How many lights were used, and overall what is wrong?

Not my picture, I can't even do this good. This looks like a single softbox light setup to me

http://mavsblog.dallas​news.com/files/2015/04​/morey2.jpg

Besides no shave etc, what went wrong here? Is this an acceptable workplace portrait in your view?

The light is too close to the lens. I like a little contrast in my portraits. This is my typical business portrait look. I don't crop the photos so that gives the client a choice of cropping tighter if they wish. I use two or three lights. My key light is about 45 degrees off camera axis. I place a bounce card on the shadow side of the face to help fill in the shadow just a bit. My second light is used to light the background and my third (if I use one at all) is placed either as a "rim light" or above the client as a "hair light".

IMAGE LINK: http://s182.photobucke​t.com …-108_zpsduchraaw.jpg.ht​ml

IMAGE LINK: http://s182.photobucke​t.com …is-129A-8x11-800.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s182.photobucke​t.com …eadshots/147-147.jpg.html

It is pretty typical for a budget business portrait. The setup could be better, but it is not bad. Looking at the catch light in his eyes there is only one light source in this photo. Better lighting could help soften the hot spots on his cheeks, but they really don't hurt the photo in my opinion. Just something that could be done a little better.

The main thing I see is a lack of any detailed post processing. It looks like it was ran through Lightroom to get the levels and white balance correct and that was about all the processing that was done. The shaving bumps, a pimple on his neck, and some other spots in his photo would be removed if the photographer had spent any time on this photograph in Photoshop. The five o'clock shadow could be lessened, but why. If this man always looks like he has to shave three times a day, the lack of a shadow would just not look right for this man.

I believe a customer would be happy paying for this photo for business use but if he paid over $50.00 - $100.00 USD he probably would expect the photo to be a little more polished.

Completely unacceptable in my opinion. Let's see:

No effort spent on retouching (yes, everyone needs a little), see: uneven skin tones, hair "growing" out of his ears, frizzies galore, shine on his face/cheeks

No effort spent on grooming/makeup/hair, see: stubble, hair on top of his head, sideburns, again skin tones/blemishes. Looks like he just wet his hair and ran his fingers through it.

No effort spent on making his wardrobe appealing, see: tie not properly tied, suit looking ill fitting, fold in shirt

No effort on a flattering light for his face, see: fairly hard light source, causing deeeeep and hard shadows, especially around inside of cheeks, edges of lips, under eyes. Causes face to look even "rounder" to put it nicely. Also eyes look dead and grey.

Probably more to it, but that's what jumps out at me. I think that any paying customer would be displeased with that, and even more so when you're the GM of a major sports franchise (ie. you've got money and you know and associate with others who do, and probably have better headshots).

JColeman's work is an example of what would be considered a good business portrait/headshot. I hope the photo in the OP is just a leaked "before" image that got out.

Edit: and as for lighting setup: one light on subject as evident by catchlight, possibly a semi-collapsed umbrella or octabox with baffle removed.

Honestly, there is really NO excuse to have a double chin showing on 'almost' anyone - unless they are very overwieght. I would give this portrait a 0/10 just on that - forget about everything else. I would hope that this is just a test shot - because if this person is getting paid for this it is really incredibly awful.

looks like it was shot by someone who doesn't have enough experience in shooting portraits using strobes.

It looks very amateurish. Usually, people who hire people like this doesn't know what a good picture is and just settle for someone who has a dslr and some form of flash....like a co worker who is into photography. It happens a lot in my area.

I think there was more than one light.. Key and Fill.

The key (camera right) is too low, catch light is almost at 3 o'clock instead of between 1 and 2 o'clock.

The pose is not good. The shoulder toward us is the 'feminine' shoulder, and while we can debate if he is tilted that way or not, it *appears* to be - and you never want a guy posed like that for a business portrait. Strait or a slight tilt to the far away shoulder would be much better (or have the eyes/head strait but let the shoulders angle this way) You need to know how to set the feet to get the upper body to look better.

I would also say the fill needs to come down a stop in power.

I would have tried a different lighting pattern on him, with wide cheeks, he may have benefited from split lighting rather than the try for short lighting.

I would have turned his nose slightly more towards the key - and brought his chin forward (Peter Hurley - the Jaw technique)

and the highlights are pretty specular - need to knock down the shine, or use a white instead of silver umbrella - or both.

Things I would try to do differently. JMHO.

You can see two light sources at the tip of his nose. The one on the left is maybe a strip light or a silver reflector.

Pretty terrible portrait, I do much better and don't at all consider myself a portrait guy.

LOL

There's another light source filling in the left side of the image. Agree with everybody - 0 for effort.

corposant wrote in post #17583388
There's another light source filling in the left side of the image. Agree with everybody - 0 for effort.

It's in focus (though not very sharp), appropriate DOF, reasonably well exposed (no clipped whites or shadows), white balance looks OK, and there are no background distractions. So, that's something.

It's absolutely unacceptable for an executive in any capacity, especially one in an industry where there's no lack of money being tossed around. But I've seen worse.

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17557986
Honestly, there is really NO excuse to have a double chin showing on 'almost' anyone - unless they are very overwieght. I would give this portrait a 0/10 just on that - forget about everything else. I would hope that this is just a test shot - because if this person is getting paid for this it is really incredibly awful.

As harsh as he made it sound, I am going to agree

1. light is too flat
2. image is at a lo angle, and that double chin is just looking at me... There are many many ways to avoid it.
a. shoot from higher up
b. ask them to move their head close to the camera