Individual business portraits - put all your eggs in the good basket

 

 

When I have a client come to my studio for a business portrait session I always suggest they bring wardrobe options. We review the options, shooting test shots if necessary, and choose the outfit that works best. If it's the case that the client needs one great shot, we do the whole shoot in the one best wardrobe option. We don't shoot all the outfits, because we don't want to discover that the hands-down best expression happened in the wrong outfit. (Link below to a post written by a happy client of mine who mentioned this exact thing.)

 

Why am I bringing this up? Because this is not the way everyone works. And without an explanation my method might sound to some as if they aren't getting as much from a photographer like me as they are from one who advertises based on a quantity model. This what they want you to think.

 

Here's a short story about an author shoot for a publisher. We were shooting a book cover. There were three dresses to choose from. We could all see which dress looked best so we started with that. By the third dress, which even the author didn't really like, her energy level had dropped way down.

 

Keep in mind that this is someone who knew there was a lot at stake in terms of getting this book cover right, and was a pro at being in front of a camera.

 

We kept shooting, because the publisher wanted options. But we weren't actually getting any viable "options". The author was getting increasingly tired and disappointed. We weren't getting good shots. We spent a bunch of time and energy shooting a bunch of images that would never see the light of day, and by the end of the shoot our author's sunny disposition had evaporated.

 

It was the (not actual) "need" for quantity that compromised the experience for the subject, and set us all up for disappointment, even though we had successfully captured a winning shot!

 

In this digital age when it's so easy to offer quantity – we're no longer limited by the number of frames on a roll of film and the cost of buying it, processing it, etc. (although there are still costs with digital, which people don't acknowledge enough, but that's not for today's post) - it is so easy to use as a selling point the number of pictures a photographer will take or the client will get. "150 photos!" (or whatever). And it's easy to say that a client can change as many times as they want, and we'll change backgrounds and lighting as many times as we can in a given period, say, an hour. Of course there's always an option for those with a leaner budget who know they only want one "look"...if you look at the detailed description it'll be for a very short, strictly time-limited session, usually something like 15 minutes.

 

What if I told you that it can take an hour to get one “best photo of me I've ever had!”?  Does it make sense that you will get the value you want, and that you're being sold, if you change three times in that hour, or if you have 15 minutes to get from "I hate having my picture taken" to "wow, that was so much less painful that I thought it would be and I really love this photo!"?

 

I'm not saying don't shoot more than one outfit. I am explaining why I don't use a business model based on getting as many photos as you possibly can in a strictly limited period of time. I am suggesting that you consider what you really need and plan with your photographer accordingly. Especially for people who don't love being photographed, think about what you are setting yourself up for if it's all about shooting as much and as fast as possible. 

 

Using the Goldilocks principle, the ideal would be to avoid the "too hot" option (big pile of less than stellar pics) or the "too cold" (short, fast, impersonal shoot). A "just right" shoot will be based on your particular needs, and will not compromise on quality.

 

The experience will affect the results. Care and attention to detail will affect the results. Set yourself up for success.  

 

Link to client LinkedIn post: 

 

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7268692765838848000/

 

kathryn@hollinrake.com

hollinrake.com

corporateportraits.ca 

Window Light Portraits

 

Me in my studio with my (pretend) window light

 

Ah, natural light. How awesome is it not to need any lighting equipment and just to use the biggest light source in the world — the sky — modified by the most ubiquitous modifiers around — windows. I have always been so jealous of photographers whose studios have perfect sized and shaped windows in just the right places. So, finally, I just knocked out a wall.

Just kidding. I did not do that. I used lighting like I always do to create the look I wanted. No hoping it’s a bright day. No limiting shoots to daylight hours. No limiting the background to what’s actually behind/beside the window. I can put my “window” wherever I want.

That’s pretty much all I have to say about window light in my studio. Or anywhere else I might be shooting.

The set for the portrait above.

Questions?

Yes, this is possibly my shortest blog post ever. Now that you're here maybe you'd like to peruse my archive! Or, reach out and let me know what you'd like me to write about next. What do you want to know about working with a professional photographer, planning your next shoot, or...? Let me know! I'm here to help.

kathryn@hollinrake.com

hollinrake.com

Headshots and profile pics - comparing apples to apples

 

It seems nobody likes the word “negotiation”. But if you Google the meaning of “negotiate” the first dictionary meaning that comes up is “obtain or bring about by discussion”. When hiring a photographer, some discussion is almost always going to be required, to ensure that you are going to end up with precisely what you want and need.

 

I understand the temptation and the desire to treat hiring a photographer like buying an easily defined, simple product, but wanting it to be that simple doesn’t mean it is.  Think of it as slightly more complicated than getting a haircut and colour…some dialogue is required, the provider’s skill and experience make a big difference, and with photography timelines and post-production vary. It’s not that photography has to be complicated. But the reality is that there are different approaches to any photography project (even the smallest); so often, photographers quoting for the same client are not really quoting the same job. And it’s not because any one of the photographers quoting has decided that what they’re quoting is the only way to do the job.

 

Some photographers, knowing some clients “don’t speak photographer” will oversimplify service and product offerings as part of their sales technique. But if quality is a priority, or even a factor, I’d assert this is may not be a route to the best experience and product. You are not buying a fixed quality, fixed cost commodity; photography can cost more or less depending on precisely what parameters make sense and are possible for any given job and it’s to your advantage to spend a little time to try to get the right combo to get the best results for the budget you have.

 

If a provider of a service with flexible parameters (like photography) submits a proposal with an invitation to respond with feedback and an offer to address that feedback with an updated quote, assume they mean it (not that they were over-quoting and are willing to back down if you confront them, yuck, and not that the estimated total cost is indicative of anything without reference to the breakdown). 

 

It is not a win when a job with undefined parameters (many creative projects) is quoted with an invitation to circle back and confirm the parameters that make the most sense and will result in the best client experience and final product, if a cheaper quote ends the discussion (or worse, if there wasn’t even another quote and the job is just cancelled over cost). Examples of the outcomes are everywhere (eg. not great photos that the people in them are not happy with).

 

What’s missing is that rather than the budget being tighter than the first quote (which it may very well be), the cheaper quote is almost certainly for a different looking job. In other words, the first quoter may not even be more expensive (or much more expensive) than the second one…maybe Photographer A quoted a full day and Photographer B quoted a half day. And if this has happened, it’s not that the second photographer is a faster shooter. Any photographer can shoot fast. And any pro will tell you that rushing, if it’s not necessary to do so, is not the best path to an excellent experience or results. That same pro will also understand if it’s the case that there just isn’t the time or the budget for a more time-consuming shoot.

Just a quick note on why I keep referring to both the experience and the results: In the case of photography of people, it pretty much goes without saying that the more pleasant the experience the better the photos will be. Something to keep in mind.

 

When quoting a project (ie. a photo shoot), especially for clients who either haven’t hired a photographer before, or don’t know what their budget is, or don’t know how much time they’ll be able to make subjects available for their sessions, etc. (these are some of the undefined parameters) the photographer has to start somewhere, so based on whatever info they’ve been able to get they’ll prepare an estimate, often with an express invitation to discuss, because they know they may be quoting apples to oranges.

 

Nobody wants to take days to nail down a quote by going back and forth. So as I’ve advised before, pick up the phone. It is almost always more efficient and productive to talk about creative jobs, than it is to limit exchanges to e-mail.

 

Back to the example above, let’s say a client asks “how much for 10 headshots?”. Photographer A, a very good, experienced pro, might offer their expert opinion that in an ideal world they’d get 30 minutes per person, so they quote that with the caveat that if that doesn’t work for the client’s team (time- or budget-wise), they can revise the quote to better fit the circumstances once more about those circumstances is known. Photographer B, whose work is OK, is used to never having any time to shoot so they quote 10 minutes per person. (There may also be other things about  Photographer B’s style and methods that aren’t the same as Photographer A’s,  including the level and quality of retouching.

 

Photographer B’s estimate is going to be way cheaper. But at what cost?

 

The cost of shooting “slower” is more $. The cost of shooting faster may be that some of the subjects just don’t have time to get to their calm, happy, confident place, and attention is not paid to details like wrinkles in clothes, hairs out of place, etc. Another cost may be your time as the organizer, if you have to chase down everyone’s selects for retouching (when Photographer A built in time to choose selects with the subjects during their sessions.)

 

Maybe the client’s team really only has 10 minutes each to spare. If so one might want to find out what Photographer A would charge for this much shorter shoot. It may turn out the price is now much closer to Photographer B’s. You could actually hire the better photographer for not much more money than the cheaper one.

 

The point is that the question that should always be asked is “are the photographers quoting the same thing?” because I guarantee if the quotes are significantly different they are not. Either the parameters are notably different, and/or the quality of the work is not going to be equal. (It’s worth keeping in mind why you are getting professional photos in the first place…and that while good photos support brands, bad ones can actively do the opposite.)

 

Don’t be afraid to negotiate, ie. discuss, if you are invited to do so… especially where there are potentially unfixed parameters within a project. Every job is different and the goal is to get the best results possible within the allowable mix of time, logistics and budget. You may be able to get a way better result by going back to the quoter once you have a better idea of these things than you will by just going with the cheaper quote. Negotiation does not have to be complicated or take much more time. And the cost of not bothering may be a significantly less great experience, and less great product.

 

Experienced pro photographers know how to work with clients to provide them with the best experience and the best results for their budget, so trust the process, give the not-cheapest photographer the opportunity to help you get you what you need, and here’s to always getting the best photography possible!

 

 

#employeeappreciation, #corporatephotography, #corporateportraits, #authorportraits, #profileportraits, #bookcovers, #portraitphotography, #brandingphotography, #businesslifestylephotography, #notjustaheadshot

 

 

kathryn@hollinrake.com

hollinrake.com

 

Shooting business portraits on location

 

 

 

We do a lot of business profile portraits, and often we shoot these on location at clients’ offices. Perhaps because of previous experiences, or lack of experience(?), clients are often surprised when they see our set-up, and I am surprised that they are surprised. They express amazement that our set-up is so “professional”. On a side note it occurs to me that this may be why some people expect professional photography to cost less…but I digress.

 

So, I asked assistant Ashley Senja to take a snapshot of me working at a recent shoot and here’s what you can see (this would be a fairly typical profile portrait set-up for us):

 

1 Soft box light modifier (for flattering portrait lighting) mounted on a professional flash unit

 

2 Large, stable tripod, tall enough that I can still shoot from a high, flattering angle even if the subject stands up. The tripod also allows me the flexibility to be able to move away from the camera quickly and easily to interact closely with the client without having to then waste time picking the camera back up, repositioning and refocusing over and over.

 

3 Step ladder to go with the large tripod, so I can shoot from a high, flattering angle and mitigate things like double chins

 

4 Laptop to shoot into from the camera which is tethered to it, allowing us to review image captures and “star” selects (within the capture software)

 

5 External monitor to facilitate client review of image captures as we work together to ensure we have a winning shot (or shots) and to choose the best frame(s) for retouching -- we always recommended ensuring time for this step if time allows

 

6 Background (in this case a green screen to facilitate easy and effective background replacement during retouching…could alternatively be white or gray if background replacement is not required)

 

7 Reflector to brighten the unlit side of the face

 

8 Basic grooming kit including things like blotting papers, hair spray, chap stick, combs, toothpicks, eye glass cleaning wipes, etc.

 

And things you can’t see: the stool the subject is sitting on (we bring that), background light (which happens to be hidden under the table, pointed at the background), back-up camera, extra lenses, extra batteries, back-up lighting…all so that there is no way we will ever be stopped or delayed by equipment  breakage or malfunction…tools, fabric to covers windows or surfaces if necessary, cards and tape in case, for example, we have to cover up a pot light over a subject’s head that can’t be turned off, and other periodically useful things.

 

We never worry about natural, available light (or how that might be affected by weather)…we don’t need it. We never worry if the room is aesthetically pleasing…it doesn’t matter.

A hallmark of the professional photographer is that they can be counted on to consistently produce excellent results no matter the circumstances or the environment, and they can repeat their results in the future, regardless of different environment, timing, etc.   

 

I’ll also just note that I personally like to scout the location prior to the shoot date almost any time we shoot somewhere we haven’t been before, to make sure there are no surprises  for us the day of, and to ensure we have space to shoot conducive to best results, which is easier for me to determine in person than talking back and forth with organizers who might not understand the nuances of what will work best space-wise. I also like to know in advance where we are going to park etc. so we will never be scrambling with logistics on the day.

 

In summary, this is a version of the kind of set-up you should expect when hiring a professional. Here’s to less surprise, more expectation, greater understanding of the nature of and value of professional photography!

 

BTW you could have read this already if you receive my newsletter. If you’d like to sign up…

https://lp.constantcontactpages.com/sl/pykWM5A

 

 

#employeeappreciation, #corporatephotography, #corporateportraits, #authorportraits, #profileportraits, #bookcovers, #portraitphotography, #brandingphotography, #businesslifestylephotography

 

kathryn@hollinrake.com

holllinrake.com

Why use green screen for business portraits?

I have written on this topic before but funnily enough even I sometimes feel a hint of trepidation as I suggest to clients that we shoot on green screen, because I am anticipating a negative reaction -- doubt that this is a route to high quality portraits, a preconception that it will look fake or bad (it will not) or will be too much trouble (it’s the opposite). I get it. I've seen the bad and obvious examples, too. But over and over I am reminded how hugely advantageous it is to shoot this way, and conversely how undermining it can be to shoot environmental portraits the “old, normal” way. So I am going to try again to summarize why green screen portrait photography is in many circumstances the superior way to go...if it is done well!

Just the other day I shot an environmental portrait in an office and ended up shooting the portrait the “old way”, which, of course, we used to do all the time…ie. the person is positioned in the environment and the portrait is created in camera. Had I used a green screen, I would have got essentially the same photo, except it would have been better, because I would have had the luxury of exposing and adjusting the background independently and as an added bonus I could have lit the subject from the other side (an artistic choice which wasn’t an option because there was no room for the light on that side). 

With environmental portraits the photographer always has the challenge of balancing the exposure of the background with the exposure of the person, and in this case, once I was back at the studio I wished the background had been a little lighter. Within one capture, had I exposed for a lighter background (ie. had more of the exposure coming from the ambient light) the subject would have appeared lighter too, and the windows in the background would have been too bright, so I erred on the side of caution because if you over expose (ie. “burn out”) highlights you are never getting them back.

 

An example of a bright window in the background overexposing the edge of a person’s hair; the edges are missing, never to be retrieved.

 
But can’t you do anything in Photoshop (other than retrieve lost highlights)? The short answer to this is always yes; where there’s a budget there’s a way. There are lots of softwares (Photoshop and various plug-ins) that purport to facilitate seamless background removal and replacement but in my experience they are nowhere near perfect…the edges are not consistently clean or accurate, especially if the background shares colours, tones and densities with the person…ie. there is not great separation between the subject and the background. And if the original background is dark and you want to replace it with a much lighter one, or vice versa this can be very problematic. With green screen however, specialized software specifically designed to remove all the green pixels works fantastically well 99% of the time, giving you huge freedom and control over what backgrounds you choose to use.

So what, specifically, are the advantages of shooting with green screen?:

- Independent control over the exposure of the background and subject

- Ability to incorporate backgrounds that it would be impractical to set up and shoot in front of…either due to lack of privacy, lack of space, or lack of availability on the shoot day

- No need to worry about the time, weather, or available light in a room on shoot day

- No need for a visually appealing room to shoot the portrait(s) 

- Control of where the subject is placed within the background frame, or where the background is placed behind the subject

- Control over the shape of the person, if, for example, the camera put on 10 lbs., or the subject is carrying a few extra not-their-usual-self lbs., or they lost weight and the suit looks too big, or the shoulder pads look too big, or the arms look a little bulgy, or the pants make the hips look wider than they are, or the hair isn’t quite the right shape, etc. I do subtle reshaping very, very frequently (often at the specific request of clients). 

 

When the person and the background are one photo and you want to change the shape of the person two possible options are: 1) you push over the edge of the person, understanding that the background goes with them, 2) you close-cut the person (ie. cut them out and make a separate layer out of them), so you can change their shape as you wish, understanding you then have to recreate (clone) what you would have seen behind them that was missing from the original photo because it was obscured by the body. Unless you were fortunate enough to have shot a plate shot for each subject (ie. a shot of the background without the person which requires a camera locked in position on a tripod) which does help a lot (although it doesn’t help with the exposure situation mentioned above). Either way it’s a lot of work that clients don’t generally expect to be paying for and that would have been much simpler with a green screen.

These three sets of images (above and below) illustrate one of the most useful benefits of shooting with green screen, and that is the ability to do shape adjustments without creating adverse effects in the background.

- Flexibility in terms of backgrounds (ie. you are not stuck with the environment you shot in…you can easily repurpose/refresh an image, and have more than one option for an image…eg. a white and environmental background versions of one portrait)

- Facilitates future photography of new team members such that their portraits perfectly match sets of previously created ones, regardless of when or where you shoot

- Highly efficient method for producing a varied set of photos…ie. one green screen set to shoot multiple poses and crops, and a few extra minutes to find and shoot potential backgrounds in and around the office (assuming an office has visually appealing spots available…if not then photographer’s archive or stock photo backgrounds may be used). As opposed to having to set-up over and over in different spots around the office which no busy executive is going to have the time for.

- And here’s where it gets harder to explain but stay with me…green screens also let you cheat, so you can get more aesthetically pleasing results due to the flexibility the photographer has with camera angle in front of a green screen. For example, a higher camera angle (looking down on the subject) is known, generally, to be more flattering…there will be no visual cues to the viewer that the camera angle was high…the subject will just look better. In an environmental setting we are often limited to more straight-across camera angles so as to avoid perspective distortion of vertical lines in the background. This also limits placement of the elements in the background relative to the person…plus, people move. If we’ve shot the person and backdrop separately we can position the person exactly where we want them against the background, whereas if you are capturing the whole image in camera, the photographer has less control over the exact position of the person, not to mention the differences that will occur when shooting multiple people of different heights and shapes in front of that background. 

I illustrated some of what I’m writing about in a blog post a while ago: https://khollinrakemakemepretty.blogspot.com/2021/04/why-i-love-shooting-portraits-against.html

The only good reasons to shoot a head and shoulders or standing torso* portrait in the actual environment are if there is no post-production budget at all and you are expecting images to be ready to go as shot, which may be the case with “lifestyle” photos for image libraries but will pretty much never be the case for executive and leadership portraits. (*Where green screens would not be recommended is in circumstances where the person is interacting with the environment…eg. sitting in a chair, sitting at a desk, leaning on a wall, etc., or when the number of people requiring portraits is greater than about fifteen, because the time and care required to make them look varied and individual, ie. not cookie cutter and fake, becomes prohibitive.)

I shoot many portraits on green screens. I love the flexibility, control and creativity this technique affords me. It gives me so many more options in terms of being able to create just the right overall look for any portrait depending on the client’s brand and particular needs. I can tailor the background to the person’s look, what they’re wearing, what we feel is appropriate and what will really make their portrait sing.

I hope this helps! If there is anything worrying you about shooting this way that I haven't addressed please let me know.

hollinrake.com

kathryn@hollinrake.com

 

 

How to get the glare out of glasses on video calls

 

How many people wear reading glasses on video calls? More and more it seems. How’s it working? Based on my observations, often not well. So what’s the problem? The problem is that if there are noticeable reflections in your glasses then people can’t see your eyes, at least not clearly. And that’s a problem because for sighted people the eyes play a huge part in our communication. Seeing eye to eye, literally, is key to achieving a sense of connection. Video call technologies create so many barriers to clear and effective communication and to true connection. We owe it to ourselves to mitigate those barriers as well as we possibly can, so our message is not compromised or lost. Eyeglass glare is one thing we can definitely fix.

 

The main reason for the computer-screen-in-the-eyeglass lenses-phenomenon is that the main source of illumination for your face is your computer screen. In my sample screen grab I wore my husband’s huge glasses and dimmed the light in the room to illustrate a worst case scenario, a scenario unfortunately not all that uncommon. Maybe it’s after dark so you have no available daylight, and the only light in the room is a ceiling fixture above and behind you, or something like that. So the brightest light hitting your face is coming from your computer screen.

 

Yes, your webcam can pick up your face with just the light from your screen, but it’s

having to work really hard to make your face look properly exposed, and sacrifices to image quality are inevitable. The less light on you and your face the more grainy and blurry you look.

 

What’s the solution? Light! And not just any light…it must be brighter light than the light coming from your monitor.

 

In my diagram, I’m using an 18 inch ring light. You don’t have to use a ring light. You do have to position whatever light you have above your face shining down so the angle of reflection doesn’t include your glasses. The advantage of a large ring light is that it still illuminates you evenly when placed at a bit of a distance from your face. The smaller the light source, the less flattering the light will look, and the less effective it will be.

 

Notice how sharp the screen grab is with the ring light. The web cam was happy.

 

For more tips on showing up powerfully on video calls presence I invite you to check out the videos on my website. Or get in touch for a private consult so I can see what you’re doing and help you make it better. People want to see you!

 

And of course, photography. Anyone who knows me knows that’s what I really do. Let’s have a video call to chat about your next project…just make sure to light up your lovely face! 

 

#corporatephotography, #corporateportraits, #authorportraits, #profileportraits, #bookcovers, #portraitphotography

 

kathryn@hollinrake.com

hollinrake.com

Make-up for profile portraits: make-up artist or AI?

 

Left: no make-up, Middle: actual make-up done by me, Right: the no make-up photo with AI make-up

 

A little while ago I started using a new Photoshop portrait retouching plug-in that uses AI and greatly enhances my ability to finish portraits. It is getting so sophisticated with each update that I wondered if I might now actually be able to do full make-up from scratch in retouching. Photoshop has always made that possible but the time and skill required made it prohibitively expensive in any practical sense. But now, I wondered, so I did a test.

 

Let’s compare my photos:

 

#1 No make-up at all.

 

#2 I did my make-up, maybe not as well as a make-up artist would do it, but I’m comfortable doing my own make-up; as a photographer I know what I need, so it’s fine for demo purposes. I would normally retouch a photo at least somewhat, even with make-up done, so there are a few distracting spots I would normally smooth out but I’m leaving them in for the purposes of this experiment. (I will also mention that these days more and more clients, and I myself, are desiring more authentic photos that show our “earned wrinkles”. There’s a balance to strike.)

 

#3 AI. This is photo #1 with AI make-up only. I was careful not to overdo it, trying to make it match the real make-up as closely as possible, within the still somewhat limited choices it provides for each element (ie, 8 eye shadow colours/shapes, 6 eye brow shapes...no colour choices…just density control, etc.). One problem is that I was very slightly smiling in #2 so I think the deadpan expression in #1 makes it look creepier than it would. Funnily enough I think the AI did a better job of the eye brows than I did! I know one of my trusted make-up artists would have done better.

 

I notice the AI softens everything just a little so even keeping it light it still looks slightly (over-?) retouched even though all I was really trying to do was add make-up.

 

But to be honest I am pretty impressed. Nevertheless…

 

Would I soon be advising clients not to hire a Hair and Make-up artist? To be clear, not all of my clients do anyway…many do their own make-up if they wear make-up at all. But here’s what I realized…there is one HUGE benefit to hiring a professional and that is that how you feel is going affect how you look. In other words…if you look in the mirror and see the most well-rested, clear skinned, healthy, vibrant version of yourself, you are half way to showing up that way on camera.

 

 Think of actors who find and become their characters thanks in part to their hair and make-up and wardrobe. See it and be it!

 

And, with a make-up artist you can let them know in real time if you are liking the look… bit more, bit less, darker, lighter, different colour, etc., before and as you shoot. Whereas if you leave it to post-production, the photographer/retoucher is going to have to guess what you’ll like. Imagine going back and forth over multiple e-mails or calls trying to land in the right place. That is not going to work for anyone.

 

And of course, AI can’t do hair. Yet.

 

In summary, I recommend that you hire the make-up artist.

 

BTW a little side note/bonus tip. Anyone who has seen my portrait Tips posts will probably have seen me in this top before. Why do I keep coming back to it for my business photo examples? It fits really well, does not wrinkle or bunch, has a bit of a funky detail so it’s not totally boring and hints at my artistic side, but is, overall, neutral and simple, so it doesn’t distract viewers from the face which is what we want viewers to focus on. And FYI I would never actually wear this thing anywhere because if you see the whole garment on me it looks awful. It’s for photos only. So, remember to consider wardrobe you may have that, from the waste up, would be photo perfect. 

 

kathryn@hollinrake.com

hollinrake.com

corporateportraits.ca