Is one type of headshot trendier than the other right now? I'm seeing more outdoor headshots but don't know if this is the current norm.

Hey, Trish!

This is going to get heated quickly as it's a highly debated topic in forums like this. I would suggest that every actor does his research and choose what works for him/her.

Personally, I don't corner myself into one or the other. I prefer a balance. I have a large studio with very large windows that cover one wall. I blend natural light with minimal studio lighting for headshots when/if needed. However I'm an organic shooter. I do what works depending on several variables including skin tone, wardrobe, make-up, mood, etc.

Some photographers are black & white with this issue, choosing one or the other which I personally find debilitating in the long run. As for trends, they change every few months. Seriously, following trends will hurt you no matter what as they go out of style within 6 months and you're stuck with out of date headshots.

So choose a photography style you like and that will maximize your potential for securing auditions. That's all that matters in the end.

I would avoid anyone that disregards balance. If they are so adamant about being outdoors under harsh sunlight with no cover, that should send up a red flag. On the other end, if they will only do studio lighting at all costs, I would think twice there too. Find a photographer that wants what you want, the best shots possible under the lighting that works best for you and your needs.

Good luck!

quote:

Originally posted by trishaleigh:
Is one type of headshot trendier than the other right now? I'm seeing more outdoor headshots but don't know if this is the current norm.

Excellent question, Trisha.

Everything in headshots is subject to change.

First it was borderless prints. Then 3/4 shots. Then landscape cropping. Then color. Styles will forever evolve.

I believe the single reason outdoor headshots will always outnumber those shot indoors with studio lighting is simple... shooting outdoors doesn't require training, experience, or equipment-- or even a studio. All you need is a camera. That's the "good news." The "bad news" is that very few headshot photographers have truly mastered the art of shooting outside. Even under good conditions it can be a extremely challenging proposition. Great lighting, in my opinion, is all about CONTROL. When you shoot outside, you relinquish that critical responsibility to the sun, and when the sun refuses to cooperate, you can kiss any thought of getting a great headshot goodbye. Anyone who has suffered under a blinding hot sun, or under gray skies, or nearly frozen to death on some backstreet corner knows exactly what I mean.

When done correctly, outdoor light can be a thing of beauty. But when done incorrectly, it can be a total nightmare (notice the number of bad snapshots on this same board). But when I'm paying big money for a professional headshot, I don't want to hear alibis or excuses for why my pictures didn't come out perfectly, or why it had to rain on my only day off. I want predictable, reliable results, every time. I'm sure that many will disagree with me, but photographs never lie.

Compare, then decide.

www.robertkim.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0453647/

You can discuss the relative characteristics of indoor and outdoor lighting forever, but that can be extremely tedious and boring.

I prefer to demonstrate it.

The differences between sunlight and controlled studio lighting are immediately and dramatically apparent. You don't have to be a photography expert to notice it. From accurate and flattering skin tones to powerful visual impact, outdoor lighting simply can't compete with indoor lighting, 24-hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week, 365 days-a-year. Even if you're shooting during a Kansas snow storm at twelve o'clock midnight, studio lighting comes through every, single time.

Here are a few examples of the many things that can go terribly wrong when shooting outdoors with natural light (all of the "Before" photos were the actual headshots previously being used by these actors).

How many problems can you spot with the natural light shots? And how did studio lighting correct them?


Tom BEFORE:

Tom AFTER:

Price BEFORE:

Price AFTER:

Tripp BEFORE:

Tripp AFTER:


www.robertkim.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0453647/

thanks! I think I'm convinced and more comfortable now to go with my decision of indoor. The photographer I'm using has a more inexpensive 100 shot package where you have a choice of indoor OR outdoor and a more expensive, unlimited shot package with both indoor and outdoor. I knew I'd be doing the 100 shot package and now realize that outdoor only might be too much of a risk with only 100 shots. thanks for your help and the examples!

I would suggest the above examples as one opinion. As I mentioned, balance is key. I also know several photographers that use natural diffused light with brilliant results.

As I mentioned, beware of any photographer that won't bend or is so insistent on their way that it gets in the way of what you need and defeats the ultimate purpose.

I use both depending on the client's needs and my results are just fine. I'm not going to post my work here because this forum is about helping actors not soliciting our work. It boils down to research, not natural vs. studio light.

Do your homework, find a photographer that speaks to you personally and that you believe will help you succeed. That can be achieved with natural, studio or the balance of both. A professional knows how to work with natural light, you don't need a studio to be a professional headshot photographer with brilliant results. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Good luck

Thanks for posting these, Robert. What draws me to your work are alway s the eyes. In all your pictures the eyes are always the focal point of the shot. I could hardly believe the improvement on Toms photo!! The eyes on the Before look flat and dead and in the second shot he looked well, SEXY. but I liked the way you didn't retouch his wrinkles out- he still look very rugged. There were too many problems with the first one to even count, they even cut all his hair out. I can't believe that he was actually submitting this.
One question: Did Price have much retouching done? Her skin looks so flawless. I think seeing the actual difference between these two lighting styles was extremely helpful.
Nicole B.

quote:

Originally posted by MovieQueen:
One question: Did Price have much retouching done? Her skin looks so flawless. I think seeing the actual difference between these two lighting styles was extremely helpful.

Good question, Nicole.

Somewhere on the board her mother posted her DD's original files, without any retouching at all. You might want to compare them. All she did was remove a few stray hairs and correct the background only, that was pretty much it. Professional makeup can deliver wonderful results, with minimal retouching needed.

www.robertkim.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0453647/

quote:

Originally posted by ZampanoPhotography:
Do your homework, find a photographer that speaks to you personally and that you believe will help you succeed. That can be achieved with natural, studio or the balance of both. A professional knows how to work with natural light, you don't need a studio to be a professional headshot photographer with brilliant results. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Before I went to Robert, I went to Jinsey Dauk. At that time she was considered the number one headshot photographer in NY. She always uses natural light exclusively. In fact she even advertises her "beautiful view overlooking the Hudson River" and "the beautiful light streaming through her big picture windows." Bunk. If you're looking to buy her condo, that's a good description. But her work is crap. No only that, but she was $200. more expensive than Robert and her attitude was so bad that when it came time for me to select the final (lousy) headshots, she wouldn't even let me up her elevator, instructing me to "leave the proof sheets with the door man." Anyone who can't see the obvious difference between these two kinds of lighting is either brain dead or severely mislead. If you want to see the difference in mine, check out Mr. Kim's B&A webpage, the 2nd shot from the top. There is no comparison. -Joe C.

For every 1 bad shot you can show me under natural light I can show you 2 bad shots under studio light. You have missed my point entirely. Amatuers will never use natural light correctly. They will never use studio light correctly either. However, a solid, professional knows how to use natural light and studio light. There's no reason to suggest one is "better" than the other when both are used by exceptional headshot photographers nation-wide.

Silly.

Dear Silly.
You miss MY point. Just go to Jinsey Dauk's website. She was considered to be the top natural light headshot photographer in all of New York City for many years, specializing in diffused window light. She was far from being an "amateur," she was considered one of the best. What was "silly" was me paying her $800. for a mug shot that I couldn't even use. -Joe

ACTN, You ended up with a bad photographer. That does not mean all photographers using natural light are bad as your post would suggest. No big deal here, let's not get angry. I'm just suggesting that this is not a black & white issue. Thanks

I understand the vagaries of language. That's what I get paid for. You keep saying that I went to a "bad photographer." Dauk was the top dog in natural light photography at that time (incidentally, she used the exact set- up that you mentioned in your first post, "large windows that covered one wall") in fact, she was once featured in a popular acting book called "An Actors Guide Making It In New York" by Glen Alterman (until he found out how bad she was and removed any mention of her name in the next edition). That said, there are several things that natural light can NEVER do, irregardless of the ability of the photographer, i.e., I'm in court all day, every day, and I have my kids all weekend. Should I want to have shots taken at night, what could a natural light photographer do? Or what if it starts out a perfect shooting day then it quickly turns stormy and ugly, completely wrecking the session. Do you perform a "No Rain" dance? (I worked on a "Sex And The City" set in NYC when the exact same thing occurred). Everyone knows that there are bad outdoor shooters and bad indoor shooters, so you don't even have to go there (maybe Robert has some examples of bad studio shots he can share, too). I've seen a lot of outdoor headshots in my time, and I can't think of even one natural light guy who could compete with a good studio shooter, 24/7. After being photographed both ways, I'd never go back to natural light headshots again, I don't care who the photographer is -Joe C.

You had a bad experience. Clearly you are jaded on this subject. I know natural light photographers that would blow your mind. It's not their fault you had a bad session with a great photographer. Your one experience does not justify slamming all natural light headshots. It's a skill that some understand and some do not.

I know far more poor studio photographers over natural light ones. Just sayin'. Nothing is black and white and it's a shame you're unable to see past that in this case. Not sure why all the hostility has arised on this subject.

My point is simple, balance, balance, balance. There is no one answer to this. Both natural and studio light headshots can be fabulous if shot by a photographer that understands how to shoot under those conditions. This is a fact, not an opinion.

Each to his own I suppose

Good luck.

quote:

Originally posted by ZampanoPhotography:
You had a bad experience. Clearly you are jaded on this subject. I know natural light photographers that would blow your mind. It's not their fault you had a bad session with a great photographer. Your one experience does not justify slamming all natural light headshots.

I'm not being hostile, nor am I "jaded." I am simply stating a preference, based upon my own personal experience. I certainly didn't "have a bad session with a great photographer." Dauk has NEVER been a "great" photographer. It was my first headshot experience and I fell for the hype. Even Glen Alterman fell for her back story before learning his mistake, someone with considerably more industry experience than me. And I certainly never "SLAMMED ALL NATURAL LIGHT HEADSHOTS." You have a tendency to put words into people's mouths and make broad assumptions that are simply not indicated. I for one, do not appreciate it. -Joe C.