What constitutes a good portrait?

[Martin Francis]

Okay, first of a series of questions relating to my dissertation. I am
polling photographic newsgroups in search of varying opinions, and anything
said may be quoted.

Q1: What constitutes a good portrait?
Excluding basic technical considerations, i.e. longer focal lengths,
wider apertures etc., what particular elements do you look for in taking and
viewing people photographs? Do you have particular reasons for this opinion,
or is it based purely on aesthetics? Please be as specific as possible.

--
Here lies the late Martin Francis
He couldn't tell you the technical merits of Leitz and Zeiss
But he did take some photographs once.

[Joseph Kewfi]

> Q1: What constitutes a good portrait?

A1: Your face not being in it all the time.

"Martin Francis" <removethisbefore...@btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:bp15p8$q8a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...

[Martin Francis]

"Joseph Kewfi" <f_sto...@NOSPAMiol.ie> wrote in message
news:bp16f8$4g7$1...@dorito.esatclear.ie...

> > Q1: What constitutes a good portrait?
>
> A1: Your face not being in it all the time.

Thanks. I'll quote you in my dissertation, just to show how people can join
in the spirit of things in this wonderful Usenet community.

[Nick C]

"Martin Francis" <removethisbefore...@btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:bp15p8$q8a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...

> Okay, first of a series of questions relating to my dissertation. I am
> polling photographic newsgroups in search of varying opinions, and
anything
> said may be quoted.
>
> Q1: What constitutes a good portrait?

It's one the subject likes.

Nick

[CARBUFF]

>> Q1: What constitutes a good portrait?
>
>It's one the subject likes.
>
>Nick

I was just thinking that.

George

[Dallas 1]

A picture that makes somebody look better than they really are.

[Joseph Meehan]

From the professional viewpoint that is correct. Well sometimes they
are swayed by their family or friends, but as a professional, it is not the
art that counts it is the customer. BTW I in no way wish to imply that the
professional is of some sort of lesser quality because they want to make
their customers happy, quite the opposite.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"Nick C" <n-c...@cometcast.net> wrote in message
news:%bYsb.196188$Tr4.555613@attbi_s03...

[McLeod]

For a picture to be called a portrait it must have qualities that elevate it
above a snapshot. The subject must be the immediately identifiable, the
lighting on the subject must fit the ideal of the subject you are trying to
create and add dimensionality (make the image appear more than 2
dimensional), and their must be separation between the background and
subject, whether the background is environmental or studio. I don't agree
with the idea that a portrait has to please the subject, especially if your
client isn't the subject. For an example see Eisenstadt's (sp) portrait of
the WWII German industrialist Krupp. It's a portrait, but I'm sure the
subject wasn't pleased by it.

"Martin Francis" <removethisbefore...@btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:bp15p8$q8a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...

[T P]

"Martin Francis" <removethisbefore...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

>
>Q1: What constitutes a good portrait?

One that flatters the subject without misrepresenting them?

One that portrays the subject in a way that people who
know him/her believe reflects their characteristics?

One that the subject is happy to pay for?

[Marko B.]

What an expensive thingy.
Anybody wants to buy smth from me? I'll charge $3.000 or more if this is not
enough.

m.

"Lourens Smak" <sm...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-3D46A5.1...@freeloader.wanadoo.nl...
> In article <HA2tb.14969$IK2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>,

> "McLeod" <cerve...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > For an example see Eisenstadt's (sp) portrait of
> > the WWII German industrialist Krupp. It's a portrait, but I'm sure the
> > subject wasn't pleased by it.
>

> That famous picture is by Arnold Newman. (one of the better portraitists)
> http://www.peterfetterman.com/artists/newman/newman_pic14.html
> ;-)
> Lourens

[Alan Browne]

Can't see the OP.

>
>>>Q1: What constitutes a good portrait?
>>

One that carries off the assignment. Portraits come in their own
spectrum of uses. From the cheesy school portraits that we are induced
to buy year in and year out, to formal executive shots, familly
portraits, 'environmental' portraits (people at work), etc.

Hopefully a portrait reflects a person as they really look. People
often are surprised at the portraits of themsleves that other people
like, but the subject doesn't. Often, the subject will pick a shot of
themselves that others will say, "no, that's not -you-."

Each has its goal. Assuming you are being paid for it, then the goal is
to please the payer!

Cheers,
Alan.

--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

[Alan Browne]

McLeod wrote:

> For a picture to be called a portrait it must have qualities that elevate it
> above a snapshot. The subject must be the immediately identifiable, the
> lighting on the subject must fit the ideal of the subject you are trying to
> create and add dimensionality (make the image appear more than 2
> dimensional), and their must be separation between the background and
> subject, whether the background is environmental or studio. I don't agree
> with the idea that a portrait has to please the subject, especially if your
> client isn't the subject. For an example see Eisenstadt's (sp) portrait of
> the WWII German industrialist Krupp. It's a portrait, but I'm sure the
> subject wasn't pleased by it.

it does have to please whoever is -paying- for it... even if their
selection is not pleasing to the subject (absent a review clause in a
contract).

[Bandicoot]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:V48tb.20618$cm6.1...@wagner.videotron.net...

This is where I would come from too. Portraits serve various purposes, of
which making the sitting feel good about themselves is only one possible.

The portrait of the Chief Executive in the company report needs to make
him/her look as if they have whatever attributes the company feels it needs
to convince its shareholders it has that year: toughness, wisdom, dynamism,
whatever. A good portrait that conveys those characteristics is probably
not also going to be one that the sitter's spouse would want to have in a
frame on their desk next to the pictures of the grandchildren.

Historically, think of painting. Think of political portraits, like
Elizabeth I in the 'Armada Portrait' - full of meanings and requirements, of
which being a good likeness was not necessarily particularly important.
Even now the pictures politicians put on the Christmas cards they send are
very different from the sorts of things their parents/children put up on the
wall.

So a portrait serves a purpose, and a good one is one that serves that
purpose well. The complexity comes because there are so many different
purposes, and some portraits may be serving several different purposes
simultaneously.

Peter

[McLeod]

"Lourens Smak" <sm...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-3D46A5.1...@freeloader.wanadoo.nl...

> That famous picture is by Arnold Newman. (one of the better portraitists)
> http://www.peterfetterman.com/artists/newman/newman_pic14.html
> ;-)
> Lourens

Yup. Sorry, I stand corrected.

[McLeod]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:V48tb.20618$cm6.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
>

Unless you consider yourself an artist instead of a merchant. Than the only
person you have to please is yourself. As long as you're not using that to
rationalize inferior work.

[Michael Scarpitti]

"Martin Francis" <removethisbefore...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<bp15p8$q8a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...

> Okay, first of a series of questions relating to my dissertation. I am
> polling photographic newsgroups in search of varying opinions, and anything
> said may be quoted.
>
> Q1: What constitutes a good portrait?
> Excluding basic technical considerations, i.e. longer focal lengths,
> wider apertures etc., what particular elements do you look for in taking and
> viewing people photographs? Do you have particular reasons for this opinion,
> or is it based purely on aesthetics? Please be as specific as possible.

1. That which you can sell for the highest price
2. That which gives you or the subject the greatest satisfaction

[Nick C]

"CARBUFF" <car...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20031113225744...@mb-m28.aol.com...

Keep in mind the commonly would like to see themselves as pretty, and the
pretty would like to see themselves as beautiful. You may have to use many
tricks in lighting and oftentimes use facial makeup to accomplish the task.
In any event, the only one who has to be pleased with their portrait is the
subject and the subject will always be pleased if they think they look
better than the face in the mirror.

Nick

[Bob Hickey]

The Krupp shot was by Newman. Bob Hickey
"McLeod" <cerve...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:HA2tb.14969$IK2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...

[Alan Browne]

McLeod wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:V48tb.20618$cm6.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
>
>>

>>Each has its goal. Assuming you are being paid for it, then the goal is
>>to please the payer!
>>
>
>
>

> Unless you consider yourself an artist instead of a merchant. Than the only
> person you have to please is yourself. As long as you're not using that to
> rationalize inferior work.

..no difference: then the artist is the 'payer' and as you say has to
please her/himself.

Cheers,
Alan

[Leicaddict]

The eyes need to have catchlights.
--
THE REAL LEICADDICT
"The Gonzo God of SnapShots"

"Martin Francis" <removethisbefore...@btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:bp15p8$q8a$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...

[Lewis Lang]

Any human image that can be engraved in peanut brittle, then, eaten. A portrait
doesn't have to be good, but it should at least be tasty! ;-)

Lewis

Was that not obscure enough?

Then what I really meant to say was...

When in the courseof human civilization there encumbers a need not to eat
cucumbers but to divest ourselves of the bonds of holy metonymy in a
pan-dimension characterical/moral/mechanical/chronolgical matrix locus the
third subset of that being continental drift then... what was the question? ;-)

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

[Lewis Lang]

>Subject: Re: What constitutes a good portrait?
>From: "Bob Hickey" hicks...@earthlink.net
>Date: Sat, Nov 15, 2003 8:07 AM
>Message-id: <XFotb.1422$Rk5...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>

>
>The Krupp shot was by Newman.

Paul, Alfred E. or Lorraine?

"He-llo Newman________"

"Hello Jerry"

"What, me worry?"

Lewis

[Deathwalker]

"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20031117052407...@mb-m14.aol.com...

> Any human image that can be engraved in peanut brittle, then, eaten. A
portrait
> doesn't have to be good, but it should at least be tasty! ;-)
>
> Lewis
>
> Was that not obscure enough?
>
> Then what I really meant to say was...
>
> When in the courseof human civilization there encumbers a need not to eat
> cucumbers but to divest ourselves of the bonds of holy metonymy in a
> pan-dimension characterical/moral/mechanical/chronolgical matrix locus the
> third subset of that being continental drift then... what was the
question? ;-)

Ah I see you've just watched matrix reloaded too then.

I saw the mtv skit on the bonus disc. Laughed my ass off.