boomerang wrote:The one element that seems somewhat consistent is the subject having an awarness of being photographed and responding to the camera in some way.
Is that awarness what makes a picture a portrait?
That's an interesting thought, Boss. I don't claim any expertise to state what is or is not a portrait, but, obviously, i think the person should be the focal point (figuratively and literally) of the portrait.
The idea that they look at the camera is intriguing. I'm not entirely convinced, though. Profiles can make good portraits, too.
My only objection to this portrait is that the camera is too close to the subject, and making the subject the focal point in this example has blurred the background, which makes it lose all interest as a component of the photograph--it just becomes blurred colors.
This is also a very effective portrait, and would work as well, or be even more striking, against an environmental background.
Once again, although the subject should be the focal point, i don't think the portrait should be taken when the camera is close to the subject, because then you'd lose the dramatic effect of the "environmental" background.
Better to photograph from a distance, and then "blow-up" the image as needed, and crop the image when it is transferred to the print paper. (i.e., crop it in the dark room when the image is projected onto the print paper.)
Thirty years ago, i was very into photography. For some unknown reason, i later lost interest (mostly the effect of a misspent youth). Anyway, i have some advice for you for seaside photos, and photos in general for your damp climate. Of course, you are the expert, not me, so you may not need the advice, not want it, already know it, or not agree. Anyway, here it is.
When i first went to Ireland, i stupidly left all my film in a bag at home which i left behind when i went to airport (had the camera in my hand with a roll of 36 in it). When i got there, i went to a chemist's (drug store) in Limerick to buy film, and the chemist took the liberty (very politely) of advising me on the type of film is should use. He recommend a "slow" film with "high" or "rich" color resolution--he recommended Agfa very highly, and i used that to great effect and was very pleased. He explained that the high moisture in the air, and the common mists, would scatter the light, and with "fast" films you could get a "flare" effect in sunlight, with the image being washed out by the glare, or get too "soft" an image in shade or when the sky was overcast. So his advice was the slow film using a long f-stop, and the high color resolution film so as not to lose the good color effects.
He was right on both accounts. In 1978, when i lived there, in the summer we had 54 consecutive days with a measurable amount of rain, but the sun also shone for hours on everyone of those days. (Ireland's pretty far north, so you get more than 20 hours of sunlight in midsummer, but the climate is mild because of the Gulf Stream. However, high winds are common on the coast, and lines of squalls roll in off the Atlantic continuously. It might be the same where you are.)
He was dead on about the photos. I got rich color and wonderful resolution (couldn't drink, though, when taking photos--you have to keep the camera steady with a long f-stop, and i didn't have a tripod; i took eight photos in a row of Kilkenny Castle, only three had no blurring, and only one was properly lined up--i'd had a couple of pints with my lunch). Often, you couldn't see the background well in the view finder because it was blurred in the mist, but it came out in good focus when you made your prints. I was very pleased with the results.
You will know best, though, because, as i say, you're the expert, not me.
Re: Existential crises in portraiture.
boomerang wrote:I'm going to post three photos -- all I need you to do is tell me whether you think they qualify as "portraits" or not. (And why you think that would be lovely but it is not required to participate in the thread.)
Next I'm going to post two photos -- well, really one photo cropped two different ways and all I need you to do is tell me if you like one more than the other. In this case, why would be especially lovely.
Series 1: I perceive 3 as a portrait, 2 kind of portrait-y, and 1 not a portrait. I tentatively postulate that it's a portrait for me to the extent that I see the features of the portrayee's face.
Series 2: Which one is "better" depends on what you want to get across. The closer close-up captures his face better because it's larger. But when you see him on this box with his drink, the picture gives a lot of context -- it almost tells a story. Because of this, I slightly prefer the not-quite-so-close close-up.
Why did you reject the sand-castle photo, and what did you choose in its place?
I'm shooting digital exclusively these days, Setanta. My camera has full manual function and between that and Photoshop I can mimic just about any type of film ever made. But you are absolutely right -- you have to choose the right "film" for each setting. Digital just makes choosing much easier.
Interestingly enough, the light in Oregon is one of the big reasons I decided to move here after making several business trips. The constant clouds filter the sun so the light is always very subtle -- perfect for pictures, in my opinion.
I have never really shot landscape photos so it's something I've been working on over the last month or so just for practice. I've been scouting locations within an easy drive of my house, hence these practice photos. (I've got a great location spotted that I might try to get out to tomorrow!)
The sandcastle photo didn't grab me at all until I started fiddling with it. It just looked kind of flat and lifeless but I goofed around with the exposure a bit and it got a little more "pop" and now I like it okay. Nothing really took it's place since they're just practice/learning. I was just picking the ones I like best and working them up.
Here's a profile photo from the reject bin that I've been working on a bit. I'm not quite satisfied with it yet but I thought I'd go ahead and post it to get some inital reaction to the "portrait or not" question.
Sandcastle photo would work better as a composition if subject was on the opposite side of the sandcastles looking across the picture plane.
As it is, since he is so close to the edge of the photo and looking outside the picture plane, it diverts our attention. We tend to follow his gaze out of the picture, instead of being drawn into what is there, himself and the sandcastles.
I like the close up best.
.... throwing in my two cents.
That's a cool shot, Boss. I think a potential customer would like something such as that, although they might want to see more of the profile.
Am I too late to comment?
Here goes, anyway:
Of the first three: I don't really consider any of them as portraits, in the strict sense. The the third one comes closest, because the figure & face is more prominent so we know more about the person (& his relationship with the place, too) than we do from the other 2.
Of the second two: I originally preferred #1, but after looking at them for a bit, I settled on #2. Why? Well I think what I initially like about #1 was the way he was sitting on the container & I found his clothes & boots really interesting to look at! After a bit of consideration I decided that the very things that appealed to me in #1 where actual distractions from the person. #2 seems to be more engaged with the viewer & I get more of a sense of who he is.
boomerang wrote:By "marketable" I really mean .... would you order this picture of your kid if it was presented in a selection of different images.
I understand that most people don't want angsty images but the fact is that kids are kind of angsty -- they aren't always smiling and happy. I like that they are so expressive and I have always worked to try to capture some of those "other" moments.
Okay. Here's one from the reject pile for consideration:
I like this one.
It has a nice, spontaneous/natural/"unglamorous" look about it.
It'd be a good one to have amongst a collection of different images/moods of the same person. (Not sure that I'd want it to be the
only shot I purchased, though) I see a side of him that is quite different to the other images here. Quietly happy & content with his achievement. Nice sense of time & place.
Interesting, shepaints. The only thing I really DO like about the sandcastle photo is that it looks like he's already looking for something else to do.
And this really gets to the core of my problem with environmental portraits (of kids, especially). All too often they become ABOUT the event, or the prop, or the whatever. The picture stops being about a moment, or an expression, or an idea and starts being about a thing.
Never too late, msolga! I'm hoping for even more input.
What you say about 2 is the same way I feel about it. To me, 1 has too many distractions. But really it's more complicated than that. They aren't the right kind of distractions because they don't add anything to the picture. The soda can in particular subtracts from the image.
One thing I've learned from working with kids though is that if you attempt to change things "for the picture" you're going to bite off more than you can possibly chew.
But alright already, I'm here to learn not to defend myself so I really have to stop this!
You are all really helping me get an understanding of what people like and dislike and why and I am truly thankful for that.
Im watching..
but, Im lost as the definition of portrait seems to vary with each client.
At least for me.
I have had people call some pictures I have taken of their childs hand, a portrait... and turn down a beautiful, up close, simple face shot.
In order to get down to what they want, and what they consider a portrait, I have come to the point where I just ask.
I have a book of pictures. I take it with me when I am greeting them and I ask " Out of these, which ones would you most like to see come from this session? Which portraits do you like best?"
then, I watch them pick some odd ball choices saying they are the best portraits that they have seen...
and none of them fall into the normal guidelines of a portrait...
boomerang wrote:But alright already, I'm here to learn not to defend myself so I really have to stop this!
I dunno, I think "defending yourself" can be useful. When I was an art major, it kept happening that there would be some artwork shown and I'd be like eh, then the professor would explain various aspects and I'd go oh! And after a while the artwork that I was initially "eh" about was one of my favorites.
So explaining your reasoning could well have that affect on a client, I don't think you necessarily need to turn that off, just be willing to go with what they ultimately decide.
By the time I get to the actual session I've already laid a lot of groundwork as to what the person expects because they've seen some or a lot of my work and we've had several conversations.
I guess that's what has me perplexed about this upcoming session. I usually don't do environmental work so my first question when they said what they were after was "why me?"
I liked their answer so I decided to give it a try. Luckily there is some lag time before the shoot (we're waiting for the right weather among other things) so I've had a chance to practice and learn. I want them to get their money's worth.
Oops.
My response was to shewolf but I guess it kind of answers your comment to, soz, with the whole "why me" bit.
Boy do I ever remember those "defend yourself" art school sessions. Bring the Kleenex and enjoy the teacher figuratively and, in the case of photo school, literally, rip your work to shreds.
That which does not kill me makes me try a little harder.
Oh yeah, that part sucked. I think we talked about that before.
I'm talking more about the art history part, though -- a slide of some great artwork, I'm like "that's great?", the professor explains this, explains that, and by the end of it I'm like "oh, yeah, that IS great, I get it."
I went back through some of the articles I read on environmental portraiture and refound the definition that I was trying to work within just so you know where I'm coming from:
Quote:The magnitude of portrait styles makes it practical to concentrate on just one for this article - environmental portraiture. This style differs from others as the purpose is to create a photo of a living being showing both the environment in which it exists for that moment along with the subject. In essence, there is a blending of two subjects - the person or animal and the habitat. This makes the task at hand of creating a great shot all the more difficult as both the subject and environment have to be prime subjects, lit well, and strategically composed.
Oh yeah, soz. A great teacher can really teach you how to appreciate what you see. I loved art history for that reason.
Me too!
I'm saying that I think you can approach some of this from that perspective -- that you're teaching your clients how to appreciate what they see -- rather than from the "defending yourself" perspective. You have insight that might alter how they view the photo.
boomerang wrote:I went back through some of the articles I read on environmental portraiture and refound the definition that I was trying to work within just so you know where I'm coming from:
Quote:The magnitude of portrait styles makes it practical to concentrate on just one for this article - environmental portraiture. This style differs from others as the purpose is to create a photo of a living being showing both the environment in which it exists for that moment along with the subject. In essence, there is a blending of two subjects - the person or animal and the habitat. This makes the task at hand of creating a great shot all the more difficult as both the subject and environment have to be prime subjects, lit well, and strategically composed.
Oh yeah, soz. A great teacher can really teach you how to appreciate what you see. I loved art history for that reason.
I think including this sort of definition helps to explain what you are going for overall here. For those of us that didn't go to art school the minutia makes a bit of difference. For the bulk of the populace I think the word "portrait" tends to conjure up the $19.95 specail at Sears. :p
With that, I'll have to revisit the original posts...
You're right, I probably should have included a bit of my research on the topic but I really wanted first impressions. Most clients don't know terminology but they have an idea of what they want and most times they have a hard time describing it. I thought it might make it easier next time if I had some ideas on paper to show them!
Even, and maybe especially, with that definition in mind, I think picture #3 was the best fit.
