind him.

But be warned that a lot of lenses don't perform their best when wide open; you may sacrifice some key sharpness on your subject's eyes (always the eyes, or at least the one eye closest to the viewer if the subject is at 3/4 view). You can do a lot in post, but sharpening in this case is generally not one of them.

My recommendation: If you're going to focus on headshots, it probably makes sense to invest in a decent prime. I have an 85mm f/1.8, and I love it. For you that makes it about 136mm, but a) that's not a deal-breaker, and b) when and if you move on to a full-frame camera later on, the lens will go with you. Even a cheap 50mm f/1.8 would work well for you for now, since that's effectively 80mm.

Hope this helps!

This is super duper helpful. Thank you for taking the time to write this all out!

T A Y L O R  wrote:

I have to admit I'm not really following you on this one. Neither of the lighting seems to be flattering the subjects here? The short lighting seems a little underexposed and the long lighting instantly draws me to his double chin.

Short lighting is a rim to one side. It flatters the wider face because it has a slimming effect. The underexposed area is intentional, shadows do not represent mass in the same way that highlights do.

Long lighting works well on slimmer faces for similar reasons.

These examples were quickly chosen off Google images, not the best samples probably. Look at other examples, it is an important aspect of lighting portraits. There are lots of variations.

If I were shooting the young man in the OP, I would have tried to use short lighting techniques rather than a broad, diffused frontal lighting.

T A Y L O R  wrote:
But with this headshot the background didn't blur the way I wanted. Is that just because I don't have a wide enough aperture on my camera? Was he too close to the background? Did I need to be closer to him? (These are things I need to remind myself to play with more.)

Wider aperture would help.  Him being farther away from the background would help.  You being closer to him would hurt if you keep the same framing.  To do that, you would need to use a shorter focal length, which would blur the background less.  However, a longer focal length, with you being farther away, will blur the background more.  But be careful, as many kit lenses have a larger minimum aperture at shorter focal lengths than at longer ones.  You might be limited to f/5.6 at the long end, which will work against you.  Cheap lenses just aren't made to do what you're trying for.

cheshiredave wrote:
Re a rule like "don't shoot with a green background": again, context matters. Just last month I shot headshots for a couple who needed them for their prospective-parent adoption brochure, and the placement agency specifically asked for a grass/nature background for them. What doesn't work in most industries might be just what is needed for another.

That said, I do agree that the background should be picked carefully, but more importantly, the subject's coloring and clothes should complement not only each other but the background colors as well, whatever they are.

right, because we all know how often we need pics for an adoptive parent brochure.  any way those shots dont sound like head shots at all

Camerosity wrote:
I rarely disagree with Gregor, but I'm going to here.

Shooting down at a model is rarely a good idea, imo, unless the model is more or less flat on his/her back and looking up at the camera, which is directly above.

First, the top of someone's head is rarely a flattering view. Also, shooting down diminishes the model and makes him/her look shorter. It's a subconscious thing. If you're looking at someone, and their eye level is below yours (the lens), the shorter they appear (in relation to the viewer).

The higher the camera (in relation to the subject), the more the subject is diminished. Even when shooting kids, it's a good idea to shoot from somewhere around their eye level. Rarely do I shoot anyone from above the person's eye level.

I like the fact that you lightened the model's hair somewhat. There wasn't much detail in the hair in the original version. But otherwise I prefer the unretouched version. Males generally don't require much retouching. They'd rather look swarthy than pretty. However, reducing the bags under the eyes wouldn't have hurt.

T A Y L O R  wrote:
Ah absolutely! For headshots I've heard "don't shoot them from above!" from some people and "definitely shoot them from above!" from others. Before I went to shoot I was using one of my favorite headshot photographer's images as reference (Claire McAdams) and she shoots down sometimes. Thinking about it in retrospect I was mostly shooting down because I needed him to sit so he wasn't towering over me. But that's no reason I couldn't have crouched down to his level. I won't be lazy next time and will get down some more! Thanks for the input.

I wasn't sure how to reduce the bags under his eyes, but that's definitely a photoshop technique I'll google. I appreciate the feedback!

Just happened onto this thread again after a few weeks.

Here are a few more thoughts on camera height in relation to the model.

I can't remember the last time that I shot down at a model (other than as I described above). High school (1960's) maybe?

If you are going to shoot down at a model for some reason, consider having the model tilt his/her head up (face the camera). I'm not saying always shoot it that way, but at least consider it.

For headshots, generally I shoot from a point somewhere between the model's eye level and shoulder level. Anytime you get around chin level or lower, you can exaggerate the chin (especially if you're closer than six feet or so from the model). So watch the chin. I try to shoot headshots from about six feet.

Some models have asked me to emphasize their boobs. The best level for this is a few to several inches above boob level, especially if the model is clothed. Shooting from chest level actually de-emphasizes the boobs (by reducing the amount of cleavage shown).

From chest level or lower, there's a chance that you'll be emphasizing the waist and hips (which won't win a lot of friends among models). This does *not* apply only to models who are larger in these areas. It can apply to slender and even very skinny models – and it can occur from some angles and with some poses (and some lighting setups) but not others.

Personally, I can't tell by looking at a model whether this will be an issue or not. So when shooting from this level or lower, I get as far from the model as I can (up to 20 feet or so) and shoot with a long lens. Also, I check the LCD fairly often to see what is actually going on.

If I'm shooting a full-length photo of a standing model while I'm sitting on the floor or the ground, I want to be about 20 feet from the model – at the least.

The general principle here is that things that are closer to the camera appear larger, and things that are farther from the camera appear smaller. While this can work against a photographer who isn't paying attention, it can also be used to advantage.

Every model is different, so there is no exact formula for determining what level to shoot what type of photo from for all models.