August Sander Built a Taxonomy.
His Portraits Kept Breaking It.

Actors are often told to cover every type they could play. A photographer who spent his life sorting people into categories showed why that advice fails, and what to do instead.

Somewhere right now a casting director is moving through several hundred thumbnails, and every actor in that grid is trying to solve the same impossible brief. Stand out enough to stop the scroll. Stay recognizable enough to be placed. Miss in the first direction and you are invisible, one more competent face in a wall of competent faces. Miss in the second direction and you are unplaceable, a striking photograph nobody knows what to do with. The two mistakes come from opposite instincts, one cautious and one bold, and they end identically: no callback, no explanation, silence.

Much of the advice actors receive responds to that tension with addition. More looks. More types. More coverage, so that whatever the role is, there is a photo for it. I want to argue for subtraction, and to take the "more" instinct seriously along the way, because it grows out of a real professional habit. First, though, the vocabulary problem.

Archetype Lists Are a Vocabulary,
Not a Shopping List

Actors get handed taxonomies early. Leading man, ingenue, best friend, heavy, comic relief, girl next door, young professional. The lists are real tools. They describe how strangers read a face in half a second, and knowing how you read is genuine self-knowledge. The trouble starts when the list stops being a mirror and becomes a shopping list, when each named type turns into a photograph you feel obligated to acquire, in wardrobe you do not own, playing a person you have never been.

Casting director Erica Bream, CSA, wrote a newsletter this year about the adjectives in character breakdowns, the "badass" and "adorkable" and "all-American" that make actors roll their eyes. Her explanation for why those words exist is worth sitting with: they are ubiquitous on purpose. Hundreds of people have to read a script and align on a vision quickly, and shorthand does that job. The words serve the pipeline.

Then she describes what happens when actors treat the shorthand as instructions. Leaning hard into the adjective reads as caricature. Manufacturing a quality you do not naturally carry reads as inorganic, like the actor is wearing a costume. Her core instruction to actors is seven words long: "don't play the description; play the scene." You are already technically right for any role you are reading for. That vetting happened before you walked in.

She is talking about auditions. The same logic runs backward into the photograph that gets you the audition. If performing the description fails in the room, photographing the description fails earlier and cheaper, at the thumbnail. A headshot engineered to prove you are the badass is playing the description. A session organized as a costume parade through the archetype list is playing the whole taxonomy at once. What a photograph can actually carry is a different question, and a portrait photographer answered it a hundred years ago by trying harder than anyone to make categories hold.

How August Sander Ran This Experiment

August Sander spent roughly four decades, from the 1910s into the 1950s, photographing German society for a project he called People of the 20th Century, organized into seven groups: the farmer, the skilled tradesman, the woman, classes and professions, the artists, the city, the last people. It stands as the most disciplined attempt anyone has made to photograph human beings as categories. Every sitter was chosen as a specimen of a type. The portraits were frontal, systematic, deliberately plain. If the archetype theory of portraiture could work anywhere, it would work here, built by a photographer of enormous skill who wanted it to work.

When we look at the portraits, the system gives way in the same direction every time. The most famous photograph in the project shows three young farmers on a dirt road in the Westerwald in 1914, dressed for a dance, canes in hand, caught mid-stride and turning to face the camera. The category label says farmers. What we see are three specific young men, their particular defiance, the hats, the cigarette, the held pause of people interrupted on their way to something better. The type is the caption. The person is the photograph.

That failure is the project's real finding. Sander built the strongest possible frame for reading people as types, and the individual exceeded the frame in every exposure worth keeping. A century of viewers has confirmed the result. The portraits survive as portraits of persons, while the taxonomy survives as a note about how they were filed.

For an actor, the finding lands directly on the shopping-list model. A photograph holds a person, and the person comes through no matter what the wardrobe insists. A photo staged to broadcast "young lawyer" transmits a specific person pretending to be one, and casting professionals, who look at faces for a living, receive that transmission with perfect clarity. The same quality works in your favor the moment you stop fighting it. A photograph of you, specifically you, undecorated, can be read into a dozen adjacent roles precisely because no single role has been nailed over the frame. Casting supplies the category. That is their job, and they are better at it than your wardrobe is.

Which raises the fair question: if archetype coverage serves actors so poorly, why is the advice so common? I think the answer is generous to everyone involved.

The "Do More" Instinct Is a Rehearsal Habit

Every performing craft is iterative. Actors try a line ten ways in rehearsal, swap intentions, push a choice too far to find where too far is. Photographers work the same way. Inside a session I will run lighting variations, adjust direction, shift posing, and make many frames of a single setup, because variants are how the right frame gets found. Even with excellent focus and a completely clear idea, a session still produces volume. Iteration is the method, and doing it well is a mark of professionalism.

The habit has one failure mode: when the goal loses focus, iterating quietly becomes the goal. More setups, more looks, more coverage, and the doing-more feels like diligence because it uses the same muscles diligence uses. I suspect this is where the "do more" voice in actor advice comes from. It hands you the expansion half of the craft, the half every professional already trusts, and stops there. The craft has a second half.

A Film Editor Discards More Than They Keep

Editing is often mistaken for post-production. Say the word today and most people picture color grading, skin work, software. Editing in its older and larger sense means selection and removal. A film editor discards far more footage than they keep, and the discarded takes served their purpose; the discarding is the job. A story editor sets aside more ideas than they publish and sharpens what survives. Iteration expands the material. The edit decides what it was for.

Actors know this intimately, because actors work in an edited medium. Every screen performance you have ever admired survived a cutting room where most of the footage fell away. The performance you saw was a decision made from abundance. Nobody releases the dailies and calls it a film.

A casting profile crowded with archetype looks is dailies. Ten photographs, each auditioning for a different type, show a decision that was never made, visible at thumbnail size. Unedited work reads the same way in every medium: it asks the viewer to do the deciding, and the viewer, moving through several hundred thumbnails, keeps scrolling.

A Casting Profile Is a Final Cut,
Not the Dailies

So shoot abundantly, then edit deliberately, and know what the edit is for. An edited profile is a small set of photographs where every image earns its place by a decision. Each one shows the same specific person, alive in a slightly different register, in clothes that belong to your actual life rather than a character's. The honest test for a wardrobe choice asks "what does wearing this make me feel," because the feeling photographs, and proof of type stays flat.

How many photographs is that? Fewer than the coverage model suggests, and the exact number matters less than what each photo does. When every image is a decision, a handful is a portfolio. When no image is a decision, fifty still falls short of one.

There is one more reason to leave room in the frame, and it comes from the casting side. Bream has said plainly that headshots are deeply subjective, that what strikes one casting professional will pass by the next. You cannot optimize for a reaction that varies by reader. What you can do is give every reader the same true material to react to: a specific, undecorated, well-made photograph of an actual person. A photo that tries to answer every question closes doors. A photo that presents a person and leaves the casting open lets the reader do what Sander's viewers have done for a hundred years, which is see past the category to the individual, and imagine.

Sander Photographed Thousands
and Published Sixty

One last thing about Sander. When he put his project before the public in 1929, the book was called Face of Our Time, and it contained sixty photographs. Sixty, selected from decades of systematic work and thousands of exposures. The full project remained unfinished in his lifetime; the posthumous editions that reconstruct it run to hundreds of images assembled by scholars. The cut Sander himself made, the statement he chose to stand on, was sixty frames.

The shooting was the iteration. The sixty was the edit. Every working photographer accumulates; the discipline that made Sander permanent lived in the deciding.

That is the whole argument, and it fits in a sentence. Explore like it costs nothing, because in the session it nearly does. Then decide like it costs everything, because in the profile it does.

Where This Comes From

The historical material in this piece, including August Sander, the portrait tradition, and the century of argument about photographing people as types, is covered in my History of Photography course outline at scottparkerphoto.com.

Further Reading

Articles Main Page