What is a portrait (seriously)?
Ralph W. Lambrecht
local camera club competition and he would disqualify every print not
showing head and shoulders or showing any more than that.
Since then I have studied portraits and dictionaries on the subject and
found only 'likeness of a person' as a description. I heard that there
is a famous photo, from Karsh I believe, of Alfred Hitchcock which only
showed his shadow on the wall and no part of the actual person but was a
true likeness of Alfred.
What do you think?
Victor Blackwell
Casals. Your local judge sounds very local.
Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote in message <38220B...@btinternet.com>...
C. W. Dean
>
> I like to start this discussion, because we had a judge recently in a
> local camera club competition and he would disqualify every print not
> showing head and shoulders or showing any more than that.
>
> Since then I have studied portraits and dictionaries on the subject and
> found only 'likeness of a person' as a description. I heard that there
> is a famous photo, from Karsh I believe, of Alfred Hitchcock which only
> showed his shadow on the wall and no part of the actual person but was a
> true likeness of Alfred.
>
> What do you think?
Verbal definitions are fine, but Karsh shows it with nothing left to
discuss.
--
Best regards & Good Photography!
C. W. Dean
Practicing Professional Photography since 1972
Photography Samples: http://www.erols.com/cwdean/home.htm
Deirdre Wiseman
He hasn't got a clue. He has no understanding of art, no concept of
compostion, no personal vision and cannot grasp the most simple basic
elements of photography and thinks photography should be a cookie cutter
process. Aside from that, he's a great judge.
With apologies to Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf.
I think a protrait must capture a personality. There must be something
that gives an insight into a person's character. If you do not you are
simply making a photo record, not a portrait.
Arch
Lam
A portrait is anything that is not landscape
Lee Carmichael
here locally. Right now you can see the differences but if you stay around
and continue to hear this kind of drivel, you will start to believe it. My
advice would be to run not walk away before you are contaminated with this
type of neanderthal thinking. I know that we need companionship in
photography but try and find someother outlet. This one is creatively
poison.
As usual,
Lee Carmichael
p2mac...@compuserve.com
lamb...@btinternet.com wrote:
> I like to start this discussion, ... a judge recently ...would
disqualify every print not
> showing head and shoulders or showing any more than that.
>
> found only 'likeness of a person' as a description. I heard that there
> showed his shadow ... and no part of the actual person but was a
> true likeness of Alfred...
>
Surely, when you phrase the question that way you must think that a
portrait can encompass much. Still, there is much to consider about a
head shot. If the judge says he is looking for good ones, it is
possible to understand that without saying that only head shots qualify
as portraits.
I certainly consider cartoons valid portraits (but not usually
photographs). I have seen rather abstract attempts and don't like many
of them, but would not disqualify them as portraits. I would certainly
see a statue of a person as a portrait.
I actually think it can be perfectly proper to consider a prose
description as a portrait.
It seems to me that in many ways a picture that shows what someone has
done might qualify as a portrait. A picture that shows a person's
actions, or in action should surely qualify. Pictures of other than
profiles (hands, feet or whatever) would seem to me to be plausible
contenders.
I suppose a portrait is a creation that assists in distinguishing an
individual. Doubtless someone has a better idea.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dave Sisley
that I agree - your judge is being a putz. Just think of photographers like
Anne Leibowitz (spelling?) or Richard Avedon. To insist a "portrait" can show
only someone's head and shoulders is very sad. People have bodies and they
exist in contexts or surroundings that often tell you more about them than just
their heads.
That said, however, I will play devil's advocate. Perhaps your judge is
imposing a limitation in an effort to force more creativity out of the
participants. While the possibilties of photography seem limitless, one always
has to make compromises and balance priorities when taking a picture.
Sometimes, the more restrictions the more thought that goes into a shot. Maybe
being limited to a head shot would lead you to more carefully consider your
lighting or composition, since there is less for you to affect.
In short, it depends what your judge was thinking. If he really thinks that a
portrait can only be a head shot, he should work at Sears (although I think
that even they have a more expansive idea of "portrait" than he does!).
-- Dave Sisley
Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote:
>I like to start this discussion, because we had a judge recently in a
>local camera club competition and he would disqualify every print not
>showing head and shoulders or showing any more than that.
>
>Since then I have studied portraits and dictionaries on the subject and
>found only 'likeness of a person' as a description. I heard that there
phot...@pop.sttl.uswest.net
what we pay for.... Photography has no rules... If it did we would all be
out of business...
Mark
Dave
well enough. I don't need to elaborate! But I did want to mention
something else about the interpretation of photographs. I was in a
little photo gallery in Door County Wisconsin -- nice little gallery I
might add. I was talking to someone who worked there.
The gallery chooses photographs from submitters as part of a little
contest each year. All photographs are supposed to depict something
about Door County. As the gallery employee was telling me this, we
were walking past some of the exhibited works. My attention was drawn
to a bullfight photograph! I remarked that in all my years
vacationing in Door County, I hadn't, so far, stumbled across the
bullfighting arena. The gallery employee said, "We're pretty liberal
in our interpretation of what depicts the mood and flavor of Door
County." Now there's a judge who goes to the opposite extreme of our
narrow-defining portrait judge!
Malster
(how boaring if thats all portrait photography was!) the most common- head
and shoulders, 3/4 legnth, full legnth, front, rear, side, looking down,
looking up, projections and shiloutets (opps I cant spell!!)
Bye - happy shooting
Ralph W. Lambrecht wrote in message <38220B...@btinternet.com>...
Sandor Mathe
: Portraits need to portray a person, it is not limited to head and shoulders
: (how boaring if thats all portrait photography was!) the most common- head
: and shoulders, 3/4 legnth, full legnth, front, rear, side, looking down,
: looking up, projections and shiloutets (opps I cant spell!!)
: Bye - happy shooting
There's animal portraiture too.
--
Sandor Mathe
san...@ca.ibm.com