I'm moving in a little bit of a different direction with my actor headshots. As awful as last week was with Hurricane Sandy and my wife, our 3 week old son and I jumping around from place to place waiting for power and heat, I needed a break to start to absorb some thoughts and ideas I've had lately. This is moving in the right direction for me and I'm definitely psyched to see where it goes from here. Thanks for looking.

Jeff

Great work. Killer light.

Looks brilliant.

very nice

well done

Nice. Dramatic.

I like it!

very nice.

i see some gradation on the "fake" vignette/ backdrop (nut sure you helped it in software or it was because of light) it decreases the impact of the image though...

also it seems that it was shot quite close up (70-80mm?), hence the eyes difference. Such portraits look much better when shot with longer lens or at least subject is instructed to look beyond your lens, not directly at it. 300mm is good starting point more the better.

Thanks guys!

Thanks Kitty! Here's my take on the points you mentioned. Of course my opinion only -

-The gradation is so annoying, but it's only in the web file and the vignette is a product of light falloff.

-This was shot with a 120mm macro on an MF body and the actor's head was turned slightly camera right causing any difference in the size of the eyes, but I'm not completely sure what you were getting at there. The proximity of the subject to the lens is due to the purpose of the shot. I'm not sure it would be too fun to type out an explanation from my ipad as to why this is done, but it is very much within the parameters of an actor's headshot. I posted a shot the other day that would possibly be more up your alley. The second an actor looks away from the lens the shot fails, so definitely a no no. If you are shooting actor headshots, please don't let your subject break away from the camera! Lastly 300mm in my opinion is WAY too long for this type of shot. If I was shooting this on my Nikon I'd have used my 70-200 at about 135mm in the studio, but 300mm? I'm not sure there's a person on the planet that wants to be photographed close up with a 300mm and I think being far enough to fill the frame is too far from the subject. It would break my connection with them. I'm a huge fan of compression for outdoor shots, but there's really no reason in the studio. I actually shot quite a few from this session with a 50 on an M9 too and it looked great =)

Cheers,
Jeff

Very, very nicely done!

Just went to your site.Very nice work and a nice looking site

Jeff, i respect you as a photographer, was just my opinion, my take on it.
Good that the gradation is only on jpeg. I seen adobe to introduce a lot of gradation and discoloring, never seen it from a MF body. only small cameras. Wouldnt guessed you used MF body for it (so bad it looks to my eyes - technical geek, ignore it).

I didnt meant size of eyes, but that he looks with each eye at different spot. Even if i look at it from 10ft i still have not have this eye contact as i would have being 3m from him. I use for closeups almost exclusively 300-600mm lenses. On MF body i dont have so big lens, my longest is 150, which converts to about 80mm so i always tell the people to just look beyond me and wait for my moment. I shift camera and look at them from 3-5m away. This one was how far? Perspective breaks the eye contact for me.
Please also take it as IMO only, you are not a newbie and you might be exactly getting what i am missing.

just a discussion point, not meant to change your style or tell you i know more.

I totally get it and didn't take what you said in a negative =) Wasn't taking it personally at all.

I'm still not seeing his eyes looking at different spots though. Both pupils are locked in on the center of the lens. I want them looking right into the lens for every shot that could potentially land on a Casting Director's desk. The hassy 120 macro works out to about 85mm in 35mm format. I was about 5ft from him on this particular shot.

I added a little grain in the affected areas, which seems to help with web. I keep forgetting to do that

Seem better?

Hi,

Quick Comment: Nice photo. Good job.

yep, seems to help a bit, does not drives my attention even when i know about it

Huh, that grain makes more difference than I thought it would. Good call adding it to the web-res image.

Background thunder grey seamless?

Looks like a single softbox feathered off to the shadow side and maybe tilted a bit? Interesting choice, and I like the depth. You say you're going in a bit of a different direction. What are you chasing?

Thanks Steady and Ian.

Ian, the main was a gridded strip and I threw a 10 degree grid on the background light behind his head. The background is actually just a white wall in my studio.

Cheers,
Jeff

OH! I can see the grid in there now (really only in the camera-right eye). Nice. So it only looks angled because of the curvature of the eye, I guess. Fun game. Thanks.

Jeff,

I like this look a lot, but I'm curious as to how you think it's received among casting agents, as compared to more open looks.

Hey Steve,

Can you elaborate on what you consider to be a more open look? Are you referring to a more traditional natural light shot or solid background?

Whenever any of my clients have chosen a more dramatic lighting shot like this it's actually gone over really well. We as photographers might look at the light or background and scrutinize over every detail, but most casting directors are looking at type and expression. What I'm always striving to do is get the actor to stand out in a way that enhances that.