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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Interesting Headshot Photographer
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 53, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/26/2004 12:03:59 PM · #1
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.
 08/26/2004 12:11:43 PM · #2
Eyes are too light (overdodged) !
 08/26/2004 12:13:13 PM · #3
i like them, wish i could take some portrait shots like that
 08/26/2004 12:16:48 PM · #4
Nice portraits. Note to self... nearly every model is looking up from below the camera.
 08/26/2004 12:19:23 PM · #5
John, thanks so much for posting that link! Not only are the headshots outstanding, watching the video was insightful!
 08/26/2004 12:22:09 PM · #6
Interesting shots.

I like his compositions. He captures good features without blowing out details, he moves some strong elements (generally the eyes) to thirds lines or intersections of thirds lines, he has sufficient DoF for the viewer to see his subject while maintaining a creamy background that doesn't distract. All those parts of his composition show that some thoughts and practice (or training) are being implemented throughout his work. I like that he's mastered a particular style of lighting as well as an angle of approach. It doesn't lock him in to doing only those shots but it seems to be that he would have to exhibit some measure of consistency and dedication to become as proficient as he seems to be at shooting down at a subject the way he does and capturing the quality of images as are seen on his site. If he's into photography as an outlet besides having some business doing headshots then I'm sure he has other styles that he tries but its nice to see someone master a technique and begin to expand on it.

Thanks for sharing a link to his work.

sotto voce: "Someone who consults for web business could probably help him with a more dynamic presentation, though", said the man with a single page and 2 links.

Kev
 08/26/2004 12:29:07 PM · #7
Wow, that's awesome. Thanks so much!
 08/26/2004 12:57:58 PM · #8
If you look closely, you can see the photographer in the catchlight reflections on many of the shots.

Message edited by author 2004-08-26 12:58:25.
 08/26/2004 01:06:07 PM · #9
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?
 08/26/2004 01:41:26 PM · #10
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?


I have seen that before. That could put an end to the "No honey, of course I wasn't looking at her." BS.
 08/26/2004 01:48:04 PM · #11
With our very high megapx cams and good lenses, we could easily zoom in to people's eyes and do a collage of eyes that close to see what everyone is looking at. I think i might try that someday.

I like this guy's work, the LA photographer. I see exhibits at arclight a lot from local Hollywood photographers and i am always impressed. I love natural light too!
 08/26/2004 01:53:02 PM · #12
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?


I spent an instructive hour looking through the adverts in 'instyle' magazine (hey, it was a long flight)

You can certainly tell a lot about the lighting set up by looking in the eyes. Of particular interest was an 'anti-aging' /anti-wrinkle cream ad. From the eye reflections, you could see two vertical strip lights on either side of the model, an umbrella/ softbox above, and another reflector/ softbox below - giving a perfect, flat, wrinkle free lighting...

Obviously not entirely dishonest but was interesting to note.
 08/26/2004 01:57:42 PM · #13
I bet it would be tough to take good pictures of stunning models...

The photography is good, but most of those people have probably never had a bad photo taken of them :)

08/26/2004 01:58:37 PM · #14
They're nice, the pupils are freaky as mentioned before..anyone know why?

I just think it'd be soooo boring to shoot headshots all the time, the same stuff over and over. But they do look great :-)
And shooting from slightly higher than your subject is almost guaranteed to slim out the person..comes in handy when doing wedding photography with a plump bride who doesn't want to look ginormous in photos.
 08/26/2004 01:58:45 PM · #15
Originally posted by louddog:
I bet it would be tough to take good pictures of stunning models...

The photography is good, but most of those people have probably never had a bad photo taken of them :)


Pick up a copy of "hello" or "Ok!" or any of the supermarket tabloids on your way out if you want to see plenty of bad photos of similarly stunning models...
 08/26/2004 01:59:46 PM · #16
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
They're nice, the pupils are freaky as mentioned before..anyone know why?

Because they are all taken outside... where it is quite bright compared to any indoor studio... so the pupils contract to tiny little black dots.

Message edited by author 2004-08-26 14:00:15.
 08/26/2004 02:01:45 PM · #17
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
They're nice, the pupils are freaky as mentioned before..anyone know why?


Looks like they are shot in really bright light - or have at least been looking towards bright lights. Not squinting, so I assume they must have just looked away ? From the description, they are shot in open shade.

Also, the eyes have been brightened quite a bit in post production by the looks of things - another common technique as your eye is attracted to the brightest part of any scene - brightening the eye sockets and eyes focuses the attention there - though it seems pretty heavy handed in this cases. Could also be just a lot of light directed/ bounced into the eye socket - to get the small pupils and bright areas. If that's the case he has a lot of subjects in his portfolio with extremely watery looking irises.

Edit: looking at the video, he brings them from inside a dark garage and situates them looking out towards reasonably bright daylight, with a reflector under the face - so the scene is going to be quite bright for them - hence the slight squint and small pupils.

Message edited by author 2004-08-26 14:11:21.
 08/26/2004 02:05:41 PM · #18
I know this photographers work well.

I don't believe he lightens the eyes during post processing. When a photographer knows natural light well, you can position your subject so that the light falls correctly on the person your photographing. He is in open directional light. I can clearly see that.

The eyes of my subjects are often bright, and clear (and I only shoot with natural light)...with no post processing work. If I did that to all of my portraits, I would be editing forever, and I don't have the time to do that, and I would guess neither does this photographer.

Thanks for sharing his work!

~Audrey

//www.alwphotography.com
 08/26/2004 02:13:47 PM · #19
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
They're nice, the pupils are freaky as mentioned before..anyone know why?

Because they are all taken outside... where it is quite bright compared to any indoor studio... so the pupils contract to tiny little black dots.


i learned an interesting solution to that from some of my models that had worked with professional photographers...when shooting in bright light (in or outdoors) have your model close their eyes until right before you shoot. this way you can generally catch the pupil midway between being dilated and contracted, thereby giving the eye a more natural, relaxed and more attractive look.

interestingly too, i read an article once that talked about studies done on photographs indicated that the larger the pupil, the more attractive the subject appeared to the viewer. conversely, when the researchers manipulated the photographs and reduced the size of the pupils, the subjects were found to be less attractive.
 08/26/2004 02:19:35 PM · #20
Originally posted by Photomama:


I don't believe he lightens the eyes during post processing. When a photographer knows natural light well, you can position your subject so that the light falls correctly on the person your photographing. He is in open directional light. I can clearly see that.


I went back and had another look, along with the video. I'd tend to agree with what you are saying here. What makes them look unnaturally bright is that you can see the open sky reflecting across the top half of the eyeball and then the large reflector reflecting across the bottom half of the eyeball. So much of a bright, light reflection from both sides really washes out the eye and all the texture at least I'm used to seeing. so they are very arresting and attention grabbing, along with the shallow DoF (just the eyes, fall-off by the ears) but they look quite unnatural. I see a lot of similar looking lighting in your great portfolio of images, particularly on a lot of the children.

Though actually, if you follow through the web site, they do pretty much retouch the eyes of every headshot and have specific options for that in their pricing structure. It seems likely that the portfolio samples, being the best possible work, have had this done.

Message edited by author 2004-08-26 14:38:29.
 08/26/2004 02:35:12 PM · #21
Here a quick PS of one of his images. Which do you prefer pupil wise.


I prefer the larger pupils, but for his style of shooting there is no way around the small pupils unless you do the closing the eye method as someone mentioned before. But that seems like a pain to have your subject close their eyes everytime before you take their pic.
 08/26/2004 02:35:50 PM · #22
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by louddog:
I bet it would be tough to take good pictures of stunning models...

The photography is good, but most of those people have probably never had a bad photo taken of them :)


Pick up a copy of "hello" or "Ok!" or any of the supermarket tabloids on your way out if you want to see plenty of bad photos of similarly stunning models...


yeah, but they still look better then most photos taken of me in those mags!
 08/26/2004 02:51:07 PM · #23
Originally posted by Gordon:
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?


I spent an instructive hour looking through the adverts in 'instyle' magazine (hey, it was a long flight)

You can certainly tell a lot about the lighting set up by looking in the eyes. Of particular interest was an 'anti-aging' /anti-wrinkle cream ad. From the eye reflections, you could see two vertical strip lights on either side of the model, an umbrella/ softbox above, and another reflector/ softbox below - giving a perfect, flat, wrinkle free lighting...

Obviously not entirely dishonest but was interesting to note.


You can tell a great deal about how something was shot by looking at the reflections on shiny surfaces (eyes, glass, polished metal etc) Sometimes they do retouch or add highlights, but in general this is a good way to get a start on how pros light some stuff.

Ringlights used to be pretty common for fashion shots because they give a nice flat light. They leave a telltale donut shaped catchlight in the eye. Umbrellas leave a pointed star shape while softboxes and rectangular reflectors leave rectangular catchlights.

It's an interesting exercise to try deciphering the lighting setup used for a shot based on the reflections and the shadows. Even better is if you have the lighting equipment and then try to replicate the shot using the light setup you derived from the original shot. I did this exercise several times in my product photography classes.
 08/26/2004 03:03:40 PM · #24
Originally posted by smokeditor:
Here a quick PS of one of his images. Which do you prefer pupil wise.


I prefer the larger pupils, but for his style of shooting there is no way around the small pupils unless you do the closing the eye method as someone mentioned before. But that seems like a pain to have your subject close their eyes everytime before you take their pic.

Jeez, I can tell the difference in the thumbnail of your comparison that I like the bigger pupils better. It makes the photo above look absolutely alien.
 08/26/2004 05:48:51 PM · #25
Originally posted by smokeditor:
Here a quick PS of one of his images. Which do you prefer pupil wise.


I prefer the larger pupils, but for his style of shooting there is no way around the small pupils unless you do the closing the eye method as someone mentioned before. But that seems like a pain to have your subject close their eyes everytime before you take their pic.


I prefer the bottom one of the two...but I feel the pupils are little too large in the second one. The way he does eyes is weird...they are much too light.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 10:09:29 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 10:09:29 PM EDT.