Beauty shots = Product shot ???

I've been trying to find a setup I like for model headshots. My previous setups had too much shadow and although interesting photos, they rarely worked for advertising the model.

Which got me thinking... there seems to be two different type of headshot, traditional portraits and beauty shots... where the photograph is more like a product shot, where the model is the product that you are trying to sell. Would you say this is true.

Or is it still the job of the photographer to take an artistic headshot including shadows and let the viewer sift through the art to figure out wether the model is actually nice or wether it's just the lighting.

Here's two from the same session.
1. Very evenly lit, nowhere to hide.
2. More interesting photographically, but with shadows that may hide the unwanted.

Which style works best for SPECIFICALLY models porfolio headshots.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by PICTURETRAIL

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by PICTURETRAIL

I don't know a thing about marketing a model (so feel free to ignore me ), but I think the first shot definitely provides a clearer idea or "picture" of the model's features. Both images are appealing ... striking model.

I don't know anything either, but just looking at these two shots, the first one is much better. The model has beautiful eyes that are hidden in the second shot, and her head is in a really weird angle there as well. This question might be better to ask in Cornering the Pros instead...

Hhhmmm... maybe your right. perhaps it's a cornering the pro's question.
If I re-post it though I'll probably get flamed for double thread.

Oh well I'll leave it here and see if anyone with any help happens by.

Just post the question in there and make a link to this thread for the pictures, that should be ok

Aha... a man with vision. Thats the way to do it.

The first shot shows the girl and is best for actually physically seeing her if thats all you want. The second has way more impact. I also am not an ad expert, but after years of being bombarded with it thru the media I feel I can say; Since when did anyone find it necessary to display the product as the first visual seen It's all about impact and leading the viewer with sex, love glammor, hunger (etc,etc....) I vote for #2 . I would want the potential customer to stop and look however I needed to hook him........

The first shot shows the girl and is best for actually physically seeing her if thats all you want. The second has way more impact. I also am not an ad expert, but after years of being bombarded with it thru the media I feel I can say; Since when did anyone find it necessary to display the product as the first visual seen It's all about impact and leading the viewer with sex, love or hunger (etc,etc....) I vote for #2 . I would want the potential customer to stop and look however I needed to hook him........

The problem is (and thanks for your reply by the way) that were not actually discussing the merits of the technical photograph, as say between two photographers or even two lay persons. The photgraph is being created for a very specific audience. Art directors, scouts and agencies.

This group of people live and breath photography, they are aware of all the lighting tricks and when the skin has been through neat image or had a little gaussian blur to help out with the bumps.

Their primary concern is what am I getting if I hire this girl.

I think ( and its only a thought) that my job in this instance is to show them an honest account of that girl, whilst highlighting her best points and downplaying her bad... no tricks.

Therefore although I prefer the second photograph on merit... if I were using that as the only ref for this girl, I'd be wondering what we were hiding back there in the shadows on the short side, especially in this case where we have deliberately gone against the norm and lit the broad side.

You are actually right in both cases. Your first shot is excellent for showing off the inherent glamor and beauty of the model and would work to sell her for make-up, jewelry or fashion modelling. But sometimes when I am looking for a model it is for a "character shot" where the model will have to express emotion through her facial or physical reaction. Your second shot is successful for this use. Very well done.

1st shot (tight face crop) goes on the cover. The AD will spend 1 second looking at it. If she "fits", she/he'll flip the comp to see a body shot. Maybe then look inside to see other "looks". Don't get too cute or you won't get that 2nd look.

[QUOTE=smudge]The problem is (and thanks for your reply by the way) that were not actually discussing the merits of the technical photograph, as say between two photographers or even two lay persons. The photgraph is being created for a very specific audience. Art directors, scouts and agencies.

In that case I retract all of the above rambling and concur with your choice....I must focus better on the subject at hand ............

Thank you all very much. chtgrubbs, I hadn't even considered that I might be able to use both. Just got too busy thinking about which style was more relevant. I have a similar shadowy version with a different bg and outfit, so I'll edit that and suggest that she use both. Photo guy, thanks for the insight into how the AD will work, now I know which order to put them in.

Considering the purpose of the photos, the clothing and accessory aspects have their place too. Besides adhering to the fundamentals, more sophisticated aspects drawn from experience come to the fore.

Her turtle neck is a great choice. It's not distracting, it slims, and it makes her torso say "I'm tall & thin" (the thin chin line chimes in on this message as well). The color is low key and feminine, altogether a touch of Audrey Hepburn with that hair. Pearls and the long eye lash look would be pure Hepburn.