DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Interesting Headshot Photographer
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 53, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/26/2004 05:49:12 PM · #26
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you look closely, you can see the photographer in the catchlight reflections on many of the shots.

Speaking of which, did anybody catch this article in the NY Times about being able to determine what you were looking at by looking at reflections in the eyes of photographs?


Great article, Eddy. Thanks.
 08/27/2004 02:28:30 PM · #27
I have a technical question about these photos. From the video on his site, he shoots at about 10 feet from the subject, and shoots with what appears to be a fairly long lens (let's say about 150mmish).

How can he, at these physical distances, achieve the shallow DOF that he does. My basic understanding of DOF is that, the further away from the focal plane "in focus" subject, the wider the field of focus is. His lens doesn't look particularly fast. Could extension tubes do this and still be able to focus that far away?

I love the look of the photos, but am trying to figure out how he gets his results. Any ideas?
 08/27/2004 02:49:01 PM · #28
a longer lens (longer focal length) will give a shallower DOF. so even though he's further away, the focal length is longer which gives him the shallow DOF.
 08/27/2004 02:55:19 PM · #29
Originally posted by feetstink:
a longer lens (longer focal length) will give a shallower DOF. so even though he's further away, the focal length is longer which gives him the shallow DOF.


Right, but at longer distances, DOF (particularly behind the focal point) increases. I just can't see how, at 10 feet from the subject, he's able to obtain such a teeny, tiny DOF.
 08/27/2004 03:10:22 PM · #30
Originally posted by welcher:
Originally posted by feetstink:
a longer lens (longer focal length) will give a shallower DOF. so even though he's further away, the focal length is longer which gives him the shallow DOF.


Right, but at longer distances, DOF (particularly behind the focal point) increases. I just can't see how, at 10 feet from the subject, he's able to obtain such a teeny, tiny DOF.


This was shot with a 105mm lens @ f2.8 from just about 10 ft



The DOF in this shot is quite shallow and if the lens were longer it would be even shallower. I don't know what lens he is shooting, but a 135mm f2 would likely do the trick.

Message edited by author 2004-08-27 15:11:16.
 08/27/2004 03:11:35 PM · #31
//www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Depth_of_Field_01.htm allows you to calculate different depths of field with differing factors. assuming the other factors are the same, a 150mm lens at 3 meters (about 10 feet) has about the same DOF as a 35mm lens at .7 meters (a little less than 2.5 feet). with a 35mm camera and an aperture of f/8, the dof for both is about 8 inches.

Message edited by author 2004-08-27 15:12:11.
 08/27/2004 03:45:57 PM · #32
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by welcher:
Originally posted by feetstink:
a longer lens (longer focal length) will give a shallower DOF. so even though he's further away, the focal length is longer which gives him the shallow DOF.


Right, but at longer distances, DOF (particularly behind the focal point) increases. I just can't see how, at 10 feet from the subject, he's able to obtain such a teeny, tiny DOF.


This was shot with a 105mm lens @ f2.8 from just about 10 ft



The DOF in this shot is quite shallow and if the lens were longer it would be even shallower. I don't know what lens he is shooting, but a 135mm f2 would likely do the trick.


That's a great photo, but it was WAY more DOF than those on the headshot guy's site. The EARS on those actors are WAY out of focus. That's a DOF of a couple inches.
 08/27/2004 04:06:30 PM · #33
Originally posted by welcher:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by welcher:
Originally posted by feetstink:
a longer lens (longer focal length) will give a shallower DOF. so even though he's further away, the focal length is longer which gives him the shallow DOF.


Right, but at longer distances, DOF (particularly behind the focal point) increases. I just can't see how, at 10 feet from the subject, he's able to obtain such a teeny, tiny DOF.


This was shot with a 105mm lens @ f2.8 from just about 10 ft



The DOF in this shot is quite shallow and if the lens were longer it would be even shallower. I don't know what lens he is shooting, but a 135mm f2 would likely do the trick.


That's a great photo, but it was WAY more DOF than those on the headshot guy's site. The EARS on those actors are WAY out of focus. That's a DOF of a couple inches.


It's not WAY more DOF, sure in my shot the ears are not as far out of focus (they definitely aren't sharp) as this guy's shot, but the subject's eye to ear distance is a lot less for my subject too. Also, this was shot at 105mm f2.8, a 135mm lens at f2 will have significantly less DOF than that.
 08/27/2004 04:17:13 PM · #34
I think I've got it figured out. Fast primes are much, much smaller than zooms of similar speed and focal length. I didn't know they were so small (mostly cause I can't afford them!)

So the headshot guy was probably using something like Canon's 135mm f/2L, which would give that nice, shallow DOF.

Hafta start saving the coin.
 08/27/2004 07:14:48 PM · #35
Fast prime lenses can be pretty cheap...depending on the focal length you choose.

I exclusively use my 50mm. I always work with very shallow DOF.. (where the ears, and everything else is out of focus). I will bet this photog uses a prime lens that is very fast....much faster than a 2.8 lens.



Spazmo, I will disagree, while your image has shallow DOF, it doesn't compare to the DOF that this photog achieves. I would venture to say it is "way more"!

~Audrey

//www.alwphotography.com

Message edited by author 2004-08-27 19:15:20.
 08/27/2004 07:21:56 PM · #36
Let's see... the Canon 85mm/1.2L on my 1.3X-crop factor body is 102mm... and at Æ’/1.2, the DOF should be paper-thin. Sounds like the ultimate headshot lens to me... =]
 08/27/2004 07:25:27 PM · #37
Originally posted by smokeditor:
One thing that bothers me is the tiny pupils, almost a freaky look!


Yeah it really is, isn't it?
 08/27/2004 08:05:39 PM · #38
Great photos. I really like how tight he crops in on the faces as well. Nearly every head is cut off out of frame, but he does such a great job with the tight crop you see a very feature filled face.

On the catchlight topic, generally I like the way his catchlights appear in the eyes of the different models. Is anyone but me really bothered by multiple catchlight shots where you see 2, 3 or more highlights in the eyes? I can't stand that.

Dave
 08/27/2004 08:14:18 PM · #39
Excellent photo, I assume you were using a 50mm at f1.4?

Originally posted by Photomama:
Fast prime lenses can be pretty cheap...depending on the focal length you choose.

I exclusively use my 50mm. I always work with very shallow DOF.. (where the ears, and everything else is out of focus). I will bet this photog uses a prime lens that is very fast....much faster than a 2.8 lens.



Spazmo, I will disagree, while your image has shallow DOF, it doesn't compare to the DOF that this photog achieves. I would venture to say it is "way more"!

~Audrey

//www.alwphotography.com
08/27/2004 09:57:21 PM · #40
Originally posted by Photomama:

Spazmo, I will disagree, while your image has shallow DOF, it doesn't compare to the DOF that this photog achieves. I would venture to say it is "way more"!

~Audrey

//www.alwphotography.com


You are entitled to your opinion, I was looking at the pic posted earlier in the link, and I did not see that great a difference. There must be other shots by this guy that I am not seeing. I never claimed that my example was the ultimate in narrow DOF. Certainly there are more extreme examples.

08/27/2004 10:47:36 PM · #41
Sigma 105 mm



At F2.8 with CPL filter ISO 100
 08/27/2004 11:30:44 PM · #42
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Photomama:

Spazmo, I will disagree, while your image has shallow DOF, it doesn't compare to the DOF that this photog achieves. I would venture to say it is "way more"!

~Audrey

//www.alwphotography.com


You are entitled to your opinion, I was looking at the pic posted earlier in the link, and I did not see that great a difference. There must be other shots by this guy that I am not seeing. I never claimed that my example was the ultimate in narrow DOF. Certainly there are more extreme examples.


Most of the shots at //www.headshot-photography.com/portfolio.htm have significant fall-off within the distance between the eyes and the ears - probably about 1 inch or so. The shot you posted has slightly soft feet - maybe 1 foot ahead of the focal plane, but the entire head/ body appears pretty much sharp. He talks about how he tries for this, in the video on the web site.

Message edited by author 2004-08-27 23:31:15.
 08/27/2004 11:42:42 PM · #43
Kosta

Great work as usual!
I was looking over your DPC galleries and I really like what you have done recently.

How did you process this shot and info to share?

Originally posted by pitsaman:
Sigma 105 mm



At F2.8 with CPL filter ISO 100

08/28/2004 12:12:30 AM · #44
I just took a look at your web site. You are an awesome photographer. Someone I can learn from. Thanks for sharing!

Originally posted by Photomama:
Fast prime lenses can be pretty cheap...depending on the focal length you choose.

I exclusively use my 50mm. I always work with very shallow DOF.. (where the ears, and everything else is out of focus). I will bet this photog uses a prime lens that is very fast....much faster than a 2.8 lens.



Spazmo, I will disagree, while your image has shallow DOF, it doesn't compare to the DOF that this photog achieves. I would venture to say it is "way more"!

~Audrey

//www.alwphotography.com

08/28/2004 12:13:45 AM · #45
Thanks for sharing this site. He is awesome.

Originally posted by smokeditor:
Just thought I would share this link.

//www.headshot-photography.com/portfolio.htm

This guy is a well known hollywood headshot photographer. Most interesting is that he shoots with only natural light and a reflector outside his garage. Combined with a long lens and wide open apertures he creates beautiful pictures.
On another note many have thought that his lighting is too flat and uninteresting. One thing that bothers me is the tiny pupils, almost a freaky look!
Check out the video he has on the website to see him in action.

08/28/2004 04:25:39 PM · #46
Originally posted by RHoldenSr:
Kosta

Great work as usual!
I was looking over your DPC galleries and I really like what you have done recently.

How did you process this shot and info to share?

Originally posted by pitsaman:
Sigma 105 mm



At F2.8 with CPL filter ISO 100


Hey ! You changed the name,didn't recognize you, sorry !

Lot of selective burn /dodge and RGB channel level tweaking.
 08/31/2004 08:54:20 AM · #47
These are with an 85mm lens at about 4 feet. The DOF is very shallow...


11/27/2004 02:25:39 PM · #48
I've been re-reading this thread because tomorrow afternoon, a friend's son has volunteered his time to let me do some headshots of him.

This is a practice session for both of us, and I have some questions about which lens to use, and also questions about Kevyn Major Howard's setup per the video discussed in this thread.

I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. I plan on using both these lenses to see what they will do, but which one should I "rely" on the most? I see that Audrey (photomama) says that she uses her 50mm almost exclusively, but doesn't this mean that you have to get almost on top of your subject to get that tight of a head shot?

Per the KMH video: do you all think that the video actually shows "everything", ie: is it honest in the portrayal of ambient light ONLY? Judging by the photos in his portfolio, does it look like he may also use additional lighting?

Thanks, Linda
 11/27/2004 02:58:08 PM · #49
is the 70-200mm f:2.8 through the entire zoom?

i'd probably 'rely' on that if the image quality is as good as the 50mm.

2.8 @ 200mm will give you pretty shallow DOF, and a lot more working distance.

EDIT: plus you have the option of just zooming out to frame the shot - rather than move forward or backward to frame it.


Message edited by author 2004-11-27 14:59:25.
 11/27/2004 03:11:05 PM · #50
Originally posted by lhall:
I've been re-reading this thread because tomorrow afternoon, a friend's son has volunteered his time to let me do some headshots of him.

This is a practice session for both of us, and I have some questions about which lens to use, and also questions about Kevyn Major Howard's setup per the video discussed in this thread.

I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. I plan on using both these lenses to see what they will do, but which one should I "rely" on the most? I see that Audrey (photomama) says that she uses her 50mm almost exclusively, but doesn't this mean that you have to get almost on top of your subject to get that tight of a head shot?

Per the KMH video: do you all think that the video actually shows "everything", ie: is it honest in the portrayal of ambient light ONLY? Judging by the photos in his portfolio, does it look like he may also use additional lighting?

Thanks, Linda


He uses natural lighting with reflectors. Reflectors really can make a big difference.

I shot this practicing the KMH style of headshot using my 50mm f/1.8 lens. The only lighting here was a 40 watt light, camera left.



I also use my 18-70mm DX lens a lot for portraits, the DOF is just not as shallow. This was shot with the 18-70mm using natural sunlight from behind the model and a silver reflector below her.



As you can see, you can still get a nice catchlight in the eye using only natural lighting and reflectors.

Edit: added that I used the 50mm f/1.8 lens for the 1st photo and added quote from Linda

Message edited by author 2004-11-27 15:14:09.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/23/2025 07:31:24 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/23/2025 07:31:24 AM EDT.