Portrait question rephrased
Martin Francis
line. Rather than asking what the definition of a good portrait was, I
should have asked for personal opinion- specifically, if there are styles
you gravitate to more.
Of course, your initial answers were useful (it certainly shows a heavy
mercenary streak in the group :-) ) and i'm sorry to ask again...
... but I am. So, how do YOU shoot? High key? Low key? Simple setup?
Complicated? Available light? Candid? Do you have techniques to relax your
subject?
--
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.
Bandicoot
message news:bp3pid$3bc$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> I suspect my question was a little misleading, certainly by the subject
> line. Rather than asking what the definition of a good portrait was, I
> should have asked for personal opinion- specifically, if there are styles
> you gravitate to more.
I think the original question may have been more intellectually
interesting... But here goes:
> ... but I am. So, how do YOU shoot?
I don't, much. But this is what I like:
> High key?
Generally prefer for (young &/or attractive) women
> Low key?
Generally prefer for men, usually in B&W
> Simple setup? Complicated?
Simple can suit some people best - the classic 'beauty light' (butterfly
lighting) suits a beautiful woman, esp. if with good cheek-bones - but it
won't suit someone with a too wide face. And I still love the (sometimes
very complex) hollywood style of the '40s.
> Available light? Candid?
When appropriate
> Do you have techniques to relax your subject?
Does a little alcohol with dinner, low lights and soft music count? Oh,
wait a minute, you were still talking about photography.
Peter
Gordon Moat
> I suspect my question was a little misleading, certainly by the subject
> line. Rather than asking what the definition of a good portrait was, I
> should have asked for personal opinion- specifically, if there are styles
> you gravitate to more.
I would say that some photographers of the past have influenced style choices
in photography, particularly with regard to portraiture. Yousef Karsh and
Arnold Newman are two that immediately come to mind, though their styles are
quite different. Karsh was dramatic stage lighting, and Newman put the
subject into their environment.
>
>
> Of course, your initial answers were useful (it certainly shows a heavy
> mercenary streak in the group :-) ) and i'm sorry to ask again...
Perhaps your initial question was too simple, and not specific enough.
However, there are some nice responses in the prior thread.
>
>
> ... but I am. So, how do YOU shoot?
Eye level, from the hip, ground level, overhead . . . almost any angle.
> High key?
Rarely, but can be interesting for fair skin and bright blue eyes. Skin
condition should be very good and backgrounds very simple to pull this off
well. Usually better for face shots.
> Low key?
If it fits the subject. Taking a cue from Arnold Newman, if the subject likes
night environments, or indoors, then a low key could strike the proper mood.
Putting the subject into a familiar environment can make the photos more
interesting. The other choice of this direction is to move in a moody or
romantic rendering, and may be more of play acting for the subject.
> Simple setup?
I try to keep backgrounds simple. However, it is not always possible, so
throwing the background out of focus can help.
>
> Complicated?
If it suits the individual.
> Available light?
Try to use available light as often as possible. Obviously, artificial
lighting tries to simulate daylight, but that is not the only way to do it.
If a different mood, or even surrealism, can be done with artificial
lighting, then that is another direction, but only if it suits the subject.
Also, fill flash in daylight can often be a very useful technique, though it
is easy to over light subjects.
> Candid?
Relaxed is a better choice. Sometimes having your subject look directly into
the camera can engage the viewer of the final image, and this works well for
subjects with interesting eyes. The biggest thing is trying to avoid a posed,
static, look. Either put the viewer into the scene, or create an image that
communicated the character of the subject.
> Do you have techniques to relax your
> subject?
>
A few drinks? Seriously, even if you hire a model for a shoot, you should
talk to them, find out what they like, get them interested in what you are
doing, and give them some freedom to choose movement, positions, or even
lighting (if they understand your lighting techniques).
Treat them like a new friend, and not just a cadaver, or specimen. Models get
poked, prodded, and pushed around quite a bit, and can be static, like
mannequins. Even subjects who are not models can be too stiff from worrying
how they look, something stressful that day, or the feeling of confusion of
what is going on with all the camera and lighting gear.
Take a few cameras on any portrait shoot. A Polaroid camera, or back, is
another good choice, since you can hand it to your subject (model), to show
them what you are doing. Get them involved in the process a little, since
they are really important to the outcome of the photos. If your larger camera
gear, or lots of lights, seem to make the subject tense, then grab a simpler,
less intrusive camera, a longer lens to give more distance, or use less
light.
>
> --
> 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.
If you are relaxed and confident, that feeling can make your subject more
relaxed. When your portrait subject is comfortable with you, and confident of
your abilities, then things tend to go much smoother. Be mindful of time, but
do not rush. With busy executives, make as little intrusion as possible, say
some kind words, and have gear that is unobtrusive. Complement your subject
on their clothes, shoes, looks, anything really. many people do not like
having their photo taken, but if they feel you will make them look really
good, it makes it easier.
Since this is a gear news group, I should point out that at least one
Polaroid camera, or back, goes with me whenever I need to do portraits. These
can be lighting check images, or tests, but often I just try to get one
really good Polaroid to give the subject, and then get down to doing the
shots that will make the printable portrait images.
Hope that helps. And I think style is something you develop as a
photographer, even if you are influenced by the work of others.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Beach dweller
> Martin Francis wrote:
>
>> I suspect my question was a little misleading, certainly by the subject
>> line. Rather than asking what the definition of a good portrait was, I
>> should have asked for personal opinion- specifically, if there are styles
>> you gravitate to more.
>
--------------------
"You can't beat God for lighting"
I wonder if you know who said that?
Wide (2.8 or wider) aperture moderately long lens (100mm FL in 35mm or
longer) Natural light. Maybe help it a little with a reflector. It worked
for the old masters, why not you?
BD
Gordon Moat
In general, I prefer available light. However, I feel that artificial light
photography does give a distinct look to an image, or at least has the
capability to do so. With that in mind, it is a skill to use artificial light,
and the effects can be dramatic. It really depends what look you are after, and
obviously there will never be one without that suits all portraits.
Rather than try to get artificial light to mimic natural light, why not exploit
the peculiarities of your artificial light choices. Use the different aspects
to an advantage in your imagery.
Leicaddict
--
THE REAL LEICADDICT
"The Gonzo God of SnapShots"
"Martin Francis" <removethisbefore...@btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:bp3pid$3bc$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
McLeod
"Martin Francis" <removethisbefore...@btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:bp3pid$3bc$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> line. Rather than asking what the definition of a good portrait was, I
> should have asked for personal opinion- specifically, if there are styles
> you gravitate to more.
>
> Of course, your initial answers were useful (it certainly shows a heavy
> mercenary streak in the group :-) ) and i'm sorry to ask again...
>
> ... but I am. So, how do YOU shoot? High key? Low key? Simple setup?
> Complicated? Available light? Candid? Do you have techniques to relax your
> subject?
>
I like environmental portraiture, usually low key if I can create it in that
environment. It's nice to have the total control of the studio, but I only
have 5 or 6 different backgrounds available to me in the studio and I'm not
that great at constructing sets, so it's more a challenge and a choice to
work in the subject's environment.
I try and avoid shooting in someone's house, however. It is always a
compromise between what you would like to do and what you can do in the
limitations imposed by small spaces. I love shooting people in their work
environment. Given enough space and choice of backgrounds you can make some
beautiful portraits that relate more information about a person than a
studio portrait can. With enough space between the subject and background
and you can light the background any way you want, and use depth of focus to
subdue it as little or as much as you like. I find environmental
portraiture very rewarding and mentally stimulating. It's always a
challenge.