The only point I'll argue (well, maybe) is the contention that good portraits need long lens compression. See Keith Carter's early work... 80mm on 'blad. See almost all of Duane Michaels work... 50mm on 35. Much editorial portraiture is done with wide and normal lenses, see Arnold Newman's work. If all you want to do is head shots for actors and models, then fine, use a 180 on a roll film camera, but why bother, 35mm is great for that kind of work.(posted 8421 days ago)But if you wnat to make interesting pictures of interesting people, you need to show the person as they present themselves, which means more info than you get on a drivers license photo. Head and shoulders gets boring in a hurry.
Even cropping as tight as you have here, you still made the decision to include hands and a hint of posture. I submit that to offer even the illusion of a personality, you should let us consider the subject's arms, how they position their hands, the angle of their shoulders and the way they cut their hair and dress. Remember what Irving Penn did to get good portraits of big personalities, he made them stand in an acute corner with a floor sloping toward the camera. What makes these portraits interesting is the way each personality responded with their body.
Show more body... more body, good... head shot, bad...ug... t
p.s. the only thing I don't like about this portrait (beside being too tight) is the light on the underside of his right sleeve that cuts across his collar to his left sleeve. In passing, it seems to miss his face altogether (whew) being blocked by his elbow, and throw a pointless shadow of his collar on his throat. What did you hope that light would accomplish? Did a spontaneous backofhead- doublehandgrip spoil it, but make something you liked better so you went with it? (Do you hate it when we guess?)