The lawyer asked the witness, "Where were you when the lights went out?" The witness replied, "In the dark."

That’s exactly where many actors are when it comes to the subject of photography, particularly on the subject of lighting.

Which is better for headshots, natural light or studio light? Is there really a difference? This continues to be one of the most hotly debated and misunderstood topics in headshot photography. So, as promised “showbizhopeful,” here are my opinions on the benefits of both.

For those new to this board, I’m a professional photographer with studios in New York and California. I am a vocal advocate for shooting headshots in the studio, as opposed to outdoors with sunlight (“natural light”). Photographers who prefer to use studio lighting do it out of choice, those who shoot outdoors or use the sun as their primary light source usually have to. They just stand the actor in front of a window or under a tree, click the shutter, and… Voila! Your new headshot is done. As “citychik” so accurately pointed out (read: “Digital or film????”), most natural light shooters simply don’t have the experience or equipment necessary -- much less the studio -- to shoot studio headshots effectively. I ought to know. Many years ago, that’s how I began my first headshot business in LA, with a second hand tripod and a borrowed Pentax camera on my mother’s front lawn.

It’s taken me a small fortune and half a lifetime to learn how to shoot headshots effectively using artificial light. Was all that effort worth it? I vastly prefer to let my actual photographs answer that question (all of the “before” headshot examples on my website were taken by headshot photographers of every competence level -- from rank amateurs to the biggest names in natural light photography, representing the most recognized professionals in the industry). But before considering or discussing either lighting method, I believe that only a photographer with experience in BOTH disciplines is truly qualified to provide advice on the relative benefits of each in any fair and balanced way (can a food expert give an accurate critique of Chinese food without ever having tried it?).

The main reason I recommend studio lighting for headshots is very simple: Consistency. Anyone who has ever suffered from “squinty eyes” on an overly bright day or stood in the blowing wind of autumn or the freezing cold of winter or the stifling heat of summer or gotten caught in an unexpected rain storm recognizes the hazards of shooting outdoors all too well. When the day comes when I can guarantee that every shooting day will be a perfect day, I’ll sell my studio and all of the lighting equipment in it.

You’ve heard me say many times, “Whatever works.” Natural light has many appealing qualities, especially if you’re fortunate enough to be photographed by someone expert at controlling the constantly changing moods of the sun, every single day. I’ve seen hundreds of memorable photographs taken outdoors (Ansel Adams is a favorite) and when used correctly, natural light excels in certain areas of photography. But you can never, ever count on the weather to do what you want it to do 100% of the time. Shooting indoors totally eliminates that problem. Here’s why.

Mother Nature can be a very fickle mistress. When you’re paying a lot of money for something that could make or break your career, I wouldn’t want to rely on her to determine the final outcome of my headshots. During a movie shoot, when a scene is ruined by the weather, you can retreat to the comfort of a “cover set” to get that all-important shot. But if the same thing happens during your headshot session, you have no other option but to cancel and re-schedule, losing an entire day of shooting -- and quite possibly blowing your only day off in the process -- not exactly an equitable trade-off, in my opinion.

Photography is, and always will be based largely upon individual experience and subjectivity. But make no mistake, there are major differences between the two, all of them having significant consequences for the actor. In a business where a successful career can be determined in a second, your headshot’s ability to make that critical first impression is absolutely essential. I believe that a photograph should make the strongest and most memorable impression possible in the shortest amount of time, without compromising the essential character of the actor.

When I was a beginner new to the business with virtually no experience, no lighting equipment and no studio, natural light was my only alternative. But as an informed actor, you have a choice. How do you make an informed decision? You’ll be happy to know that you don’t have to have the trained eye of a professional photographer to notice the difference. Simply compare headshots of the same actor, side-by-side -- one taken outside and one done inside. Not to mention the obvious problems encountered with shooting outdoors, natural light tends to severely flatten the face and create dull, lifeless skin tones, especially on overcast days.

When you’ve experienced the obvious and dramatic differences between headshots done both ways, there will be little doubt remaining as to the best option for you.

“Whatever works.”

www.robertkim.com

I agree 100% with Robert on this issue. Having a studio for photography as opposed to using the light of mother nature only offers you more in terms of controlling the environment of your photos. Using the studio, you can manipulate lighting, shading, and the effects of the space with much more ease and CONSISTENCY. The sun is a wonderful source of light, but in a photo, it can wash out your face, and make you squint. And there's only three different lighting effects in essence: Full sunlight, cloudy (overcast lighting...which used to be the best lighting back in the day), or the use of shade during a full sunlit day. Other than that, you don't have much to go on. But studio lighting can be at unlimited varying levels. You can cater to the look you're going for. THAT IS WHAT WE PAY PHOTOGRAPHERS TO DO!

Natural light can really bring out some great photos, so don't get me wrong. I think you can make some very magical shots with natural light, but you have that and more with indoor effects!

i respectfully disagree on almost every point. in the same way fashion changes, headshots deemed acceptable by the industry has changed too. we've gone from b&w to color, since most casting is done online and a color photograph looks much better than a b&w on a computer screen.

there is no doubt being able to control your light source is great but having to re-schedule a shoot because of bad weather is not the end of the world.

in my opinion, a studio shot looks like bad fashion from the 80's and 90's. it looked great during its time and still has a nostalgic appeal like bell bottoms, leg warmers, and polyester suits, but you must move on. you can't be like those people who refuse to let go of whatever fashion or haircut that worked for them in high school.

if taking headshot in a studio is so much better how come so many actors who are getting auditions have headshots taken in natural light? At least in los angeles. Go to any audition for a national commercial or a major studio and the actors being called in most likely submitted a headshot taken in natural light.

quote:

Originally posted by Headshots Only:
i respectfully disagree on almost every point. in the same way fashion changes, headshots deemed acceptable by the industry has changed too. we've gone from b&w to color, since most casting is done online and a color photograph looks much better than a b&w on a computer screen.

there is no doubt being able to control your light source is great but having to re-schedule a shoot because of bad weather is not the end of the world.

in my opinion, a studio shot looks like bad fashion from the 80's and 90's. it looked great during its time and still has a nostalgic appeal like bell bottoms, leg warmers, and polyester suits, but you must move on. you can't be like those people who refuse to let go of whatever fashion or haircut that worked for them in high school.

if taking headshot in a studio is so much better how come so many actors who are getting auditions have headshots taken in natural light? At least in los angeles. Go to any audition for a national commercial or a major studio and the actors being called in most likely submitted a headshot taken in natural light.

Dear Headshots Only:

If you noticed, I've spent the majority of my career in Los Angeles. I've owned studios in all three major markets (LA, Chicago and New York) and found your comments... well, interesting.

Judging by your username and remarks, it's obvious that you're a headshot photographer who uses natural light. As such, from one photographer to another, would you care to elaborate on exactly where you "disagree on almost every point" I've made? I mean, on what points SPECIFICALLY? (and for the sake of professionalism, please don't resort to childlike put-downs and sarcastic histrionics, stick to adult language and photographic terms only).

As far as your statement that, "a studio shot looks like bad fashion from the 80's and 90's" is concerned, I think people like Annie Leibovitz, Bruce Weber and Richard Avedon would take hard exception to your remark, as well as every top professional photographer I know, regardless of technique or generation. Your response speaks in volumes as to both your level of competence, experience, and professional ethics.

You've heard me say many times that when it comes to finding a good headshot photographer you should always, "Compare, compare, compare!" Since you live in LA and I in NY, it would be difficult to put our theories to the test -- say, a direct, side-by-side comparison of the same actor's headshot -- yours taken outside, mine inside. I would welcome the challenge of such a comparison, anytime, anywhere. But in the interim, perhaps a brief perusal of your website or small sample of your headshots on this board would furnish all the information Backstage readers would require in determining the truth behind your arguments and the degree of your skill.

I anxiously await your reply, and your photographs.

"Whatever works."

www.robertkim.com

quote:

Originally posted by Headshots Only:
i respectfully disagree on almost every point. in the same way fashion changes, headshots deemed acceptable by the industry has changed too. we've gone from b&w to color, since most casting is done online and a color photograph looks much better than a b&w on a computer screen. This is true, we have evolved in the process of photographing and reprinting photos. Digital camera's have made more clear, detailed images, color photos have brought out more light and "energy" in a look (although I still prefer b&w because it has a aura of class to it. Yes, the job of the photographer has become easier in some respects, and more difficult in others because of technology and industry demand.

there is no doubt being able to control your light source is great but having to re-schedule a shoot because of bad weather is not the end of the world. For some actors that are in a rush or have a deadline to meet, it just may be the end of the world! Either way, why deal with the pain in the ass weather if you don't have to anyway?

in my opinion, a studio shot looks like bad fashion from the 80's and 90's. it looked great during its time and still has a nostalgic appeal like bell bottoms, leg warmers, and polyester suits, but you must move on. you can't be like those people who refuse to let go of whatever fashion or haircut that worked for them in high school. If you're getting your headshots done at Wal-Mart, this would make perfect sense, but if you're getting your shots done at a professional studio, then this is a little off key. Indoor lighting is not something that is "out of fashion" like leg warmers and feathered mullets (ahh, Mel Gibson had a great one). Studio lighting HAS progressed the age of professional photography! Think about this, the sun is the source of light in natural lighting, and the sun only comes in one shade, BRIGHT. You cannot put gels in it, you cannot dim it, you cannot change it one bit, it is what it is. Therefore, there's only so much you can do with it. Yes, you can add filters to your camera, yes you can manipulate it somewhat with shade and shadows, but thats about it. If you're in a studio, you have many more options. You can play with colors, tones, textures, contours, etc. You are only bound by your imagination with studio lighting. With natural light, you are bound by time...because sun only stays out so long, you are bound by weather...clouds DO and WILL get in the way of the light which is frustrating for many photographers. You are bound by the amount of light being emitted...even if you drag all of your equipment around with you to get that "perfect" shot. And you are bound by location. Robert mentioned one of the best things about studio lighting: consistency. A good, or great photographer will know his studio, and his clientele well enough to get that perfect shot every shoot because he is a master of his equipment. A professional photographer knows how to work with lighting, with shadows, with filters, and using this equipment in a studio, rather than using natural light will only make the work show up more consistently and more controlled.

if taking headshot in a studio is so much better how come so many actors who are getting auditions have headshots taken in natural light? At least in los angeles. Go to any audition for a national commercial or a major studio and the actors being called in most likely submitted a headshot taken in natural light.

This I cannot comment on because I am not a CD or an agent in LA. I have seen great natural shots, but I've also seen very bad ones. As an actor, I would want my shot to come out perfect, and I don't want to have to rely on what the sun wants to do to my skin that day to find out whether my shot is great. Sunlight can wash out your skin, make shadows show in places (especially under the eyes) that you don't want. Yes it is the job of the photographer to position you correctly in the light, and provide the right shading, but why deal with the hassle, when it can all be easily done in a studio?

robert, i take nothing away from your technical and artistic skills as a photographer. my opinions are only about los angeles headshots. leibovits, weber, and avedon are great photographers, but they're not taking headshots for the actors i'm dealing with. this debate is really moot because i pretty sure most casting directors and agents don't really care if a headshot was taking outside or inside. they just want a good headshot. and if your mantra is "whatever work", go to any audition in los angeles and look at the headshots the actor submitted in order to get called in and 9 times out of 10 i bet the headshot was taken in natural light.

Thanks for the update on what Los Angeles agents and casting directors consider acceptable headshots.

I just asked Drew Carey and Angelina Jolie to stop submitting my photos.

"Whatever works."

www.robertkim.com

dude, quit comparing apples and oranges. carey and jolie's headshots have a different purpose than a headshot taken for an unknown actor who's image alone must make an impact. their headshots are taken for publicity while the actors reading these boards needs an image that makes them stand out from all the other headshots that are submitted.

headshots only, Im having a difficult time understanding your argument. Please understand that I am NOT a professional photographer, so I could be totally wrong, but I am friends with many pros, and my mother was a pro photog for many years.
It would be beneficial to the photographer to use studio lighting, as well as beneficial to the actor. You can have more clients shot in a day than you would using natural light. You also have more capabilities with your equipment in studio lighting.

Dont you think anything you can do outdoors you can do in a studio just as much, and in a more controlled setting?

quote:

Originally posted by Headshots Only:
dude, quit comparing apples and oranges. carey and jolie's headshots have a different purpose than a headshot taken for an unknown actor who's image alone must make an impact. their headshots are taken for publicity while the actors reading these boards needs an image that makes them stand out from all the other headshots that are submitted.

It may be of some interest to you that I shot Drew Carey's headshots in LA when he was still an unknown comic, touring and living out of a suitcase.

His manager, Rick Messina used that photo to land him his first two pilots for NBC, then finally "The Drew Carey" show, on ABC. Drew's been photographed by every top headshot professional in Hollywood, but still continues to uses my original shot calling it, "The only photograph that really captured me."

When I first shot Angelina Jolie, she was still a teenager attending acting school and going under the name 'Angie Voight' (see her "Before" headshot on my website). Her mother, Marcheline Bertrand brought her to me when she was sixteen and still pursuing modeling. The photo you see in my ads was from our second session together, and got her the audition for the lead in her first feature film, "Hackers."

And are people in LA still using the term, "DUDE"? Didn't that go out of fashion with bell bottoms and polyester suits?

"Whatever works."

www.robertkim.com

dude, you're still shooting the way you did twenty years ago and my point is headshot styles in los angeles have changed since then. portrait and publicity photos are a different story and your work in that respect is amazing. but i'm talking about headshots submitted by actors in los angeles who are getting auditions tend to be shot in natural light. it's just my observation. i'm not saying one is better than the other. but this industry is notorious for discarding anything that becomes old, stale and tired.

You balance subtle put-downs and phony flattery with the skill of an acrobat, Headshots Only.

As "old, stale and tired" as my work may be, I'll give your professional advice all the consideration it deserves... dude.

"Whatever works."

www.robertkim.com

why, thank you.

coming from you that means a lot.

There is a $20,000 2k which you can purchase that is said to have the strength of the sun. If having control over optimum ISO and FS is what you are looking for than I would go outside and save the twenty grand. If its control of shadows and light quality. Go inside and use continuous lighting. I don't like strobes for the face.

The bottom line is that some photographers prefer natural light for aesthetics and are willing to meet the logistical/timing challenges in order to accommodate that look -- it's not always out of money that they shoot outdoors. And getting strobes to match natural light's desirable qualities is often unnecessarily cost and time prohibitive.

But bad weather and studio overhead are just two sides of the same coin though, and it's the photographer's job to be concerned with how they traverse these issues and not the concern of the client. Using either to create the framework of an aesthetic dogma is shortsighted and ultimately, your work will suffer for it.

As an aside Robert, I think it's unfair to use your Big Name clientele as sort of your end-game trump card. I mean, really, when was the last time Angelina Jolie had to employ a headshot (black and white at that)? Are we really supposed to believe there's a casting director out there who doesn't know what she looks like or will need to use the shot to remember her?