Portraiture

Anouilh · 16-01-2009 12:13pm #1

/http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/3137504835/

Gradually getting to photograph my friends.

City-Exile · 16-01-2009 12:33pm

You could have got a nicer angle on her.
Softer light and less clutter around the frame.
The uneven wall behind her on the left is very distracting, as is the black line on the top left and the entire right side of the shot.

Sorry, but it just looks like a snapshot.

Sebzy · 16-01-2009 12:47pm

Yea kinda looks like a snapshot

All the points above are valid but would add

It looks like you used flash here which is hard to get right for these type of shots. try using natural light defused by a window.

Anouilh · 16-01-2009 1:15pm

Thank you both for taking time to comment.

smelltheglove · 16-01-2009 1:27pm

Can I say that it is very hard to get pictures to look like portraits when at any kind of social outing. I tend to call them event shots rather than portraits unless I get something more about the person, a connection with the camera.

I recently posted this one so wont post again but you will see what I mean by connection rather than snap shot http://www.flickr.com/photos/28166835@N06/3201482226/ the difference is more so that a connection has been made through the eyes, this girl is a friend and used to me taking her pictures, the earlier ones of her wouldnt be as striking as this one but now she is ready to pose and take herself 'out of the situation' and into camera mode.

What you have here is a good shot, it would be appreciated if you were covering a party as a guest shot. If you were to take the same shot again and want to make it a portrait or even edit the one you have, I would crop to 10 x 8 close to the face but tilt the shot slightly if editing or tilt the camera if taking the shot. That way you are making the shot more intersting merely by adjusting the angle, and removing the majority of the scene which indicates a social gathering rather than a portrait.

I know a little rambling but I hope this helps.

Anouilh · 16-01-2009 1:42pm

Your analysis and link are invaluable, smelltheglove.

I am very aware of the difference between posed and unposed photos and was pleased to have taken my "snap" while the subject was still unaware of the camera.

I uploaded it uncropped so that viewers might see the original and not what I could make of it.

Finally, a good portrait is often a matter of luck, but technical questions such as flash technique, light source and the ability to engage with other people are central.

City-Exile · 16-01-2009 1:46pm

If you have an external flash, you could try bouncing it off the ceiling.
Also, if you are trying specifically to get portraits, you should look to have a much wider aperture. For someone on their own, you might even get away with f/1.8. I think that can be a bit much sometimes (I'd use f/2.8 where possible).
For that though, you'd have to be very careful to get the eyes perfectly focused.

Anouilh · 16-01-2009 2:16pm

City-Exile wrote: »

If you have an external flash, you could try bouncing it off the ceiling.

I feel I'm going to end up employing an accolyte to bring me round.

No greater Klutz has ever taken to photography.
I once got my own head stuck in a door while walking through. Bouncing flashes would have to be strapped to my body and remotely controlled by time switches...

"Also, if you are trying specifically to get portraits, you should look to have a much wider aperture. For someone on their own, you might even get away with f/1.8. I think that can be a bit much sometimes (I'd use f/2.8 where possible).
For that though, you'd have to be very careful to get the eyes perfectly focused."

That I will certainly study further.

Many thanks.

AnCatDubh · 16-01-2009 10:23pm

smelltheglove · 16-01-2009 11:13pm

Wow Tommy that is great, I have two weddings in the next 4 weeks and I am going to focus on this beforehand and see if it makes a big difference.

A lot of it is common knowledge but so common knowledge you overlook it and dont notice until afterwards.

Fajitas! · 17-01-2009 4:18am

smelltheglove wrote: »

Wow Tommy that is great, I have two weddings in the next 4 weeks and I am going to focus on this beforehand and see if it makes a big difference.

I know this will come across crude, but I don't mean it so, I'd much rather it was thought of constructively.

You should really have these fully thought through, fully practiced, versed and to a T before booking weddings. As common knowledge it might be, a lot of points should be second nature before going for weddings.

smelltheglove · 17-01-2009 12:25pm

Like I said common knowledge but a good read the night before a wedding to get you going.

I have no wedding shots that show nervous groom or bride, no wedding shots where they are looking outside of the camer, actually pretty much all of them include the rules but I mean it as a good reminder, hence the common knowledge tag.

ThOnda · 17-01-2009 3:04pm

Very good reading, thanks for that. And even better that it is so brief.

AnCatDubh · 17-01-2009 4:06pm

smelltheglove wrote: »

Like I said common knowledge but a good read the night before a wedding to get you going.

I agree. I think the problem with many (not all) a portrait photographer is that they tend to fall into a trap of finding what is safe for them 0 they find their comfort zone and forget to experiment, to expose themselves to new thinking, to be creative. I mean, if you look at many (again not all) of what the 70's would have produced as professional photographers . Most of them that may be still around in business will produce the very same style of shots that they did back in the 70's. Don't get me wrong - if that's what you are looking for then well and good you'll be delighted however the bail of hay(!) can be overdone too and probably had its day.

We used a photographer a little while back for our daughters portrait. My wife had great ideas of what she wanted but it transpired to be a bit of a chore / too much of a challenge for the chap to produce the goods. The chap is a great guy who we'd meet about the town from time to time and technically he had all the credentials but he to my mind he produced something that was safe for him and not exactly what we were looking for.

So I think it worthwhile to expose yourself (pardon the pun and no innuendo intended

) to as many influences. If you just take one thing either new or remind yourself of one thing that you already have learned but may have forgotten then I think it is a good formula. This may be from a magazine, someone else's work either online or a book, a list like some of the above on the internet or a youtube video.

Certainly, mobileblog has such a post out there at the moment regarding a wedding that they've taken on. Taking this on is obviously something that you've got to be prepared for - Technically mobileblog shouldn't have any problems - they're work is great but perhaps its not such a bad idea to refresh some of your training / experience with resources such as this instead of ending up, well..... safe.

Anouilh - I hope we aren't too far off topic on you

Anouilh · 19-01-2009 2:06pm

I'm not too obsessive about keeping on track, as you may have noticed.

I would love some C&C on this "snap".

http://www.33cl.it/photos/photo/3106700183

kgiller · 19-01-2009 2:13pm

Anouilh wrote: »

I'm not too obsessive about keeping on track, as you may have noticed.

I would love some C&C on this "snap".

http://www.33cl.it/photos/photo/3106700183

Haha. WHat a sweet looking old woman. Nice shot, but would be better without cropping out her hair (the old blue rinse)

Anouilh · 19-01-2009 9:59pm

I now read that not cropping the top of the head, with some very few exceptions, is a cardinal rule in portraiture.

I have to admit I had never thought much about it.

http://photographycourse.net/portrait-photography

AnCatDubh · 19-01-2009 10:59pm

Anouilh wrote: »

I now read that not cropping the top of the head, with some very few exceptions, is a cardinal rule in portraiture.

Yes normally an uncrop'd head is good as is centering the subject in the frame as is not shooting into the sun as is keep everything in focus. I think you've got to learn the rule to start with and get your grounding and then explore what its like to bend / break such rules. Often the 'rules' will give the broadest appeal but can be limiting.

This by Niamh O'Rourke breaks the rule.

This by Patrick McDonnell doesn't.

Both stunning portrait images - while they are a different style, does one suffer for not having a whole head visible or either suffer from a little photoshop?

Not to mine eye I tells ya. Everyone else make up their own mind.

Anouilh · 20-01-2009 10:39am

Taken with an Olympus and converted to B&W:

http://anouilh.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/a-reflective-moment/

The grain is stronger than I am used to with Canon's Digital Rebel.

(And yes, I know there's a packed of peas just behind the subject's head...
I live in an imperfect universe...)

spav · 20-01-2009 12:38pm

Anouilh wrote: »

I'm not too obsessive about keeping on track, as you may have noticed.

I would love some C&C on this "snap".

http://www.33cl.it/photos/photo/3106700183

I really like that. Instantly put a smile on my face, and gives me an impression of what that subject's personality is like.

Morrisseeee · 20-01-2009 12:39pm

Taken with an Olympus

...more info please, which Olympus, ISO, lens, aperture, etc.
The photo doesn't look too bad to me, except for the bright (blown-out) area to the subjects right-hand-side.

spav · 20-01-2009 12:40pm

Anouilh wrote: »

I now read that not cropping the top of the head, with some very few exceptions, is a cardinal rule in portraiture.

I have to admit I had never thought much about it.

http://photographycourse.net/portrait-photography

I read a Scott Kelby book last night that suggests otherwise.

I like that old adage - it's OK to break the rules once you know what the rules are.

Anouilh · 20-01-2009 2:03pm

Morrisseeee wrote: »

...more info please, which Olympus, ISO, lens, aperture, etc.
The photo doesn't look too bad to me, except for the bright (blown-out) area to the subjects right-hand-side.

I borrowed the camera literally for a few minutes in the middle of the night, so did not study it carefully.

Here is another, brighter photo, with the brand details:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/3117950373/meta/

I loved the smoothness of the Olympus mechanism and it handles very comfortably.

The mention of "noise" at 1600 iso is based on visually comparing my photos with those taken with the Canon Digital Rebel, not on any lab experiments.

There are pages of grain comparison in relation to different sensors on the net.

I'll come back to this in a few months time.

Morrisseeee · 20-01-2009 4:11pm

I borrowed the camera literally for a few minutes in the middle of the night

....interesting, but thats another story I presume !!

Ah, its the Olympus E1 camera. Thats an old camera (introduced in 2002/3 I think). It has a 5MP sensor. I'm guessing it would struggle against newer entry-level cameras. The E3 has replaced it, much better ISO performance.

Anouilh · 21-01-2009 11:45am

That camera is still at number 44 on the Flickr Olympus list.

It might be an idea to use this thread for "Favourite Portraits".

Could portraits of animals fit in here, as well, to broaden the range? I have some photos of cats that fit into the "Portraiture" category.

Sebzy · 21-01-2009 12:14pm

Well one of my all time fave portraits was taken with the Olympus E1 too.

Anouilh · 21-01-2009 12:20pm

That is truly fabulous.

Do you continue to use Olympus as your main camera?

Sebzy · 21-01-2009 12:58pm

Anouilh wrote: »

That is truly fabulous.

Do you continue to use Olympus as your main camera?

use the E3 now for the last while.

Another E1 portrait

i used the E1 most times in the studio for portraits as it produces great colour with the kodak CCD sensor.

The E3 now uses a Live-MOS sensor which is great for clean high ISO images but it dose require a bit more work in photoshop to get the colours right.

Anouilh · 26-01-2009 1:56pm

Those posts have some very inspirational photos.

I like B&W Portraits, in particular:

http://www.photos-site.com/9.htm

There are plenty of ideas in magazines as well for
having people relax and not looking stiff and uncomfortable
while being photographed.

Anouilh · 26-01-2009 8:42pm

I was pleased to have this portrait invited to the
"Irish Colleen's" group.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/3151936486/sizes/m/

Anouilh · 30-01-2009 2:18pm

Perhaps the difference between a snap and a portrait is that in the latter case there is a collusion between the sitter and the photographer about how the final photo will look?

The poses struck by people in the past are so dramatic.

What sort of style is in fashion at the moment, when it come to studio work?

Paulw · 30-01-2009 2:27pm

Anouilh wrote: »

I was pleased to have this portrait invited to the
"Irish Colleen's" group

I wouldn't call that a portrait either. Just looks like a snapshot.

rymus · 30-01-2009 4:45pm

Paulw wrote: »

I wouldn't call that a portrait either. Just looks like a snapshot.

+1 to that, my good man.

kensutz · 30-01-2009 10:23pm

Exactly just looks like a snapshot and nothing of a portrait shot.

kgiller · 30-01-2009 10:28pm

Yes, i agree with these comments. It actually reminds me of a picture that my little cousin took recently with her 5D MKII

Anouilh · 17-03-2009 8:59am

C&C would be appreciated, please.

[IMG][/img]

melekalikimaka · 17-03-2009 4:57pm

awful noisy, bit more of a portrait... but still snapshotish... a portrait is IMO slightly more contrived, as in, you look at it and know the subject knew a photo was being taken and jestured in a way to reflect that... in this its not so... i suppose candid would be the appropriate word

cnocbui · 17-03-2009 5:28pm

Taken with an Olympus OM4-Ti at f2:

YeahOK · 18-03-2009 11:42pm

Disagree lads. Took out & dusted off the old Oxford English Dictionary to find a meaning for portrait; (Read, looked it up online)

por•trait /ptret; trt; NAmE prtrt/ noun, adj.
1 a painting, drawing or photograph of a person, especially of the head and shoulders: He had his portrait painted in uniform. a full-length portrait etc. etc.

Based on that anything with a head and shoulders is a portrait. Whether you think it's any good, or fits within the conventional and narrowly defined confines of photography snobbery as a portrait, is essentially a matter of opinion. Now we all know opinions are like the proverbial arse****. We all have them.

Essentially, what I'm saying is this, like all things to do with art, it's a matter of taste. Andy Warhol called it art, everyone else called it soup. In the end it's iconic imagery.

The OP's image fits the description. It may not be to your taste, but it goes against the grain. Maybe it's more of a portrait than that which you allow yourself be led to believe.

Anouilh · 19-03-2009 10:51am

While I agree with all this, I have to take the aesthetic tradition that has mushroomed over centuries in relation to portraiture on board. It influences much of the criticism of my "snaps" here.

Thanks to Hugh C I spent the last six weeks reading an article he kindly sent me on Barthes and the theoretical aspects of the "Studium" and "Punctum". The anti theatrical tradition that stretches from Diderot to the present day in art is discussed and it has helped me to see why I should try harder to make my portraits more "conscious" (though this is not a term Barthes uses).

The photograph of the Bride above is a portrait in my opinion. There seems to be quite a lot of awareness of the camera in the pose, but this is open to discussion.

Fajitas! · 19-03-2009 10:55am

I've said it before, but don't take Barthes points as gospel. He brings up some very good points, and I can't deny that.

However, there's quite a lot of opinions in Camera Lucida that just don't work. It's still worth reading, albeit with an objective mind.

cnocbui · 19-03-2009 12:33pm

Anouilh wrote: »

The photograph of the Bride above is a portrait in my opinion. There seems to be quite a lot of awareness of the camera in the pose, but this is open to discussion.

She had no idea I was taking that shot as I was using a 180mm lens and so was some distance away, and she and her mother in law were too busy fixing the hat

She hated that shot, btw

Anouilh · 19-03-2009 12:38pm

cnocbui wrote: »

She had no idea I was taking that shot as I was using a 180mm lens and so was some distance away, and she and her mother in law were too busy fixing the hat

She hated that shot, btw

Crossed wires, I'm afraid.

I'm referring to my photo in post #36.

Anouilh · 19-03-2009 12:42pm

Fajitas! wrote: »

I've said it before, but don't take Barthes points as gospel. He brings up some very good points, and I can't deny that.

However, there's quite a lot of opinions in Camera Lucida that just don't work. It's still worth reading, albeit with an objective mind.

Don't worry. Barthes was hot news in the 'Seventies and I found much of his writing turgid and self-indulgent.

What I have read in the analysis of "Camera Lucida" in the paper Hugh C sent me, however, opens up quite a large area of debate and references many writers like Benjamin who seem to have a wider following.

What struck me most about Barthes is that he was not a photographer, but that he still took time to analyse his reactions to photos in a very delicate and helpful way. I like Proust better, overall, as he was equally interested in photography but has such a visual mind.

It's useful to have a language that communicates experiences photography causes. I like Susan Sontag a lot.

Fajitas! · 19-03-2009 1:28pm

Well, while Benjamin is very relevant, again, read with an open mind, his views need to be updated, severely, to bring them up to scratch. Benjamin himself was not a photographer, nor an artist, just a writer, which is something to be wary of.

I do like Sontag. Her various hands on relationships with photographers puts her into a different mindset to a lot of other critics and theorists.

Check out Liz Wells; A Critical Introduction to Photography. It's a fantastic book, with chapters written by several different theorists and edited by Wells. It sums up a lot of what you're looking at, from Benjamin to Barthes.

Dragan · 19-03-2009 2:28pm

To me, a portrait is a photo of a person. I am largely failing to see the wanketry behind "what is and isn't a portrait".

Shot of a person? Yeah, thats a portrait.

Fajitas! · 19-03-2009 2:38pm

Not disagreeing with you there, but it's the what, how and why that make it a good or a bad portrait, which is what I'd be a lot more interested in!

Dragan · 19-03-2009 2:47pm

Fajitas! wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you there, but it's the what, how and why that make it a good or a bad portrait, which is what I'd be a lot more interested in!

Oh i agree, but i wasn't giving a discourse on what i feel a good portrait is, only my opinion on what a portrait is.

What is a good portrait? Somethings that engages the viewer and portrays, accurately, an aspect of the subject.

After that it's all breaking into the technical, which to me should only be discussed with specific examples.

Once again, perhaps i am being too simplistic but that is just because complication tends to slow me down.:o

elven · 19-03-2009 5:47pm

It's definitely more helpful to discuss what makes a portrait good or not, rather than what makes a portrait a portrait or not. Obviously bearing in mind that whole subjectivity thing.

But I just want to give dragan extra points for saying 'wanketry'.

melekalikimaka · 19-03-2009 6:21pm

Dragan wrote: »

What is a good portrait? Somethings that engages the viewer and portrays, accurately, an aspect of the subject.

exactly what i think

snapshots rarely cover that... nor modelling shoots, a portrait is something personal, that almost tells the persons story by looking at it

Fajitas! · 19-03-2009 6:39pm

melekalikimaka wrote: »

exactly what i think

snapshots rarely cover that... nor modelling shoots, a portrait is something personal, that almost tells the persons story by looking at it

You're just looking at the wrong work then

Portraiture

Comments