And I have to say I have never gotten complaints from my subjects when I've pushed it a little farther than usual.
Neither have I. I have discovered that people don't pay hundreds of dollars for "purist" portraits of themselves.
A couple of points about that:
First, a "pure" photograph does not image a person as he sees himself--or as anyone else sees him, for that matter. Unlike experiencing a person "in the flesh," the photograph "fixes" the features and removes most of the personality exposed by movement, voice, et cetera. Therefore you examine physical elements that you would not have examined "in the flesh."
One example was my old Latin teacher, Mrs Shutz. She was gray haired, heavily wrinkled--but she had crystal blue eyes, a great sense of humor, and the keenest wit you could imagine. Interacting with her, all you would see and remember would be her dazzling eyes and smile.
But in a typical "purist" photograph, all you would notice would be her wrinkles. Is that "reality?" Would that be a "portrait?"
Another point is that by the nature of flattening a three-dimensional subject to a 2-dimensional surface, you automatically distort it--giving it a broader appearance. That's why people say, "The camera adds 10 pounds." Mapmakers are well familiar with the problem.
A knowledgeable photographer lights and poses his subject to compensate for these "faults" of the camera, producing a portrait that in a still photograph yet captures at least part of what a person would actually experience if interacting with the subject, and not injecting the photographic "falsehoods" of a "straight" image.