First go at corporate type headshot - advice to improve..

MIKEROPHONICS

MIKEROPHONICS

Suspended / Banned
Messages
477
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
Dear "wise lighting sages",

My wife needed a corporate head shot for her companies website. I though, for a challenge I would have a newbie bash at this.
Here's the picture - with no editing at all (sooc).

I went for a clamshell type lighting effort, thinking it would be the most flattering (neither my wife or I are more than months away from 50).

I had an sb700 in my Neewer 60cm softball (thank you Phil V) overhead, and my Neewer 5-in reflector beneath Judy pointing back up (white side).
The hair light was from a gridded flash bender snoot on a high stand far right
The back wall was lit with a Lastolite McNally small portable softbox, balanced camera left (on the sofa arm) at about waist height, pointing obliquely right to the wall. There was a flash bender black flag to prevent spill back into the room or towards the lens.

Nikon d7000 (manual mode I think), 50mm f1.8D lens at f4 1/60sec, triggers were Yongnuo 622N with a TX as controller, flashes set to manual on the TX controller.
From memory, the overhead softbox was at 1/16, the highlight was at /132 and the wall light was at 1/32

Please advise me how I can make a better shot?

cheers MikeDSC_6229.jpg
 
Very briefly...
Get the high softbox a bit higher, a lot bigger and as close as possible
Put a light on her hair
Get her chin forward
Use a studio flash head, because your hotshoe flash won't fill a softbox of the size it needs to be (properly)
 
It's actually not bad for sooc.

I'm not sure why you used a softbox for the wall (it's badly underexposed). For my profile photo I shot a bare speedlight at a cream wall and ended up next to perfect white.

For PP here I'd just boost exposure and clean up the hairs. Not a bad effort at all!
 
The subtleties of posing aside.
As Garry said a bigger softbox would have been better*, but it's not bad at all. 1 minute in LR and 2 in Photoshop and it's close to perfect.

* catch 22, bigger than 60cm really needs a bit more height than a domestic ceiling and more than a speedlight to fill.
 
IMO, the main issue is the whole thing is underexposed (maybe your monitor is too bright?). I also think you needed more room between the BG and your BG light farther away/higher output.

Very quick edit... mostly exposure/gamma.
Untitled-1.jpg
 
Nice work Mike :thumbs:

I think some of the comments above are subjective. Raising the main light would reduce or lose the catchlights and they're just right IMHO. A larger or closer softbox would lighten the near-side of the face and reduce wrinkles, though she looks fine to me :) Maybe a touch of skin-smoothing in post? The hair light is well judged and has just lifted her shoulder nicely, though I'd maybe prefer it on the other side? If you wanted a stronger hair effect, you could either turn the light up or turn the background light down to darken it. Not too much though or you'll glam things up too much for a corporate look.

Processing is really just tweaking to personal taste, though the background is slightly green. The screen background I have on TP's 'evening' setting is a light neutral grey tone, and the background in LightRoom is neutral mid-grey. They're both handy references for neutrality that work independently of screen calibration; in other words, adjust colour so it matches the background and you know it's neutral regardless. Another way of doing that is to turn the image to black & white and if the tint doesn't change then it's neutral.

Your speedlites are turned down quite low, which makes me wonder if the ISO is higher than it needs to be. And why 1/60sec? If you want to address some of the subtleties of studio lighting, you'll learn more, and more quickly, by using studio heads with modelling lamps :)
 
All comments about lighting (and photography in general) are always subjective, because it isn't really a science and all opinions are equally valid.
I think you've made some good, valid points, but I disagree about the softbox size because a larger softbox would not only flatter the complexion (it's always better to do the best possible in camera rather than rely entirely on PP) but would also allow it to be higher without positioning the catchlights too high.
 
sorry - been swamped with work

Thank you all for your help

UAEexile: The wall is farrow and ball antique white (which has quite a green-ish tint).
I have no idea why I used a softbox on the wall light - I suspect I should have gone bare bulb and zoomed out as you indicted - thanks for the tip, My natural bent is darker & more edgy, but I think the corporate peeps like white and bright

Gary and Phil V: I have a vaulted ceiling and plenty of room, but no studio lights. Much of my attempts at OCF has to be run and gun with the impatient family outside, so I went with speed lights after reading Syl Arena's excellent book and reading the Strobist 101. But I can see that maybe I will have to go down the studio light avenue also (when I have the funds).

Could the pose have been better?

I have the room and height for a much larger modifier, but so far have just bought what the speedlight can handle.

SK66 & juggler: agreed it is underexposed - I just looked at the picture on the back of the camera and not the histogram (heat of battle - I was allowed 10 minutes!). I just fire a test shot at 1/16 and see how it looks and just adjust - everything in manual.


HoppyUK: my iso was 320 I think - should I stick to 100 and run the speed lights hotter?

I did try a more traditional softbox at 45 degree type shot, but thought the paramount clam thing would be more flattering (as well as new to me, so worth a go..).
Here are my more traditional softbox at 45 degree attempts (SOOC & quick edit)

DSC_6209.jpg DSC_6209 edit.jpg
 
Yes, to optimise image quality, shoot at lowest ISO, so push the flash power up. The only caveat there is with speedlites at full power, recycle times can get frustratingly long. With portraiture, expressions can be be very brief and fleeting, changing by the second. And with kids, sometimes never to return ;) So when the image is looking good, I shoot loads, very quickly. Even shooting as fast as you can go, every frame will be different. 1/125sec is a good default shutter speed for flash, or right up to max x-sync if the ambient light level is high.

Garry's comment above about a bigger/higher softbox is valid, and another thing about bigger, softer light is it's much more tolerant of subject position and the angle of the face. That gives you more options, gives the sitter more freedom, and helps the session to flow if you're not stopping all the time to adjust things. Lighting and all the technical stuff is important of course, but it's the subject and your interaction with them to bring out the best, that really makes the picture.
 
Just to add to the last 2 images, when lighting at 45deg I'd use short rather than broad lighting as its more flattering.
 
I'm not so sure I would worry about keeping ISO minimum because you are using rather small/weak lights/modifiers... in order for that to look the best (for this type of shot) you generally need to use it to just push the ambient exposure (add to the lighting, not primary lighting).

To add to Phil's comments... there are two "rules" with that. "Never broad light a broad." And if you are going to create a gradient to the BG, the dark BG side goes behind the lighter subject side.

but rules aren't really rules...
 
Phil V said:
Just to add to the last 2 images, when lighting at 45deg I'd use short rather than broad lighting as its more flattering.
Click to expand...
For the avoidance of doubt, short lighting is lighting the short side of the subject, leaving the long side in shadow. Broad lighting is lighting the long side of the subject, leaving the short side in shadow.
What this means in portrait lighting is lighting the part of the face that is less visible, and one of the great benefits of this is that it makes fat wide faces look slim.
However, your wife's face isn't wide, and she's almost square on to camera anyway, so it's a bit academic.
But short or broad lighting would, as Phil points out, sometimes help if the lighting is coming from the side - I tend to light from above, it generally looks more natural and is more flattering anyway.
 
Hi Mike, my comments aren't based on expertise, simply as someone looking at the images.

1. Whilst the lighting of your first image may - in theory - be more flattering, the way you've posed your model isn't as effective as the second capture you posted (the pair where you've broad lit).
2. Although under-exposed, you need to be aware of shiny skin and making highlights too hot - this is something I struggle with. I've found a luminance of 92% (to get precise!) is a good upper limit for any skin tones. Depending on the image, this often corresponds to over-increasing the exposure until you get blown highlights on the face and then dialling it down by 2.5 stops (YMMV). Your edit of the second picture is definitely too hot to my eyes - on her right cheek and forehead.
3. At f/4 and 1/60 you're letting in a bit of ambient, especially at ISO320. As others have said, speedlights have their limitations but if you want a "flash lit" shot/style then perhaps up your shutter speed and, if possible, reduce your ISO or aperture. The latter has the benefit of getting more of your subject in focus if that's what you want - I'll often shoot at f/8 unless I want a "dreamy" look in which case I'll open right up. I think conventional wisdom, however, dictates you set your aperture based on metering off your light (at fixed power), but I usually have time on my hand, so I personally fix my aperture and the dial my light up/down. Smaller aperture also helps reduce the risk of last minute subject movement causing missed focus.
4. Personally, I much prefer your second SOOC shot - out of all the images on this thread. I like the lighting, even if it's less conventional (per the above comments - I never knew that catchy little rule Steven!)

Cracking effort for a newbie attempt though (y) My first ones were an utter disaster (and haven't got much better!)
 
I know we are all perfectionists, but corporate head-shots are those tiny-weeny little photographs on websites, aren't they? I doubt you'd see shiny skin, wrinkles or ISO noise on them.

I prefer the first attempt. Though maybe don't ask her to smile?
 
Cistron said:
I know we are all perfectionists, but corporate head-shots are those tiny-weeny little photographs on websites, aren't they? I doubt you'd see shiny skin, wrinkles or ISO noise on them.

I prefer the first attempt. Though maybe don't ask her to smile?
Click to expand...


It depends. They're also used in corporate publications, maybe magazine articles and possibly many other things to. Assuming a small web res photo would be a mistake
 
Thanks . I am picking up loads of tips at this. I don't like hotspots on the skin either and will watch out for those more in future.
Its funny the opinion about short or board lighting is very divided. I posted a shot up once on TP where I had a go at short lighting as I thought it would be more atmospheric and moody for the chap who wanted to look "windswept and interesting". Most people were asking why I had short lit that one.....

I have had another go at a portrait. I hope I am not over asking too much here. My Dad (who is 80 this year) wanted a portrait for his memoirs, We had all the usual shots of him as a Canon in the cathedral etc or sailing (his main hobby), but he wanted "a family taken affair" that showed him as person (no tall order!). Friday was sunny evening in Twickenham, so we popped down with softbox (camera right) and reflector (camera left) into the alley for some warm dappled backlight. Here's the result. It's not sooc but an edit.

I found the backlight very bright and hard to control. I had my softbox high (ish) on a stand at 45, and I struggled to get enough out of the reflector fill, so I think I had my son hold a flash in front of it to boost the fill._DSC6317.jpg

1/50sec f13 Lens 85mm f1.8D Nikon d7000
 
•


Important is the exposure (as noted by Steven) and
make sure that the hair, clothes etc are sitting right
as "corporate" means representation and that too
is important.

When it comes to your lighting, no bells or whistles
is a good strategy but some warmer tones too.
 
Hi Mike

Again, comments as a "viewer" rather than a photographer...

+ Good engagement and eye contact - he looks like an interesting person with an interesting story to tell. Which is the most important bit!

- Looks to me like you've slightly front focused? His eyebrows and middle of moustache are sharp, the hairs at the corners of his mouth less so (which is about where his eyes will be, depth-wise?)

- Hair along his left side of head above ear is blown? In fact, the skin and whole area there looks to have too much light, perhaps

+ However, good separation from light on his shoulders and left side of chin/face so it's swings & roundabouts

If you're struggling to control the natural light from the backlighting, why are you shooting at 1/50? You've closed down your aperture which affects both ambient and flash but you're letting a lot of ambient in with that slow a shutter speed. Use the shutter speed as the control on ambient by raising it to 1/200 or thereabouts if necessary...
 
Comments as a "photographer" rather than a viewer...
I agree with the viewer, because although I could take up all of the TP bandwidth with a very long post telling you all about the technicallities, none of it matters for this type of portrait.
The photo of your dad does the job perfectly, because his character (as well as his physical appearance) comes across perfectly - what more could be achieved?

As for internet comments on lighting, most in my experience can be safely ignored:)
 
I ignore nothing. A wise and wealthy man taught me that econnaissance is never wasted. It all goes in my "melting pot of advice".
I tutor many people in post production sound (as a BAFTA member), the good ones learn and apply with their own sauce of inspiration.... I was lucky to learn from some of the best at the BBC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top