Why do we need a headshot?
At a very basic level, it’s identification: age, sex, appearance. Something to stick on an office ID swipe card, but taken nicely, perhaps.
Yes - but it’s much more. More than just a first impression, it’s a personal statement. It’s branding. Like it or not, it suggests information about us, both personally and professionally. We make judgments based on how someone looks. Not just how someone dresses, but the very shape of their face, even the colour and style of their hair.
Why don’t we like our own photos?
One obvious answer, of course, is the increasing ubiquity for many years, and throughout our culture, of ‘perfection’, or at least the importance of one’s appearance fitting a certain standard. And for some time it hasn’t been solely in magazines, films and on billboards. Every day, people look better than they do on Instagram, to name just one platform. On our phones, post-processing algorithms for a smoother, thinner, brighter whatever are now automatically, immediately applied whenever we press the shutter. We don’t even have a choice. A computer is telling us that we could be, and should be, better looking. Maybe that’s true in your case, I don’t know.
The theory I prefer is to do with our faces being asymmetrical. When we look in the mirror, as we do every time we leave the house, our left is on our left. But for anyone who meets us and - crucially - in any photograph of us, will have our left on the right, and vice versa. That is, whenever we look at our own image, it’s not the same as that which we see in the mirror. Hence we’re uneasy about it. There’s a wonderful, thought-provoking series by Alex John Beck where he makes symmetrical portraits from each half of a face, raising questions of beauty and identity. And there are apocryphal stories of clients complaining to photographers that the photos from their session are no good. The photographer sends the set over again, but flipped 180°, and gets the frustrated response, “These ones are much better! Why didn’t you send them the first time?”
And there’s also the process itself. You have an allocated time slot in a production line. It’s reminiscent of tedious school portraits, but instead of idling one’s time away from double maths, it’s over a deadline, or it’s a meeting being interrupted. Most often in a conference room filled with studio lights, and expectations to smile for a stranger. Knowing our new photo could be the corporate portrait we have to use for the next several years.
So how can we get the most from it?
Let’s start with a few pointers:
Get your hair cut a few days before.
Wear simple, comfortable clothes - nothing too busy or colourful - and make sure they’re ironed. Ideally nothing bright white (this usually doesn’t work on a standard white background for a standard headshot) - or at least wear a jacket. Equally, jet black can look severe.
Arrive at the session a few minutes early. Being late knocks on for everyone after, and means you have less time. More time equals more options, as well as an opportunity to relax into the session.
It’s natural to be self-conscious. It means you care about the result, and how you look.
Ask to see a few of the photos as you go. There may be an angle you prefer, or your necklace may be too much, or you may feel you look too serious etc. At the very least you'‘ll feel confident in the photographer, and that these are so much better than you thought they’d be.
Don’t fret about anything temporary eg. blemishes, tired eyes. Anything which wouldn’t be there in a fortnight, or after a good night’s sleep, will be taken care of in post-production.
Nearly everyone has something they don’t like about themselves: this is not the time to focus on it. And it’s true to say that nobody else notices it, or cares very much. Remember, the photographer, your colleagues - everyone - wants you to look your best. You owe it to yourself to make the most from the session with a positive attitude.
What do you want to show?
With those basic tips out of the way, the purpose of corporate portraiture is to convey your positive attributes. It’s much more than the binary smiling/not smiling (equating to friendly/serious). Here’s a list of some of the more common traits we might wish to use to describe ourselves:
adaptable · confident · creative · determined · direct · educated · experienced · energetic · enthusiastic · good communicator · intelligent · kind · leadership · open · proactive · patient · personable · relaxed · reliable · team-player · thorough · well-rounded
The first thing to say is that you can’t convey any of these attributes - not one - in a photo. The idea is nonsense.
So, how do we show them?
Well, what is our language? It’s the background, composition, the lighting and clothing. Gesture, expression and pose. It’s body language (there’s a clue in the phrase), and, of course, it’s the eyes. While they can’t directly translate adjectives, they can suggest them, or talk around them. Picking up where language ends, and taking over where words are insufficient.
Where there is correlation, I’d concede only that a photo could point to the most obvious characteristics. A smile means friendly; a suit and tie implies corporate; hair up suggests business (hair down, casual) etc.
Secondly, while it is certainly more than just a choice between friendly or serious, let’s not overstate how specific we can be. The example adjectives listed above overlap with others, and some are, effectively, synonyms eg ‘confident’ looks the same as, or could be read as, ‘experienced’, say. Furthermore, some characteristics (eg team-player, well-travelled) couldn’t apply at all in a photo; they can’t be interpreted from an expression.
So take your list of characteristics, and pick two.
Remember: not every attribute is desirable. One’s sector, role and experience will determine key values. A graphic designer might want to appear creative; a therapist, a good listener. A law firm wouldn’t value skills relevant to a school, and neither would want the same as, say, an advertising agency. Sometimes, the same qualities apply to each end of the spectrum: a CEO and a graduate might both wish to show experience and energy, but for different reasons. All this is so obvious as to be barely worth mentioning, except as to highlight the point that you can’t - and wouldn’t want to be - everything.
You can choose warm and personable. But you can’t (in the same photo, at least) be direct and no-nonsense. As CEO, do you want to appear as a leader, or one who listens and collaborates? Does an influencer want to portray gravitas, or quirkiness? Is it better to emphasise enthusiasm (associated with youth) at a cost of experience (associated with age)?
Choosing your image
When the unedited options come back, it’s usually worth asking colleagues their opinions, but ultimately you choose what you want to convey and which option does it best. Doing so, you need to keep in mind how you come across in person, and/or how you’d like to be perceived. You select the photo which will reinforce this brand image. Or, in rare instances, the one which changes it.
In the end, most people just want to look their best. But it’s not a hard question of taking the most professional-looking image and putting it up against the most flattering one. No - they’re usually the same photo. That is, the most professional image is the most flattering, because conveying those attributes makes it so.
If you need a new corporate portrait for your website or LinkedIn, get in touch.You can see examples of my work here.
Afterword / Corporate self-portraiture (three)
It’s hard to espouse the importance of a headshot when you don’t have one. I wrote the piece, then reflected that I’ve not been using a photograph of me on my “about” page for about two years. The only shot of me I like, and had been using, was taken nine years ago, My attempts since (the first is here, second is here) didn’t quite work, and weren’t much used. It was time for a new photo.
My original headshot, which was getting old. Shot by my extremely talented friend James, this covered everything I’d want to convey, along the lines of creative/artistic and experienced/capable.
So I started with a similar setup this time around - but, as I’ve said before, it’s very hard to photograph yourself. Where James’ original shot had a lovely balance of simplicity, dramatic lighting, and capturing a natural expression, this felt forced throughout.
I then simplified the setup, shot about 30 frames, and ended up with this, which is what I’m going with. Mostly this uses soft window light, and I opted for a brighter background and top, hence less drama but something more natural. It’s not perfect but it’ll do.