Beyond graduation portraits...

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I had two busy days at work yesterday and today taking headshots of candidates for our scholarship program. We had some 25 people going through the doors for their interviews, and my job was to snap their portraits for our archives and eventual press releases.

So I'm very proud to have achieved this so far:

35mm Portra 160NC, Nikkor 105mm at f/8, three strobes setup: main softbox on the right, background light behind, white reflector on the left, and hair light (feathered snoot) back right. Hair and main are at the same levels, and shadow side of face is at f5.6.

This is making all involved parties happy, me included, but now I'm wondering where can I go hence.

I'll be the first to admit it, it's nothing distinctive, and has a clear "graduation portrait" look to it. But I also had to take the portrait of 25 strangers, and had no time to get creative.

So what would you recommend to modernize the look a little? Again, we're not talking strongly individualized portraiture, of the kind galleries like to show, but rather modern prêt-à-porter for the young and professional.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

To start with, I'd bring the fill reflector closer, if you can, and angle it more around front to avoid the dark shadow in her right eye. As long as the lighting equipment is out of the frame, you can bring it in as close as you like, and the closer it is, the softer the effect.

Was this autofocus? Her shoulder is more in focus than the leading eye, which should be in focus.

 

[Dan Henderson]

there is nothing wrong with good, classic portraiture. I agree with David. I really like to see light in both eyes.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Well, if you wanted a really modern look, you could spike her hair, put a green gel on the main light and a red gel on the fill and cross process it. Maybe also temporarily tattoo a dashed line around her neck with the words "Cut Here."

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Hehe, postmodern is already too old I fear...

It was manual focus, and quite close so small errors occasionally crept in. But I thought many would prefer her to this otherwise correctly focused and more evenly lit candidate:

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Nice job of keeping the reflection off his glasses. I think that one's a better portrait.

For both of them, I'd put the head higher in the frame.

The DOF at f:8 gives a nice look, but if you've got to bang out 30 quick portraits, you could stop down one or two stops more to avoid focus problems and give yourself a little more flexibility. When I used to do 35mm headshots regularly, I was usually at f:16 or so, so that I could focus manually, use a motor drive and a long electric release, and interact with the subject without having to look through the viewfinder most of the time.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Yep, I was using the MD-12 with a remote as well to catch fleeting expressions faster. It worked most of the time, but when subjects moved in the frame, they could get a little out of focus.

Ideally I would like to have a few more feet of space between the background and the subject to use a smaller aperture, but with my background to one wall of the room, my camera is already less than six feet from the other wall.

I'm surprised (but pleased) that I didn't have problems with people wearing glasses. But then I don't use any direct light, so I guess the family of angles is to my advantage.

How did you interact with the subjects so that they keep their eyes on the lens?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'd say, "don't look at me; look at the lens."

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I'd say, "don't look at me; look at the lens."

I should have thought so... But I'm so attractive my subjects can't stop looking at me! Darn.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

... But I'm so attractive my subjects can't stop looking at me! Darn.

So that's why Karsh was so successful

Murray