Tips for creating a professional head shot

Years ago a writer sat for a head shot if she was lucky enough to need a photo to adorn the back of her book. Today, with the surge of social media, all writers should have a professional-looking photo, lest they find themselves transformed into an ominous outline with a question-mark face.

Don’t answer the need by quickly cropping your face out of a recent group photo taken at Aunt Gilda’s birthday party. Whether your head shot will be at the top of your high-visibility print column or will accompany your digital conversations, the photo should represent you at your best. That said, don’t stray too far from your everyday look.

Lori Ann Robinson, an image and fashion consultant in Los Angeles, says you should choose clothing that’s simple but flattering. “Patterns can be distracting,” she advises. “Wear your best colors if the head shot is in color. Also, make sure your neckline is flattering and frames your face, and keep to simple jewelry.” Women may benefit from getting hair or makeup done by a professional, Robinson suggests.

It’s up to you whether or not you wear your eyeglasses. “It’s easy to light the studio to avoid glare in the glass, and so that the subject’s eyes are visible,” says Joanne Smith, of Headshots Photography in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

Remember that you may count on this photograph for multiple years, so avoid trendy items or jewelry that may soon look dated.

It’s OK to have your photographer touch up your photo to minimize signs of age, but don’t go overboard, Robinson warns. “If you [end up] doing a book signing, you don’t want to look too [different] from your picture. People may not recognize you,” she says.

Those writers with the opposite problem–fear that their photo broadcasts their fresh-out-of-school status–should not try to age themselves. “Look well groomed and professional, not older,” Robinson advises.

Your photo doesn’t have to capture the perfect smile. Sometimes a different expression–thoughtful, laughing, friendly–can work for you. The key is not to look contrived. Tell your photographer what you’d like to capture, and he or she should be able to help you achieve a natural outcome.

Creative by nature, many writers bypass the traditional bust shot for something with a bit more flair. Tread carefully, though, when going for the unique. This picture may be the only image many people will associate with you. You don’t want to be forever remembered as the writer in the hammock, or the one chewing a quill pen. “It’s fun to be creative, although there is a fine line between creative and cheesy,” Smith says. So shoot some creative shots and some traditional images, and then decide which works better for you.

Creative shots will include more props and background, so consider the final size of the photo, Smith adds. “Often it becomes a thumbnail-sized image in a magazine or blog. Your readers want to see your face, so, if it’s too small in the frame, you lose the impact of a tight head shot,” she says.

When done well, a creative shot can enhance your image, Smith says: “For example, we shot an [environmental] writer outside with trees and plants in the background, which suited her column. If you’re a romance writer, a head shot taken at sunset on the beach may work well.”

Photography costs vary by region, so shop around to find the going rate in your area. Seek someone who will provide a variety of shots and is flexible. Most important, choose someone that makes you feel relaxed and comfortable.

To cut costs, look into photography schools, or round up some fellow freelancers and try to negotiate a group rate.

You may hesitate to pay a photographer or other professionals to help you put together your head shot, but a small investment may be worth it to have a photo you’re proud of.

Light, camera, action

A moving subject presents the photographer with a situation that requires quick thinking and plenty of preparation. Photographers don’t capture images of rapidly moving subjects such as lions chasing prey by merely reacting to what passes in front of their eyes. They come prepared for the confrontation and are able to anticipate the speed of the action and direction of travel.

Before you pick up your camera, you need to decide in advance whether to freeze the action with a fast shutter speed or emphasise the movement through techniques such as panning, slow-sync flash and time exposures. Your decision will depend largely on the subject and setting, as well as any technical limitations of your equipment.

One of the basics of photography is learning which shutter speed to choose with the lens in use in order to achieve a sharp image unaffected by the dreaded ‘camera shake’. There is an old rule of thumb for the 35-millimetre format that the minimum shutter speed selected should be the equivalent to the focal length of the lens in use, so 1/30sec for a 28-millimetre wide-angle lens, all the way up to 1/500sec for a 500-millimetre telephoto.

Although digital imaging means we can now work with a different range of focal lengths and with a greater choice of shutter speeds, the principle of this rule remains the same. Simply, the slower the shutter speed, the greater the chance of there being unwanted image blur or movement in your pictures. Unless, of course, you actually want to record such image blur. In that case, combining slow shutter speeds with panning proves most effective.

Action panning

Many wildlife and sports photographers use panning to depict a rapidly moving subject against a blurred background in order to convey the speed of the action and concentrate more of the viewer’s attention onto the subject. Panning is best executed when the camera locks focus on the subject and follows its path in a steady sweep, even after the shutter has fired. The camera’s autofocus needs to be set to continuous (predictive) AF mode and the shutter speed slow enough (1/60sec or less) to render the background as a streaky blur while the moving subject stays relatively sharp. This technique is effective with many wildlife images as well as sporting and cultural events.

The effect can be further accentuated by the use of flash. Most SLR cameras have a flash sync speed of 1/125sec or 1/250sec. (Remember, the flash sync speed is also the maximum shutter speed you should use with flash.) Using a slower shutter speed allows the scene to be recorded with the ambient light as well as the light from the flash. The effect of the ambient light on the scene, particularly the background, increases the longer the shutter stays open. If you’re close enough to the subject, the flash will help fill in any shadows and render a ghosting effect on moving parts.

When taking photos while panning, just focus on your subject–for example, a passing cyclist–and keep it within the frame, tracking its path across you. With your camera’s motordrive set to continuous, a burst of flash exposures with the shutter set at say 1/30sec will produce a well-lit foreground and focused target, but with a streaked background that helps emphasise the speed of the bicycle. By checking your results on the monitor you can determine if your choice of shutter speed was best for the desired effect.

Wildlife and water

Of course, not all subjects move as predictably as a passing cyclist. Wildlife, especially birds in flight, can be more unpredictable, and it pays to spend time observing the habits of your target. Knowing where a bird is likely to perch will help enormously in your attempts to photograph it in flight, as the instant before landing is when a bird’s flight is at its slowest.

Landscape photographers use shutter speeds of several seconds, even longer, when photographing scenes of moving water such as a waterfall or the sea rising and ebbing on the shoreline. Such slow shutter speeds (time exposures) create a soft and misty impression of water, erasing any defining lines of shape and depicting the surface as a study of muted colour. However, to be fully effective, the camera must be fixed on a tripod and the shutter released by a remote release or self-timer.

Freezing action

Freezing high-speed action requires a different approach. The quicker the subject, the faster the shutter speed required. Assuming there is enough light to ensure an accurate exposure, a shutter speed of 1/500sec will be adequate for most lenses and in most situations. Subjects such as F1 racing cars, skiers and other sports action will require something faster.

Stopping down the lens to its maximum aperture will give you the best chance of using the fastest possible shutter speed. Fast shutter speeds lessen the risk of camera shake, but some form of support, such as a tripod, is still advisable.

When photographing ball games, you will need to fire a continuous burst of frames to capture the moment when ball meets racquet, bat, boot or club. Even then, it will be mostly luck that determines if you’re successful.

Dos and don’ts of photographing moving subjects

Do …

* When panning, make sure to keep your camera moving evenly before, during and after firing the shutter

* Switch your camera’s autofocus mode to ‘continuous’ Many cameras now have a sophisticated ‘predictive’ algorithm that keeps up with changes of speed and direction as long as the subject is tracked

* Consider a monopod over a tripod. They are quicker to set up, keep your camera steady while panning and won’t get in anyone’s way

Don’t …

* Use a shutter speed faster than your camera’s flash sync speed if using flash. If you do, part of your image will be blacked-out by the shutter blind passing across the image sensor during exposure

* Forget to check the maximum range of your flash. Flash falls off quickly and less light may reach your subject than you think

* Just shoot from the hip, particularly when using long lenses. Always consider some means of support, even a beanbag on a ledge or car window sill

Equipment: lenses and cameras

Lens options: lenses to heat the shakes

Canon was the first manufacturer to develop special lens technology to counteract lateral and vertical movements caused by hand holding. Its range of image stabilising lenses make it possible to use slower shutter speeds for sharp results when using a camera and lens without a tripod. Nikon has a similar range of vibration reduction lenses, most recently applied to a 105-millimetre macro, while independent lens maker Sigma has developed an optical stabiliser lens range covering some telephoto focal lengths. While these lenses can’t substitute for the complete stability of a tripod, they can be a limited alternative in situations where a tripod is impractical.

Contacts: www.sigma-imaging-uk.com, www.canon.co.uk, www.nikon.co.uk

Digital option: Sony a100

Sony’s first interchangeable-lens digital SLR costs just 599 [pounds sterling] body only and is fully compatible with the Konica Minolta range of 35-millimetre and digital lenses. This camera features Super SteadyShot, a system that compensates for body vibrations at the instant the shutter is released by tilting the CCD image sensor in real time for sharper pictures. Because it is built into the camera, Super SteadyShot works with all Sony [alpha]-mount compatible lenses, thereby saving the need to buy into a specialist lens range.

What every musician should know about photography?

So your band is recording an album, and you’re starting to think about how you’re going to promote it to the industry and public. One of the key items you need to consider is decent photography. Musicians need photography to use on their CD cover/liner notes, and possibly more important, for promotion purposes. This photo is a representation of the artist or the band, making it necessary to put a lot of thought and creativity into it. Unfortunately, hiring a professional may not come cheap.

While speaking to four photographers from Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver the prices vary for bandphotography, but the advice is similar.

When choosing a photographer, it is necessary to research what the photographer has done in the past and choose one that fits your budget. Bands that are signed under a major label have their photo shoots paid for by the label, enabling them a larger budget to work with. Independent bands have a more difficult time. When finding different prices for your band photography, make sure you know what is included in all the packages. Ask what it will cost for additional supplies such as contact sheets, film, processing, final prints, etc. Ask a photographer to explain clearly any procedures you don’t understand. As well, make sure you ask about photo credit. Many photographers keep the rights to the photos and want to be credited every time it is used. Like the rest of the music industry there is negotiation involved resulting in some form of an agreement.

Don Bird, a music consultant from Bird’s Word Productions Ltd., in Toronto, ON, suggests that if a band can’t afford a first rate photographer, then they should go to some of the art colleges and schools because there will be students who will have fresh ideas music wise.

John Leighton a photographer in Halifax, charges $100 an hour plus supplies. Leighton prefers that when a band comes to him for an album shot or promo picture, they have pre-planned what they want as a band. They should have an idea of what will work for them and decide on one member of the band to discuss with him what they want. “When I have six different band members coming to me and telling me different things, it gets frustrating.”

Johanne Mernmercier of Montreal, PQ. says, “I listen to the music to see what kind of mood they want. Sometimes they want photos from their live shows, in the studio or just outside. We just try to have fun. I think the artists should do research to see what has been done and find pictures of what they like.” Mernmercier charges $1,600-$1,800 for a one-day photo shoot. This does not include make-up artists, wardrobe or supplies. For a black and white Press Kit photo, she charges $300 and it belongs to the artist to do what he or she wants with it.

According to Jim Dawson of Fotowork in Toronto, ON, “if the portfolio looks good and the photographer is above board in explaining your options and his/her charges, then it’s a go.” Dawson’s prices are in the hundreds, “it all depends on the package,” he said. “Most clients are more interested in who you’ve photographed, more than what you’ve done with the people you’ve shot.” Musicians should focus more on the photographer’s style than who they’ve photographed before. Just because a photographer has shot some famous musicians doesn’t mean they’re going to be great for you or your band.

Photographer Ashely Maile from Vancouver, BC says, “I will cut a deal with an independent band and I hope they will help me along the way. It has happened that bands I have photographed, that are now signed, do help me out. My rates are less expensive for an indie band because they don’t have a lot of money and are not backed by a label.”

The band should be telling the photographer what they would be using the picture for. This will help the photographer understand what kind of photo is needed. “If you are looking for an album cover or design, then you should go for something darker, but if you’re just need an 8×10 glossy photo, you want it to be bright so it can reproduce really well. You have to picture it being reproduced in a little community newspaper or something like that,” says Maile.

150 years of photography

It is a curious but tidy coincidence that the two earliest surviving photographic images – the saintly relics of the medium – were both taken through a window. In 1826, the inventor Joseph-Nicephore Niepce pointed a primitive camera out of the dormer of his house at Gras, France. It took eight hours to record, on a polished pewter plate coated with asphalt and lavender oil, a crude schematic view of Niepce’s backyard. But the result is the unmistakable forerunner of the delicate, silvery daguerreotype, the invention of Niepce’s collaborator, Louis-Jacques Daguerre. Nine years after Niepce’s experiment, a patrician Englishman named William Henry Fox Talbot aimed a tiny 2.5-inch square camera at a latticed window of his family seat, Lacock Abbey, in Wiltshire. He succeeded in making a paper negative on which it was possible, with the aid of a magnifying lens, to count 200 panes of glass. There was the birth of photography as it is known today.

Joseph Nicéphore Niépce

For both men, the window was probably little more than a convenience, the closest source of light to a makeshift laboratory. But in a way, the inventors’ subjects proved oddly prophetic. In no time at all, photography itself came to be viewed as a kind of window, a transparent medium whose subject matter was the world itself. The first newspaper report on Daguerre’s invention seized on the fact that the photograph differed in some profound way from the work of visual artists. As La Gazette de France proclaimed in 1839, “Let not the draftsman and the painter despair: M. Daguerre’s results are something else from their work, and in many cases cannot replace it.” Quite what constitutes that “something else” is still being debated, although an astute definition was provided as early as 1857 by the Victorian writer Lady Elizabeth Eastlake. Photography, she wrote, is “that new form of communication between man and man – neither letter, message, or picture.”

The most important invention of the 19th century may have been the idea of the invention itself. Even so, there was something momentous about the introduction of photography. The Paris crowd that waited 150 years ago, on Aug. 19, 1839, outside a joint meeting of France’s Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Fine Arts, where Daguerre’s process was revealed, was tense with excitement. The promise of the new medium was that for the first time in human history, visual information could be conveyed without having to rely on handmade marks. And although the Victorians could not be aware of it, photography changed man’s relationship to the fleeting and the ephemeral.Photography succeeded in freezing the present tense forever.

The perceptive Lady Eastlake was quick to understand many of the new medium’s characteristics, especially its sheer ubiquitousness. Even by 1857, photography had become, as she put it, “a household word and a household want; it is used alike by art and science, by love, business and justice, is found in the pocket of the detective, in the cell of the convict and on the cold brave breast of the battlefield.” She also understood, with great clarity, the profoundly time-bound nature of the photograph, the way it bears the impress of a particular hour or age – as well as the way it can capture a telling detail. Photographs of children, she wrote, may fail on the level of art, “yet minor things – the very shoes of one, the inseparable toy of the other – are given with a strength of identity which art does not even seek.” As for the vexing question of whether photography was an art, she found the new medium wanting – although it could relieve artists from the humbler tasks of depiction, such as the miniature portrait.

The problem of photography’s status as art – a recurring, even tiresome, question in the medium’s history – seems never to be entirely laid to rest. In the beginning, the audience was prepared to marvel at the sheer fidelity of a daguerreotype – to count window panes or chimneys – and to leave it at that. (Such a sense of open-mouthed wonder can still be observed now in those who encounter for the first time the eerie, spectral presence of a hologram, a flat but three-dimensional image.) In the 19th century, a few who worked self-consciously as artists stand out – a photographer like the Englishwoman Julia Margaret Cameron, whose monumental close-up portraits flouted the polite, standoffish conventions of the day. But in general, the century may be said to belong to photographers of a more utilitarian cast – to men who, like Carleton Watkins or William Henry Jackson, recorded the opening up of the pristine landscape of the American West, or to that talented group of camera operators who, during the American Civil War, worked under the name of their taskmaster, Mathew Brady.

In the 20th century, the achievement of art photography is less equivocal. By 1939 – the centenary of the medium –photography had a rudimentary history and the sense of a usable tradition. There were already bodies of work that were distinguished not only by a certain visual grace and intelligence, but also by the light that they cast on their own civilization. In the 1920s, the Cologne photographer August Sander embarked on a vast collective portrait of the German people that to this day remains a model of sociological shrewdness and psychological insight. His 1928 Boxers is an ironic contrast to Lewis Foote’s 1927 image of the Prince of Wales and his brother Prince George in Winnipeg’s railway station. And it is hard to think of 1930s America without recalling the lyrical, emblematic images of Walker Evans and his colleagues who worked for the federal Farm Security Administration.

There was a period – most notably in the 1940s and 1950s – when photographers who considered themselves artists had access to the great mass-circulation magazines. That era reached some sort of climax – and perhaps came to an end – with the famous 1955 Family of Man exhibition organized by Edward Steichen of New York City’s Museum ofModern Art. The show was an enormous success with a worldwide audience, although even then there were many photographers who felt that Steichen’s editorial call for a brotherhood of man colored the work included in the exhibition. Certainly a younger generation of artist/photographers today regards the humanistic pieties of The Family of Man as threadbare, if not thoroughly suspect.

Today, a certain knowing skepticism reigns in contemporary photography. Indeed, it seems at times as if the “real” world has been used up, and all that remains is a vast netherworld of images. In vanguard circles, the dominant tendency is less to make new photographs than to use appropriate existing ones in an effort to grapple with a society that appears to be terminally saturated with images. The other route for photographers who want to be noticed in an increasingly frantic art world is to see how far they can push back the borders of the acceptable.

No one better exemplified that trend than the American Robert Mapplethorpe, who died earlier this year of AIDS, and who was, without any doubt, the most visible photographer of the decade. His subject matter ranged from impeccable still lifes of flowers to scenes that, in their polymorphous perversity, seem to have been taken from the last five minutes of the Roman Empire. Photography, which most people once thought of as a neutral window on the world, now appears more like the distorting mirror of our own perceptions. It may even be a distant early-warning system, telling us that the age of innocence is finally and irrevocably over.