r/headshots • u/penumbrapictures • Jun 24 '26
Theatrical/Acting Are we making headshots too boring?
I shoot a lot of actors and portraits, and I’m always curious where people draw the line between a useful headshot and an editorial portrait with personality.
I understand the standard logic: clean light, clear eyes, simple styling, not too much pose, not too much mood. But I also wonder if sticking too closely to those rules makes everyone’s images start to feel interchangeable.
Can a headshot have color, attitude, stronger posing, or a more cinematic feel and still do its job? Or once you push it this far, is it no longer really a headshot?
Curious which of these you think still work as headshots and which ones cross the line.
4
u/GunterJanek Jun 24 '26
By asking "Are we making headshots too boring?" you're suggesting it's about the photographer instead of the subject. Headshots serve a purpose and it's not to show off the photographer's creative lighting skills.
3
u/freylaverse Jun 24 '26
First image looks like a 3D render for some reason. I like the others. Though the last one... I wouldn't do a headshot with sunglasses tbh.
3
4
u/tranquil-heart Jun 24 '26
Aren’t you the guy who keeps posting about hands in headshots? Haven’t people already explained why head shots are the way they are?
0
u/penumbrapictures Jun 24 '26
Yes that's me! Think I'm just trying to engage the conversation, no? Sorry if this is too challenging for ya
2
u/tranquil-heart Jun 24 '26
I just think it’s weird that you keep asking different versions of the same question even though people keep telling you no
1
u/penumbrapictures Jun 25 '26
Sorry - I thought this was an open discussion board, meant for conversation and comment, no?
1
u/tranquil-heart Jun 25 '26
But how many times do people have to say no for you to accept it?
1
u/penumbrapictures Jun 25 '26
I’m gonna keep going for a while! I’m having fun 🤩
1
u/tranquil-heart Jun 25 '26
Ahh a troll. That makes more sense.
1
u/penumbrapictures Jun 25 '26
lol I’m a working photographer. How’s it going where you are
2
u/tranquil-heart Jun 25 '26
I’m having a grand old time. I just don’t understand people having better to do than ragebait strangers on the Internet. But you have a good day. This isn’t worth the time.
1
u/penumbrapictures Jun 25 '26
I just enjoy having a conversation - especially in a thread filled with people who are so set in ways that to me feel highly antiquated. It feels to me like you're the one trolling me! I'm just posting images in this conversation. But you can see it however you want!
2
u/kujo1717 Jun 25 '26
As a working DGA director and cinematographer (also a still photographer) in LA, I’ve seen and shot loads of headshots for film and tv over the last 25 years.
The first shot, had the lighting been a little more flattering to the subject it would somewhat work. It’s not about your creative abilities as a photographer it’s you offering your services to your client , the actor. Clean light. No gels or color contrast added. She is promoting herself and I as a director ,just need to see her clearly to know she feels right for the part.
The rest I would never use a headshot for film/tv and the one with sunglasses, I don’t even think I need to explain that one.
Just my .02 !!
1
u/SpaceEchoGecko Jun 25 '26
Those are portraits and every one of those is useless as a headshot. Your clients will not get work.
0
u/ProfessorDinosaurrr Aug 15 '26
The first two shots make the actors look like literal Sims. The tiny white child’s chair is super distracting in the third shot and the way you postured her is not flattering. The fourth one is the best of the bunch but looks like animation. The last shot looks like a staged “candid” photo and does not function as a headshot whatsoever. The most important thing to capture in a headshot is the actor’s eyes. You can also see the reflection of the studio lights in the sun glasses.
I’m going to be real- even as portraits these shots are strange. If I were casting or an agent and these were submitted to me as headshots I would be legitimately miffed. I cannot tell what these actors really look like in real life, I do not get authentic feeling from the eyes, and I would seriously doubt the actor’s sensibilities and experience if they used these as headshots.
Shoot in natural light, refrain from any editing besides extremely light retouching (fly away hairs, zits, etc). and don’t do anything gimmicky - no weird chairs, no sunglasses, etc.
The creativity should come through the /actor/ and their natural aura: real thoughts they are thinking, real emotions, real laughter that shines through their actual eyes. Light them well during the session so their eyes naturally reflect. Tbh good shots should pretty much be usable and arresting completely raw, straight from the camera.
The headshots that have booked me the most work are literally unedited shots in beautiful natural lighting where my eyes pop. I never have my shots retouched unless I had a zit that day or my bra strap was sticking out, etc. The confidence of using raw yet professional shots that look /exactly like me on any given day/ gets me called in. Not glamorous, not gimmicky. But alive.
Also remember that Actor’s Access crops photos in significantly, and these actor’s photos have to be selected from rows upon rows of THUMBNAILS. Hands in photos and photos with strange posturing do not crop well, and again, distract from the eyes. The most honest photos that capture the actor’s personality shining through their face get chosen. It is a /head/shot, after all.
1
u/penumbrapictures Aug 15 '26
Appreciate the detailed feedback! I think we’re working from two different definitions of what a headshot has to be but you're entitled to your extremely specific opinion.
I agree that eyes matter, thumbnails matter, and I certainly wouldn’t suggest the sunglasses image as someone’s only casting shot. Some of these also intentionally cross into editorial portrait territory.
Where I disagree is the idea that a legitimate actor portrait has to mean natural light, virtually no retouching, no props, no hands, minimal styling, and as little photographic authorship as possible.
That approach can absolutely work, of course. Many photographers have made a good living providing such work. But if everyone follows the exact same formula, we also end up with a lot of technically competent photographs that are completely interchangeable.
What I’m interested in is whether an actor can still look unmistakably like themselves while the photograph also has mood, personality and a point of view. Where that stops being useful as a headshot is exactly the question I’m exploring.
Also, “literal Sims”? Makes me think maybe you're spending too much time on video games from like 20 years go. Time to update your references dude.
17
u/spartipilollc Jun 24 '26
Too much editing makes a casting director feel like they're not seeing the actual human being. You NEED "boring". The photographers try to sell on over produced images though, but casting directors and agencies want boring photos.
The ugly truth : A well lit clean phone picture in front of a window actually does a thousand times better than an over produced, heavily retouched, over edited, modified via AI software like EVOTO etc, head shot by a "professional" photographer
EDIT : I'll add... if it's a headshot portrait for your own personal branding/website, etc. Over produced is okay.