I recently stumbled across the website for self-proclaimed Hollywood headshot guru Kevin Major Howard. He apparently has an ego the size of California and I know he isn't too popular in the business. However, he uses an interesting approach to headshots. Basically, he shoots them with available light in his cluttered garage. He uses what looks to be a piece of foamcore in front of the model to fill in and that's it.
All controversy about him aside, I tried that approach last week with my 12-year-old granddaughter. This is the result. I'm not a professional but I have been paid for my work. This approach delivers nice colors, pleasing light and is free. I have portable lights and strobes but aren't we all trying to duplicate natural light with all this? I've shown this to some parents and they are interested.
Back to my original question . . . does this work. Please feel free to offer constructive criticism. Thanks for looking.
Speaking only about the lighting, I think what you did worked out really well. It is difficult to beat light from a big window and a reflector to balance out the shadows. You can duplicate this light in the studio but why. The nice thing about a window and a reflector is that you can actually see what you are going to get and move the model or the reflector a bit to make it perfect.
There are things you can not do with window light but for standard portrait or head shot it does a great job.
John:
Thanks for the comments. Just to clarify, if it makes any difference, this is not window light. I positioned her inside the garage just far enough so that there was no direct sunlight falling on her. I guess you could call it ambient light and then the foamcore filled in from the bottom.
I love working with natural light, and I totally think this works. My only cc is your pp has done something strange to the colors on her hands, her teeth are so white they're blown & the bracelet is distracting. But your focus is lovely and I like the light.
And yup the light is free and lovely, but like most free & lovely things - it's capricious. Part of the challenge is making that capricious character work for you, of course. The allure to studio for me is the ability to lengthen my shooting hours beyond what Mother Nature will give me in a WI winter.
I've seen and been admiring his work for years now. I don't know much about the business out there, and what others think of him, but his work speaks volumes.
I like his technique a lot. I've been shooting portraits with available light with foam core or cardboard reflectors for a long time before I saw his work - so seeing his set up gave me some inspiration for improvement. The beauty about shooting in the shade with available light is the lack of harsh shadows, yet you still get plenty of light. The reflector gives you even more control over the tones within the shadows. It's great because I started with 1 lens, 1 film body, no flash, and not much money at all, and that was the cheapest and best way to go. Even now that I have nicer lenses, flashes, monolights, etc., I still prefer to shoot that way because of how smooth and natural everything is.
Like you said, why spend so much money on fancy equipment that tries to duplicate natural sunlight while you can get the genuine, real sunlight right outside for free? (the only drawback is limitations to shooting during daylight hours, and may be affected by weather, privacy, etc.)
beautiful girl. the lighting is nice, i like it. I dont think the teeth were blown actually, i think it was perfect. the only thing is if you can show a bit more of the hands and the bracelet it will be perfect. i think the hand do look a bit odd with the way it is framed in the picture.
tchan748 wrote:
beautiful girl. the lighting is nice, i like it. I dont think the teeth were blown actually, i think it was perfect. the only thing is if you can show a bit more of the hands and the bracelet it will be perfect. i think the hand do look a bit odd with the way it is framed in the picture.
I have to a agree with the composition comments. Good critique. Showing the hands would help a lot. Alternatively, crop above them.
OTOH, there is no question that the teeth are blown out. When in doubt, check the histogram.
The question isn't whether they are blown out or not, it is whether they look good as shown. I find the teeth do attract the eye too much due to their brightness.
Regarding "the blown" teeth. Because of the contrast of the exposure doesn't this become a question of what do you want exposed properly in the image? If the teeth were less exposed then the whole image would be darker and you would lose the exposure on the eye's etc. So if your goal is to properly expose her eye's skin, etc don't you have to sacrifice some highlights in the teeth?
Thank you for posting this image. I really like natural light shots, and I think you have done a great job on this one. Simple set up makes it all the better. Can you clarify where you placed the foamcore? Thank you
Thanks for the constructive comments on this. I'm a big fan of natural light as well. I may have gone a little overboard on her teeth but she has a bit of a problem due to some medication taken when she was younger. I understand the hand concern and will correct that with a crop. This image is full frame so I just left everything intact.
As for the foamcore, Jack it was placed just below her hands with the end farthest away tilted upward. As I said, she was in shade in the garage, the light is ambient and reflected off the foamcore. I was really pleased with the overall light as I thought it was even and natural. Nothing dramatic but I think effective.
Richard Booth wrote:
I recently stumbled across the website for self-proclaimed Hollywood headshot guru Kevin Major Howard. ...he uses an interesting approach to headshots. Basically, he shoots them with available light in his cluttered garage. He uses what looks to be a piece of foamcore in front of the model to fill in and that's it.
Richard
He and thousands of others. He's not the first to use this technique. I looked at his site. What a twit!
Your photo works fine! She's a cutey. I agree with others, the PP could be toned down a smidge, but if it works for you, go for it!
While you're having fun playing with this lighting style, get some black panels (eg foamcore with black velvet glued to one side) and play with subtractive lighting. You can use them on one or both sides to get some directionality. Give it a try. You can also use them as flags to block the light, such as on the hands. That will take some fiddling, though. Maybe your model will agree to pose for you again.
Richard, regarding your comment about not using natural light from a window -- it's never direct sunlight, that's why it's an indoor shot instead of outdoor. Whenever someone says they're shooting a portrait using light from a window, they are talking about indirect light. Pretty much exactly as you did in the garage.
I thought it was a lovely photo of a pretty model, nice use of natural and reflected lighting.
Thanks again for the comments and suggestions. I will give the subtractive lighting a try. Never would have thought of that. As for the origin of this technique, no question it wasn't invented in California. I tried this myself in a much more crude fashion with my old Pentax years ago.
What amazes me about this guy is that he reportedly gets well over $1000 per session for this . . . and he's shooting in his garage. It goes to prove that marketing yourself is equally, if not more important than technical or creative ability. The fact that he is working with "beautiful" people to begin with certainly helps.
Overall it is nice. I would like to see less brightness ( bright patches) on the chin and her left side of the blouse. Moving her back a little may have given you even softer light. Just a way to get a smoother look. The background shadow is also something to watch for.
As for getting $1000.00 for a session. I wish more photographers would charge what they feel they are worth. Good for him!
allstarimaging wrote:
Regarding "the blown" teeth. Because of the contrast of the exposure doesn't this become a question of what do you want exposed properly in the image? If the teeth were less exposed then the whole image would be darker and you would lose the exposure on the eye's etc. So if your goal is to properly expose her eye's skin, etc don't you have to sacrifice some highlights in the teeth?
...snip some text ...
Thank you
Jack
Jack the answer is no, you don't have to blow the exposure on the teeth. Yes, the rest of the face will get less light, but the dynamic range of the sensor usually is enought to cover the portrait. (We don't see many portraits with blown teeth, do we?)
When you want to increase exposure on the face but not the teeth, there are various ways to do that in Photoshop.
As I mentioned in a previous post, we want to avoid the blown whites of the teeth because they are unnaturally bright and they become a distraction in the portrait.
jfinite, I'm up WAY past my bedtime and it's because of your posts. I'm going to have to use that "Hatorade" comment...
Those of you who have never been to Hollywood have no idea how big a deal it is to make a big deal about yourself. You have to have a huge ego, because the town WILL eat you up. KMH shoots and gets paid, and apparently his clients get paid too. There are thousands of working actors and actresses out there, and while not all of them are Brad Pitt, there are still thousands making a great living.
My only cc is your pp has done something strange to the colors on her hands, her teeth are so white they're blown & the bracelet is distracting. But your focus is lovely and I like the light. 
