£1000 to spend on headshot lighting - Advice needed

S

Steve Marshall

Messages
2
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

I'm looking for a bit of advice.

I'm a cinematographer (stevemarshalldp.com) and I've decided to cross the border into stills photography and give actors/corporate headshots a go in my spare time. I know a lot of actors that aren't happy with their headshots and it's something I've always wanted to try!

I'll be shooting on a Canon 7D or 5D, probably on a white/colorama background. The studio space I have is massive(http://brunswickstudios.co.uk/studio/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/loft-empty.jpg).

My main problem is the lighting. I'm very experienced with constant lighting, but an adequate setup for headshots would be extremely expensive, so I want to try the flash route. It's my first experience with flash so I'm just looking for a bit of advice.

This set (Elinchrom D-Lite RX 4/4 Softbox) seems pretty good - maybe with an extra head and a larger octo softbox for one of them?

Anyway, I'd love to get your opinions on how you'd spend £1000 to get the most versatile flash setup
 
Steve Marshall said:
Hi guys,

I know a lot of actors that aren't happy with their headshots and it's something I've always wanted to try!
Click to expand...

Well thats a good start - do you know any actors who aren't happy with their headshots that are willing to pay a decent fee for a professional photographer to get better ones ? :confused:

The market is pretty well served you only have to look on the actors directories for the amount of advertising photographers let alone a simple google search. But I'm sure you have done your research in that regard and how you are going to approach headshots to differentiate yourself. In which case I would think that you have done a decent amount of research on the lighting by now.

All that said I'm an Elinchrom user and have been for 10+ years and I'd happily recommend them - you won't get Broncolor or Profoto for your budget and so I'd say it was a sound choice. The d-lites are better now than originally when they were fanless, and if you are not shooting continuously all day then will be robust enough. Your other option is to go for the BXRi heads which are a step up, and may hold their value more. If your 3rd light is a rim/hairlight then you could make do with an older Style 300s or BX head and save some on that.

As for modifiers - your call really as it will determine the look you are going for. Nothing wrong with a large octa (I shoot some headshots with the 6ft Eli octabank) but that might eat a fair amount of your budget, and you might want to think about a beauty dish as an alternative look.

Good luck with it.
 
First things first, if I was going for a 'quality' look the last thing on my mind would be a white BG, there was a time it was cool, then it was retro, then it was modern and now it's ubiquitous.

I don't know about your budget, but I'd definitely go for something with S fit modifiers, a large octobox, a beauty dish, a snoot and a shoot through brolly and maybe some stripboxes. quality stands including at least one boom arm and a mini stand, a reflector stand and a couple of 5 in 1 reflectors.

whatever that leaves, spend on lights (3 or 4). the only 'nice to have' on the lighting list would be a remote to control the power on the keylight (save you some lowering and raising).

You don't really need a lot of power, I won't recommend brands because I don't have the necessary experience.

edit: Mike beat me to it.
 
Last edited:
I echo the answers above, more or less.
In my experience, few actors are happy with their headshots - vanity goes with the job. But, like models, many of them don't seem to be prepared to pay more to get more.

And even if they are, can you really produce something that's markedly better? It's really all about the lighting, and if you're thinking in terms of a set of lights that has 2 small softboxes, you're going to have a very sharp learning curve.

Video lighting is very different in its approach, not just the equipment used. In still photography we don't have movement, interest or action, we have to use light in a very different way, the emphasise the qualities of the face, and to get people to look at it and keep looking at it. Still photography extends time, videography compresses it, that's a massive difference.
 
Thanks for the replies guys.

I'm well aware of the differences between cinematography and photography, hence my asking advice.

This is isn't going to be my primary focus, I'll always be a cinematographer first and foremost. It's just some for my spare time - never stop learning.

I'm also being asked to shoot and direct more and more fashion films and working with the models is my weak spot at the moment. I think this'll help with that.
 
The other thing, not mentioned above is that Spotlight have some very specific guidelines as to how they expect an actors 'book' photo to look. It basically specifies they should look like a blank canvas.
 
Fab bum in your Figleaves commercial ;) (y) And being serious, you have obvious talent and experience to get to grips with still portraits in double-quick time. So just some comments really.

I use Elinchrom too, and I wouldn't worry about not being S-mount - there are plenty of third party modifiers to fit EL. Or you could save some money by buying Lencarta. Flash is flash at the end of the day and there are lots of good and reliable products around, it's the modifiers that make the difference, and especially how you use them.

I'm a big fan of flash, but it has to be admitted that those using constant lighting for headshots make the eyes look different with closed pupils - more colour, more life. The big and wide black pupils characteristic of flash are attractive too, said to be more alluring, but it's certainly a point of difference worth thinking about.

I see I'm not the only one to be a bit cynical about the whole actors/head-shots business. I've never met a model or actor that is happy with their looks. At the risk of upsetting a few people on here, head-shots work looks distinctly easy to me, at least from a technical standpoint. A decent photographer could knock off a dozen of those in an afternoon easily enough. But IMHO it's not so much about the photography, more about the marketing - personality, who you know, nice studio, plenty of banter and, frankly, more than the usual dose of BS. Nice work if you can get it :)
 
If head shots is your thing then you could check out Peter Hurley, think he uses kine flow but they're not cheap... :)

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Talk Photography Forums mobile app
 
Ferj said:
If head shots is your thing then you could check out Peter Hurley, think he uses kine flow but they're not cheap... :)
Click to expand...

If I had £1,000 to spend on gearing up for actors' headshots and had never done them before, I'd spend £200 on this DVD from Peter Hurley http://peterhurley.com/dvd/ - THEN decide what to buy. (Hint: he demos that you don't always need kinos to get his look).

Also, if you have gear for video I'd look at video lights such as big LED panels. (That's a whole new minefield BTW - I'd ask on video forums rather than ones dominated by flash people if you want a balanced view.)
 
This may be interesting
 
JonathanRyan said:
I'd spend £200 on this DVD from Peter Hurley http://peterhurley.com/dvd/ - THEN decide what to buy. (Hint: he demos that you don't always need kinos to get his look).
Click to expand...
Shame that he's such a waffler. My inner scientist always cringes when I hear him talk. But essentially his statement is that client interaction is way more important than equipment for great headshots. Oh and a slight squint makes the subject look cool and in control. There, saved you £200 and many hours of your life.

Martin Schoeller has some great headshot setups, with a similar approach to lighting - two strip-boxes. Peter mostly uses the equivalent of four for women, less for a more edgy look on men.
 
just a thought, do you have a MUA on tap for this sort of thing or is it part of your setup anyway during a session?

certainly going to browse your portfolio, (not just for the figleaves work :p) very interesting.
and for the record....so jealous of that loft space!
 
Last edited:
Cistron said:
Shame that he's such a waffler. My inner scientist always cringes when I hear him talk. But essentially his statement is that client interaction is way more important than equipment for great headshots. Oh and a slight squint makes the subject look cool and in control. There, saved you £200 and many hours of your life.

Martin Schoeller has some great headshot setups, with a similar approach to lighting - two strip-boxes. Peter mostly uses the equivalent of four for women, less for a more edgy look on men.
Click to expand...

Haha yes. It's that 'client interaction' thing that is so important - make them feel like a million dollars and you're most of the way towards making them look a million dollars. The rest is (relatively) easy.

It's a real talent and not sure you can teach that kind of thing. It's a bit like those top tips to attracting women that say 'be charming and witty'. Well, you either are charming and witty, or you're not.
 
HoppyUK said:
Haha yes. It's that 'client interaction' thing that is so important - make them feel like a million dollars and you're most of the way towards making them look a million dollars. The rest is (relatively) easy.

It's a real talent and not sure you can teach that kind of thing. It's a bit like those top tips to attracting women that say 'be charming and witty'. Well, you either are charming and witty, or you're not.
Click to expand...
That explains my failure with women:)
 
HoppyUK said:
It's a real talent and not sure you can teach that kind of thing.
Click to expand...

Actually I disagree. The more I learn, the more I realise that pretty much any skill can be learned. The trick is to break it down into a larger number of small learnable skills.

@Cistron you're right of course. 4 hours is a little long for the disk and it could easily be condensed into 2. In fact there's a free version that was kicking around that runs for about an hour and is well worth that investment. And a fair summary would be "it's not the light". I watched the full version about 3 times and don't regret the use of 12 hours though ;)
 
JonathanRyan said:
Actually I disagree. The more I learn, the more I realise that pretty much any skill can be learned. The trick is to break it down into a larger number of small learnable skills.
Click to expand...
I think it is along the lines of public speaking. Whilst I have no problem getting laughs, giggles and smiles out of large groups (exhausting it is!), it is more difficult in a one on one situation. I suppose Peter's constant blabbing lulls them into a secure and comfortable state. From what I've seen on all his clips, he is always like this. So he's either extremely clever and puts on a show (for all media), or is a buzzing ball of buzz. Don't ever give him coffee! ;)

@Cistron you're right of course. 4 hours is a little long for the disk and it could easily be condensed into 2. In fact there's a free version that was kicking around that runs for about an hour and is well worth that investment. And a fair summary would be "it's not the light". I watched the full version about 3 times and don't regret the use of 12 hours though ;)
Click to expand...
Wow. In one go? PH Marathon! :p
 
Elinchrom is an excellent choice , but I'd go for the BX series rather than the D-lite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top