|
That seems a bit narrow, I can think of a handful of photos where the main focus is anything but the face (some that don't even feature a face at all) that I would consider portraiture. I think a better definition might be somewhere along the lines of a work depicting a living (or perhaps dead) form where that work is expressive of the subject within the work and perhaps their environment. I think an image that uses a generic character or actor to express an idea then that is not necessarily a portrait unless the specific identity of that character is somehow manifested in the work. For example here's a couple photos by Jeff Wall  I would say that neither of these images are portraits because they are not so much about the people in them so much as the ideas they represent. Who the people are supposed to be is obvious, what's really under discussion in the image is the cultural ramifications of those characters. Incidentally, these photos are recreations and not candid though that has little to do with the point I'm making. Here's a couple photo by Avedon that don't feature a face at all:   I think that these are portraits. Though the identity of the people under the clothes is irrelevant the images are study of form and movement that is specific to the human subject and their dress. So despite being anonymous the focus of the photos is one specific form. The images are uncomplicated by a real environment which makes them very powerful as a study but even if the subjects where placed on a street corner or in the woods or wherever they would still likely function as a portrait but with much more complex environmental interactions. Also be careful about breaking down ideas into discreet categories a fashion, editorial, or documentary photograph are often portraiture as well and it's common that there is blurring of the lines between each category.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
I listened to this philosophical break down of portraiture. http://philosophybites.com/2010/09/cynthia-freeland-on-portraits.html It's really interesting because she says that portraits require some effort on the part of the sitter to reveal some nature of themselves to the artist. I think it's a pretty good start when considering a portrait vs a scene with people in it. To me a truly interesting portrait would reveal something about that person. Twenties brings up good points about the difficulty of trying to categorize work with technical criteria.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 02:45
|
|
|
A portrait is an intersection of two subjectivities, the artist chooses how to make the image, and the subject represents themselves to the world/lens. you will be hard pressed to find any useful definition of portrait I personally think a portrait is an attempt to reveal something about the subject, by the artist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2010 09:20
|
|
|
Some pics of my nephew I was asked to take. I'm pretty pleased with them overall. I missed focus slightly in the first one, and may have over sharpened the eyes to compensate.  IMG_6302 by gtb79, on Flickr  IMG_6298 by gtb79, on Flickr  IMG_6322 by gtb79, on Flickr  IMG_6339 by gtb79, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 22:27
|
|
|
Cute kid and these are good shots, however the ambient could have been kicked up. He blends into the darkness a bit too much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
Does he have a massive growth on the top of his head? Is that why you keep cropping it out?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 23:03
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:Does he have a massive growth on the top of his head? Is that why you keep cropping it out? It's completely acceptable to crop before the top of someone's head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:It's completely acceptable to crop before the top of someone's head. It works in 1 out of 3 of his photos, in the other 2 it's simply jarring and was my first impression, that's all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
Jiblet posted:It works in 1 out of 3 of his photos, in the other 2 it's simply jarring and was my first impression, that's all. It seems to be acceptable in fashion photography, though it always rubs me the wrong way. Chopping off limbs is okay, but not part of the head please 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2010 00:04
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:It seems to be acceptable in fashion photography, though it always rubs me the wrong way. Chopping off limbs is okay, but not part of the head please Chopping limbs is ok, chopping at joints is not. Although, yes, I'd still avoid chopping limbs when possible but I crop head-tops all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
nothing like a good head crop. like mcmadcow says the only real rule I'd say with cropping is to avoid joints.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2010 01:13
|
|
|
Those are all great. And I don't think the ambient need be any different, it works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2010 01:28
|
|
|
Head cropping doesn't bother me. As long as you don't crop on or too close to a joint, you're probably okay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2010 08:20
|
|
|
yeah - when the point of focus you want the image to have is the eyes then head cropping does a lot to emphasize them in size.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2010 15:48
|
|
|
Doo doo doo - some pics for a local fitness instructor. LOTS OF LIQUIFY.   A few more @ my blog.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
Ack! Shots 1 and 3 have some piece of fabric sticking out of the bottom of her shorts. This is why you bring along an assistant. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 05:35
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Ack! Shots 1 and 3 have some piece of fabric sticking out of the bottom of her shorts. This is why you bring along an assistant. As weird as it seems, the shorts are actually made that way. I was very confused.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 14:47
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:As weird as it seems, the shorts are actually made that way. I was very confused. Really? Wow, color me confused as well, then. It looks like it's only happenning on one side of them, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2010 16:19
|
|
|
I was going to say you've made her face look like some kind of horrible doll but I suspect she did that to herself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
Christmas present for my dad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2010 17:14
|
|
|
Glass Knuckles posted:I mean, what is this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lith-Print
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
I really like doing family portraits. I went by their house the week before to plan out where and what they wanted to shoot. The book they're reading is the boys favorite story book right now. Then we moved into their playroom, and finally Mom wanted photos of the baby girl in the crib which was handmade by Grandpa. I had them move it out of the nursery to a front room with big rear end windows.    
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2010 17:57
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I really like doing family portraits. I went by their house the week before to plan out where and what they wanted to shoot. The book they're reading is the boys favorite story book right now. Then we moved into their playroom, and finally Mom wanted photos of the baby girl in the crib which was handmade by Grandpa. I had them move it out of the nursery to a front room with big rear end windows. That baby is really cute. Great work! edit: I have something to ask all of you guys. A friend of mine is a well known commercial photographer. Chances are you have seen his work either on a billboard, the cover of a magazine, an album cover etc. He is without a doubt very talented and very skilled when it comes to lighting. Now recently I learned that he contracts out all of his "retouching" to a third party, he essentially shoots the photo himself then sends the raw photo to this guy who color corrects, edits, airbrushes etc, the works. This seems a bit weird to me considering he is taking credit as photographer, and while I know that "Photographer" doesn't necessarily mean that he retouched and edited the photos himself, I was under the impression that was the case with most photographers. Being a photographer myself (professionally I might add) I would feel weird about having someone do all of my editing and then pass it off as 100% mine. My friend won't hide that he has someone who does this, but he doesn't exactly advertise it either. Just to be clear, this isn't a simple color correcting, it is a full on thing. An example by a retoucher (not my friends photo): Original:  Retouched:  Now this is a pretty light example of some of the retouching this guy does. Some of them you can't even tell it is the same photo. At times the original photos look like they were taken with a point and shoot and the final product is insane. Again, I cant stress enough that my friend is a great photographer, but the whole retouching thing just feels weird to me. Thoughts? Bojanglesworth fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jan 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
If I had a magic post-production lamp that would help me bring in more $$$ vs my competitors, I would rub feverishly and often.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2011 05:35
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:If I had a magic post-production lamp that would help me bring in more $$$ vs my competitors, I would rub feverishly and often. Yeah but if that magic lamp required you to pay someone else to do everything beyond pressing the shutter release button, would you still do it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
Yes, because the competition consist of- A. Genies B. Guys with lamps
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
At some level, you have to value your time, delegate weaknesses and play your strengths to grow your business. You can delegate post, scheduling, lighting, props, ect. To me the one thing you can't delegate is how you get the work in the first place and working with the subject to make the shot. His time is probably better spent building relationships and getting the next client. There's nothing wrong with a team effort either. All businesses have a chief rainmaker who gets the contracts then has multiple levels of support. I see it as natural way to take things to the next level. You can only do so much by yourself. In business, you do what you must to succeed and grow. On the other hand, I would not be comfortable filling an art gallery with images that I farmed out a majority of post processing as my own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2011 10:43
|
|
|
In business, the thing that matters is final product. If you're sending out your photos for PP in order to get that, it's simply a cost of doing business. Business and pleasure aren't always the same if that makes sense. I don't know how to do hover-over images on the forums but here is a link with a recent example (from a few posts up) - click I wouldn't send her that first picture... there was a bit (not a whole lot) of PP to be done. If I didn't have the knowledge of how to do it or if I simply didn't have the time/motivation to do it myself I would have definitely contacted a retoucher to do the job. It's simply a choice of whether or not the PP work is something you are capable of doing or even want to do. Oprah Haza fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Jan 1, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2011 14:22
|
|
|
A retoucher can be just another member of a creative team on a shoot - like a makeup artist or a hairstylist. I would be wary of a retoucher doing more than "retouching" though. I consider retouching and manipulation separate. the Redskins to Giants jersey is definitely manipulation to me. I would see nothing wrong with contracting out a retoucher to do tedious stuff like skin or hair but I wouldn't want them making creative decisions like color tone etc. Personally it does sketch me out a bit to end my own stuff to a retoucher, just because I like having control over the picture and I would feel it would affect my integrity as a photographer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:Thoughts? Brad will chime in on this as well I'm sure, but it's just how things are done in this industry. The idea of a one man/woman master is not feasible in any career. What about using a camera you didn't make yourself? lights? how do you take credit for how attractive the person you shot is? What about just getting lucky with an amazing subject you didn't put together in a candid street? I think retouchers should probably get billing as well somehow, but this is almost the same as a movie having Michael Bay's name all over it when thousands of other people did a lot of work too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
Ok, I feel a little better about it now. I guess the reason it seems weird to me is because I am not doing commercial photography, I am doing events, restaurants, and the occasional band, having a retoucher do any of my stuff would be stupid because its not a "this is the photo for the cover of a magazine" type of situation. It just struck me as kind of odd when he told me that he has a guy that does all of his editing. To me part of being a photographer was doing everything from setting up lights to color correcting etc at the end of the shoot. I guess thats just not how it works in the commercial photography world. Although I have toyed with the idea of having a company retouch photos for me when I do weddings here and there, but hitting a group of photos with some color correcting and curves is a little different than adding in a new sky and background, and changing the clothing someone is wearing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2011 18:10
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:Although I have toyed with the idea of having a company retouch photos for me when I do weddings here and there, but hitting a group of photos with some color correcting and curves is a little different than adding in a new sky and background, and changing the clothing someone is wearing. The problem with this reasoning is twofold. The first is the assertion/assumption that there is some such thing as purity or truth in photography. We've talked about it a lot, but nothing is lost when stuff is modified (well) in post. In fact many times things are added to meet the original vision. That's the minor problem, the bigger problem is that paying customers don't give a poo poo. They want the images they desire, be they flattering bridal portraits or a kick-rear end movie poster. The number of people it took, or the percentage of untouched pixels/film granules in the final matters not to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2011 18:26
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:
It is though. However you delegate when your production reaches a certain stage. You have an assistant to set up the lights, a digital tech to man a computer station, etc. Everything is subordinate to the photographer (or creative director). You give retouchers a brief to fill. You don't just hand off the images to them. Your friend hands off to other people because he mostly gets paid for his vision/style which is more about the pictures he takes than the polish he gives them. He probably has a lot of control in the retouching. While PIMM is right in that there is no truth and purity in photography, there is however control. As a vendor it's your responsibility to deliver the product to a client - and if getting the best/most efficient product involves farming it out to a retoucher so be it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
I had a TFP shoot with a model off MM last week, so I could test out my new triggers. The shoot went really awkward, the model was crazy shy and didn't really open up despite our best efforts (I shoot with a friend for fun). I kind of feel like that effected a lot of the pictures, plus it was crazy cold and for some reason I decided it would be okay to shoot after sun-set (Which has never worked for me). On top of that, I discovered my Vagabond has decided to poo poo itself out, so rather than finally getting to try out two lights, I was stuck using just a 430exii.  Anyway, here's the only two shots I actually liked from the shoot, but I still feel like I could have done them better:  
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 03:05
|
|
|
 This is my favorite portrait in a long time. It's my grandpa, but this is not representative of him at all really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 03:50
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I had a TFP shoot with a model off MM last week, so I could test out my new triggers. The shoot went really awkward, the model was crazy shy and didn't really open up despite our best efforts (I shoot with a friend for fun). I kind of feel like that effected a lot of the pictures, plus it was crazy cold and for some reason I decided it would be okay to shoot after sun-set (Which has never worked for me). On top of that, I discovered my Vagabond has decided to poo poo itself out, so rather than finally getting to try out two lights, I was stuck using just a 430exii. The composition/crop bothers me in both of these. Lots of negative space on top but cutting off or nearly cutting off feet at the lower edges. That's the first thing that jumps out at me, tough to see past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 03:58
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 09:57
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:I had a TFP shoot with a model off MM last week, so I could test out my new triggers. The shoot went really awkward, the model was crazy shy and didn't really open up despite our best efforts (I shoot with a friend for fun). I kind of feel like that effected a lot of the pictures, plus it was crazy cold and for some reason I decided it would be okay to shoot after sun-set (Which has never worked for me). On top of that, I discovered my Vagabond has decided to poo poo itself out, so rather than finally getting to try out two lights, I was stuck using just a 430exii.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 10:01
|
|
|
AtomicManiac posted:Lighting is a bit flat in #1 but not horribly so. I think the pose is a little messed up, her legs are doing this crazy stuff and she's just holding her hands together behind a shrub. It sorta looks like one half of her is trying to be dramatic (her legs) and her top half is like "oh no, I'll be having none of that!"... including her face. She's an amateur model though, when it comes to expressions she's probably going to suck like most other amateur models do. Being shy doesn't help any... did she know you were going to bring another guy to photograph her? #2 my main complaint (besides the exposure being messed up all throughout) is the shadow from her nose. Look at it. Stare at it. You won't ever do it again. LOOK AT THAT THING!
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
Reichstag posted:
Does the fact the photo isn't representative of the subject matter to the viewer in any way unless the subject is famous enough for the viewer to know them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 16:26
|
|