quote:

Originally posted by jlafferty:
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?
- jim
Jim Lafferty Photography
New York Headshots

Dear Jim,

I originated this thread to discuss the benefits of studio lighting, not advertising theory. But yours is a legitimate question, so I'll answer it to the best of my ability.

The reason I use "Big Name" clients in my ads is for the same reason that any other business uses 'Big Name' people to advertise their services or product -- recognition. Recognition of celebrity and recognition of ability. When Nike designed Air Jordans, I suppose they could have hired a second-string college guard to endorse their product, but that would have defeated the purpose. As I said earlier, when I first shot Angelina Jolie, she was still 'Angie Voight,' a snot-nosed teenager without any experience whatsoever. I had no idea she was Jon Voight's daughter, or of the super star she was about to become. She received the exact, same care and attention to detail I offer all my clients. Angelina was so painfully shy that I actually suggested to her mother that, "she should pursue modeling." I'm glad she didn't. Acting is at best a crap shoot -- you don't know who'll make it and who won't.

I know of many photographers who use celebrities in their ads, and if you'd care to PM me, I'll furnish you a list. But the "bottom line" is this: Can the advertiser deliver on their promises? When I viewed these photographers' portfolios, they all failed miserably to live up to expectations -- their work just didn't rate their claims. As you may have noticed, I have just about every kind of actor featured on my website -- children, adults, and senior citizens of every type, sex and nationality. The famous and the not-so-famous. Black-and-white and color. Just about every ethnicity on planet earth is represented. We could go round and round forever on which is better, natural light or studio light, but "the proof is in the pudding." Quality trumps all other considerations, without exception. Is studio lighting actually better than shooting with natural light? I'll let the public be the ultimate judge of that.

Incidentally, I just went to your site. I noticed that you used an extremely attractive brunette on your home page. I'm quite sure that you could have just as easily selected an 85-year old grandmother to sell your headshots, but as most everyone knows, "Sex sells." Perhaps a competitor might criticize your decision to use such an overtly beautiful young lady to advertise your services as "unfair." How would you have answered that question?

"Whatever works."

www.robertkim.com

But... my point was not that I object to using sex(iness) or name talent to advertise. I thought this was a thread about lighting techniques, not advertising strategy.

My point was that, in your exchange with Headshots Only, you used big names as your trump card to defend your technique, as in "My lighting style works for Angelina Jolie, so it's good enough for any emerging actor." But that's a shaky premise, because Angelina Jolie no longer has to rely on a headshot to secure work, so your inclusion of that example (a now very dated shot) is a bit at odds with current trends and sensibilities -- i.e. the needs of current, unknown actors, and how a photographer addresses them.

To put it another way, while your business would seem to be a model of success in the field, no skilled photographer would look at that shot of Angelina and feel it represents a good model of the current aesthetic trends in headshot photography.

Had you not been a direct competitor Mr. Lafferty, I'd have given your post more credence.

But you are, and I don't.

Robert Kim, Photographer

www.robertkim.com

Hi, Robert. I saw everything on your site.
I’ve been researching photographers who are good with actors of color. I met Brian Everett Chandler of “the Lion King” at an audition and just loved his headshot. But I have a question. Is lighting for different ethnicities the same for all races? My friend always says that “people are just people.” He thinks that headshots aren’t really that important, that one is as good as another but I don't really think so!
I currently live in Philly but I plan a discovery trip to NY sometime this summer. I h ope you will be in town at that time.
BTW, who is that beautiful woman on your “home” page?
Thanx.
Nicole

I would say, that what comes across from a headshot is most important.

Nobody cares if it's daylight or studio light, as long as the actor looks fascinating.

I have a day job in advertising and talk to a lot of photographers.

Daylight shooters need to be careful of the time of day, and reflections. One risk with studio light is that, if you aren't careful, people tend to look the same.

This whole thread looks like a sample of cheap advertising, dressed up as "good tips". I just wonder if Mr. Kim may not be well past his prime...

Or he wouldn't be fishing for clients on an actors discussion forum.

I've noticed a disturbing development...

It appears that my little thread has ignited a virtual landslide of controversy. Instead of starting an open dialogue about the relative benefits of studio light and natural light, it's invoked the ire of many of my competitors, attacking everything from the "unfair" use of Angelina Jolie in my advertisements, to individuals who hide behind ancient Roman pseudonyms in order to throw rocks and offer dubious advice on what constitutes proper headshot lighting. My entire approach in contributing to this forum has been to offer recommendations from a professional’s point-of-view. Hopefully, some of it may have been of benefit to you. But these are only my OPINIONS. Always rely on the discretion of your own good judgment.

Yes, unethical and hidden abuses of the Internet can and do occur (like certain photographers using phony usernames to promote their services, instead of supporting this free and open forum with their advertising dollars). I think this would be a much more fair -- and adult -- place to hold a discussion if everyone using the message board were to list their actual names and credentials. If Backstage required everyone to use their real names, perhaps abuses like this would cease to exist. But this is the Internet. It can either teach you how to bake a cake or bring down the Twin Towers.

Slinging mud and resorting to low blows to besmirch someone’s abilities and reputation is certainly one way to make your point, “Marcus Aurelius.” But my topic was about LIGHTING FOR HEADSHOTS, as I recall. To be entirely honest, most of the criticism I’ve seen here reeks from the foul odor of sour grapes and professional jealousy. If your sole intention is to cast aspersions on my work, please post your comments under the CHILDREN’S forum. This board was designed for more helpful and supportive pursuits.

“Whatever works.”

www.robertkim.com

While you guys fight it out ...

as an independent film director AND a headshot photographer, I might suggest that headshots taken either in a studio, or in natural light, can work if done by a capable photographer.

It's really the photographer's ability to help the actor relax that counts. If the actor feels comfortable with the photographer, it is easy to capture a beautiful shot.

If you're in New York, please check out my website at http://www.ronbrownheadshots.com
Studio shots on the Upper West Side; or outdoors in natural light.

Best,

Ron Brown
photography: http://www.ronbrownheadshots.com
IMDB director listing: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0114583/

actually - the disturbing trend here seems to be coming from you Mr Kim

First you complain that people are hiding behind secret identities

Then, It seems Mr Lafferty - while NOT hiding behind a secret "identity", was attempting to have a real discussion with you about lighting - and YOU are the one who suddenly refused to acknowledge his post because he is a competitor


You can't have it both ways - you can't accuse people of hiding and refuse to continue the discussion with them because they are NOT hiding.

HERE - pick your fallacies - you seem to like to emply several different ones depending on your mood

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

I think you do beautiful work - but I also agree that there does seem to be a trend towards shots with Natural light - maybe because it is more, I don't know, NATURAL?? And maybe agents and cd's prefer. to see what people really look like as opposed to some over lit over produced over styled portrait photo?

I know several fantastic photographers who work both ways - natural and studio lighting - and are pretty equally adept at both. It seems to have much more to do with the skill of the photographer, either way

Maybe it's just a fad and that will fade in a few years like big hair or black turtlenecks

Do you do natural light shots?? I don't seem to see many on your site - maybe you are against it because you don't like change? I don't know.

Oh - and as for your before and after shots - they are lovely - but some of it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Comparing the skills of an amateur Photographer in Kalamazoo who took a black and white headshot of an actor 10 years ago against something you did last month is a litte easy, isn't it? Just by the look of some of thos pictures, some of those before shots are Reeeeeally old. And some of them were not even professional headshots to begin with - at least not by any of your Real competitors in NY.

I think you have a lot to add and you give some good advice to actors - but you seem to have difficulty maintaining objectivity when it comes to discussions of Headshots. Maybe you need to step back and realize that your style is not right for everybody and that there are other people out there who are very good - but different. And that people have to find "whatever works" for them.

While we "fight it out," another competitor takes the opportunity to slip in...

Can't we simply stick to my original topic, without resorting to pointless "one-upsmanship"?? I think that actors would be much more appreciative of learning how lighting effects their headshots than being subjected to useless bickering between competing photographers.
As far as the accuracy of my comments on studio lighting go, if my advice has any value, my work will surely reflect the truth in it.

To "longtimeacting": May I suggest that you read my posts over again?

"Whatever works."

www.robertkim.com

you're hysterical

you brought up the topic - Studio vs Natural light

several people - some of them photographers - added their opinions

"another competitor slips in"???? WTF?

if you are going to open the door - then you better be ready for other photographers to have opinions AND post links to their websites - JUST LIKE YOU DO!

you don't want them to be anonymous, right?
but they should not be allowed to advertise themselves? only YOU should be allowed to use this forum in that way?

that's not really fair now, is it? nor is it right. this forum is not just a place for you to pontificate on what a great photographer you think you are.

oh - and after many years in NY and Chicago i can tell you - there are plenty of people who aren't all that crazy about your work either. Many people find it a bit stiff and overdone. but it's all a matter of personal taste i suppose.

Sheesh, guys, relax! The world is still spinning and the sun is still shining. Well, I've seen many professional photographer's pics. I see headshots on a daily basis from all over the place. Some are great, and some are, uh, well, just plain SHITTY. I've looked at everyone's pics from this crazy thread. You ALL do great work. I like Robert's style. Robert has a great eye for the artistic integrity of the role of the photographer. I don't think his work is 'outdated', 'stale', or 'stiff and overdone'. I agree that photo's need to capture the "natural" life of the actor. I don't think that has anything to do with "natural light". That was kind of a stupid statement. That implies an actor can't have a natural look in studio lighting. Its as if the sun has a stranglehold on people's looks. I work with a really hot chick, and believe, she's just as hot indoors as she is outside, hehe. hmmm, where was I? Oh, honestly, attacking Robert for his integrity is, well, foolish, right? I think his work captures life. It shows movement, energy, and it says something about the actor. Thats what a headshot needs to do. It has to SAY SOMETHING. No lie, I think he's mastered that quite well. One of my favorites is the shot of Wes Studi...even though he's an arrogant prick. But there is a great headshot! I can almost smell it.
One thing that Robert was getting at that you've all seemed to gloss over, is that studio lighting offers consistency. Thats something that can't be compared to. Well, I gotta run, its time to get outta work. I'll write more tomorrow. I think we should all chill, maybe take a bong hit or two, or three.

quote:

Originally posted by MovieQueen:
Hi, Robert. I saw everything on your site.
I’ve been researching photographers who are good with actors of color. I met Brian Everett Chandler of “the Lion King” at an audition and just loved his headshot. But I have a question. Is lighting for different ethnicities the same for all races? My friend always says that “people are just people.” He thinks that headshots aren’t really that important, that one is as good as another but I don't really think so!
I currently live in Philly but I plan a discovery trip to NY sometime this summer. I h ope you will be in town at that time.
BTW, who is that beautiful woman on your “home” page?
Thanx.
Nicole

Hi again, Robert. Did you have time to read my post? I re- posted it, just in case.
Thanx.
N-

quote:

Originally posted by longtimeacting:
you're hysterical

you brought up the topic - Studio vs Natural light

several people - some of them photographers - added their opinions

"another competitor slips in"???? WTF?

if you are going to open the door - then you better be ready for other photographers to have opinions AND post links to their websites - JUST LIKE YOU DO!

you don't want them to be anonymous, right?
but they should not be allowed to advertise themselves? only YOU should be allowed to use this forum in that way?

that's not really fair now, is it? nor is it right. this forum is not just a place for you to pontificate on what a great photographer you think you are.

oh - and after many years in NY and Chicago i can tell you - there are plenty of people who aren't all that crazy about your work either. Many people find it a bit stiff and overdone. but it's all a matter of personal taste i suppose.

Many of his headshots aren't really headshots by today's standards.

The faces/heads is too small, which doesn't allow to post the photo as a headshot on casting websites.

There is also too much make-up involved, and the lighting style is too much "I'm so professional" in your face, instead of trying to get the actor.

He should go for real conversations. Maybe he could learn a thing or two that would benefit him as an artist. Things change. Everybody has to keep learning. Grandmaster attitudes are usually ego make-up on brittle grounds.

And, above all, this is a site for actors and acting. Not for self-advertisement.

quote:

Originally posted by Robert Kim Photography:

Can't we simply stick to my original topic, without resorting to pointless "one-upsmanship"?? I think that actors would be much more appreciative of learning how lighting effects their headshots than being subjected to useless bickering between competing photographers.
As far as the accuracy of my comments on studio lighting go, if my advice has any value, my work will surely reflect the truth in it.

Dear “Marcus Aurelius,”

Do you recall my previous post, above? Let's pretend for the moment that you don't.

This thread concerns the benefits of studio lighting v. natural lighting. As usual, nothing in your post relates to my original topic. It’s fairly obvious that you would rather personally criticize me than discuss lighting in any pertinent or professional way.

Your personal motivations are so clear by now that only a blind man would fail to recognize them -- slamming my work, intentionally misquoting me, insulting my integrity, even re-printing "longtimeacting’s" poison pen letter for additional emphasis. It’s a disturbing reflection of your ethics, but you seem more interested in mine, so let’s address that. This is the second time you’ve posted and it's apparent you aren’t going to allow me to reply to MovieQueen’s question without making your points first. As I related to Mr. Lafferty earlier, if you wish to change the subject again and engage me on other unrelated topics -- and lest I be accused of not responding to your every post -- I’d be pleased to comment on all of your statements, point-by-point.

"MANY OF HIS HEADSHOTS AREN'T HEADSHOTS BY TODAY'S STANDARDS." “By today’s standards”? What exactly are, ‘today’s standards’? Headshots? Body shots? Vertical or horizontal cropping? Theatrical headshots or modeling headshots? Borders or no borders? Smiling or non-smiling? Natural light or studio light? For the exception of color 8x10’s, there is no one, single industry standard in headshots anymore. If you’ve read any of the threads on this message board, you’d be well aware of that. If there was only one way of doing headshots, they would be commonly referred to as “cookie cutter” or "assembly line" headshots,” the worst kind of headshots an actor can possibly have. My work encompasses all current styles in use today.

“THE FACES/HEADS ARE TOO SMALL, WHICH DOESN’T ALLOW TO POST THE PHOTO AS A HEADSHOT ON CASTING WEBSITES.” Even the briefest glance of my website will immediately dismiss this claim. Perhaps you’re familiar with the term, “Headshots and 3/4 Shots”? (See: “Character Looks,” on the website). Most of my clients typically select between 4-6 separate and distinct looks from their session, each of them entirely different. Cropping is easily accomplished in Photoshop, and any client’s specific requirements can be discussed well in advance.

“THERE IS ALSO TOO MUCH MAKE-UP INVOLVED, AND THE LIGHTING STYLE IS TOO MUCH "I’M SO PROFESSIONAL” IN YOUR FACE, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO GET THE ACTOR.” Only the ladies wear makeup. I haven’t used makeup on men for over six years, when digital retouching totally eliminated the need for old-fashioned airbrushing. My makeup artists perform clean, flawless makeup, bringing out the best features of every face without ever making the actor look overdone. As to your criticism of looking “too professional” is concerned, I was unaware that there was such a thing as looking “too professional.” If you are referring to my “business looks,” they are only one of many which I design for each actor’s individual needs. As to the actual effectiveness of my personal recommendations, please refer to my “Letters” page, also on the website.

“HE SHOULD GO FOR REAL CONVERSATIONS. MAYBE HE COULD LEARN A THING OR TWO THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIM AS AN ARTIST. THINGS CHANGE. EVERYBODY HAS TO KEEP LEARNING. GRANDMASTER ATTITUDES ARE USUALLY EGO MAKE-UP ON BRITTLE GROUNDS.” True enough. “Grandmaster attitudes” can make you lazy or overly complacent. A handful of colleagues and I began the trends in headshot photography that you still see in use today. 3/4 cropping, full color headshots, using lithos as a less expensive alternative to photographs, creative posing and lighting techniques -- these approaches were all pioneered in LA, then slowly made their way to NYC. Without the concepts we began in California, New York headshots would still resemble drivers license photos, or mug shots (I’d be happy to provide you with dozens of examples). But I’ve never been accused of “sitting on my laurels.” I still continue to push the envelope of all my technical and stylistic boundaries. If you’ve followed my work, you know that I prefer to set the trends, not follow them.

“AND, ABOVE ALL, THIS IS A SITE FOR ACTORS AND ACTING. NOT FOR SELF-ADVERTISEMENT.” I found this particular statement the most difficult to fathom, “Marcus Aurelius.” First, you belittle my participation on this message board, then you criticize me for placing my weblink on my posts. In case you haven’t already noticed, everyone from acting coaches to career counselors to headshot photographers regularly do exactly the same thing. For your edification, Backstage specifically prohibits directly pitching your services to other members, not simply listing your website address. For the record, I have been one of Backstage’s major headshot advertisers for the past ten consecutive years. The very forum that you now enjoy and which allows anyone to post their weblinks on without charge, wouldn’t even exist without my advertising dollars. Only until you decide to contribute your own money to support this site will you have the right to express any opinion on that issue.

As far as my qualifications as a legitimate actor are concerned, here is my IMDb link for your perusal. Simply click-on: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0453647/ I haven’t updated my current resume yet, but it should be sufficient for your needs.

“Whatever works.”

www.robertkim.com