Head shot with 16-35 lens?

Your 70-200 setup will give you excellent results. Here's what that lens on a cropped sensor can do at 200mm. You're the pro, tell them how much space you'll need for best results.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17871240
Perspective distortion is based on distance, not the lens. Not that the lens doesn't have a practical effect for cropping a 35 to match an 85 would mean standing back amd wating pixels.

I just done a whole pile of fascinating reading on this, and it appears that you are 100% correct. I have always thought the effect was mostly resultant of lens distortion. Of course, no one wants to lose the bulk of the image to cropping, but I'm going to have to play around with this.

neacail wrote in post #17871443
I just done a whole pile of fascinating reading on this, and it appears that you are 100% correct. I have always thought the effect was mostly resultant of lens distortion. Of course, no one wants to lose the bulk of the image to cropping, but I'm going to have to play around with this.

There are several members here who usually jump on this topic with nearly religious ferver. While they are correct, and that's why I pointed it out, the other reality is that lenses matter from a practical standpoint. Especially on the wide to short tele end of things.

Ok, I'm going to use the Canon & 70 - 200, at an 85 t0 100 area. I've taken plenty of pictures, but since this will be shoulder-head shots for a company to but in a paper, I'm a little nervous about getting them right.
About speed lights: I'm thinking to put one light about 45degrees to subjects faces- good power, and one on camera set to a low power for a slight fill on the other side of faces.
I'm open to any ideas here.

Thanks

trailguy wrote in post #17874212
Ok, I'm going to use the Canon & 70 - 200, at an 85 t0 100 area. I've taken plenty of pictures, but since this will be shoulder-head shots for a company to but in a paper, I'm a little nervous about getting them right.
About speed lights: I'm thinking to put one light about 45degrees to subjects faces- good power, and one on camera set to a low power for a slight fill on the other side of faces.
I'm open to any ideas here.

Thanks

The on axis fill could be an issue if anybody wears glasses.

A plethora of how-to vids online.

I have that combo - D750 with the 16-35 F4. Head shots can be done. Like was mentioned, stand back and crop. Don't shoot wide open and really watch your tilting up and down. It will add even more distortion in some cases. All that said, IMO, I would really consider at least picking up a cheap 50mm. It will do much better. I shoot 85mm and 70-200 for headshots. For small groups, I find even my 28mm does a better job than the 16-35. Good luck!

trailguy wrote in post #17874212
one on camera set to a low power for a slight fill on the other side of faces.

bounce that on-camera flash off the wall or ceiling, rather than pointing it right at them. as someone said, could be a reflection issue if anyone wears glasses. could also cause red-eye.

neacail wrote in post #17871191
How far would one have to stand back to make this work? I'm genuinely interested . . . as I didn't think there was anyway 35mm could ever work well.

I like to be about 6 feet away for headshots.

Peter Hurly is about 5 feet away for his headshots and he seems to be doing allright.

OK, I did the head-shoulder shots at 85mm and they turned out good. Nothing special, and lighting turned out somewhat flat, but at least they were not "failures".

trailguy wrote in post #17896090
OK, I did the head-shoulder shots at 85mm and they turned out good. Nothing special, and lighting turned out somewhat flat, but at least they were not "failures".

There is something very wrong with the second photo. It has a significant amount of motion blur from camera shake and/or subject movement. It looks like it was decently in focus (going by the size and edges of the catchlights), but there is too much blur to say conclusively if it was. This image is only usable as a business headshot if it's going to be shown on the web at no more than about 200 pixels wide. If it's going to be printed or used anywhere larger than about the size of the screen on the back of your camera, I would recommend that you reshoot this employee if you don't have a better shot of her. Likewise for any others that came out like this.

Image stabilization is a wonderful tool, but you should never be taking a portrait of a live human at 1/4 second shutter speed, not with IS, not even with a tripod. People move continuously enough to blur a photo at 1/4. I normally wouldn't shoot even a "still" person at slower than 1/100. Ideally, you'd use your flash in an umbrella for these shots, and a reflector or white wall for fill, not the overheat fluorescents, so that you have enough light to shoot at a decent shutter speed with out having to use too high an ISO. But if you have to jack up the ISO, do it, because a little noise is better than a motion-blurred shot.

1/4 and 1/15 on your shutter speeds? Even if the camera was locked on a tripod those speeds are slow enough for subject motion to be an issue.

Thanks for the critique. I didn't realize how bad it is until told. The only possibility I can think of is: When loosening the tripod ball and rotating the camera up/down to follow short/tall subjects, I rotated
the shutter button. I originally set the shutter at 250, F4 (but apparently rotating the cam with one hand moved everything I touched).
I would never purposely set it that low.
I attached one that was still at 1/250. Far from anything great, it is at least not too blurry.