Portrait for Critique
socode
Your time is much appreciated!
Scott Condit
sc...@socode.com
Larry Miracle
It's not your typical portrait.
I like it.
Larr
Paul Ferrara
pic has neither. It might as well be a close up of a flower or something.
And the color isn't great either and there's no light getting into her eyes.
If you really want to learn portraiture, you can. Pick up a book on the
subject, study it and practice. I recommend J.J. Allen's "Posing and
LIghting Techniques for Studio Portrait Photography." It's available at
most book stores and on amazon.
Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com/
http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=5602
socode <sc...@socode.com> wrote in message
news:a9f18a$4pg$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
PhtgrphrBn
socode
news:jrKu8.275449$s43.72...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> Sorry to be harsh but to have a portrait, you need posing and
> lighting. You pic has neither. It might as well be a close up of a
> flower or something.
> And the color isn't great either and there's no light getting into her
> eyes.
Hi Paul,
Perhaps "portrait" is the wrong word, although there certainly was
posing.
The color isn't vibrant as the picture was taken in B&W.
Thanks,
Scott
sc...@socode.com
Scott
sc...@socode.com
Ryan
McLeod
before you clicked the shutter? Other than that I don't mind the hand
coloured technique...it does evoke a feeling of bygone times because it is a
cliche.
"socode" <sc...@socode.com> wrote in message
news:a9f18a$4pg$1...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com...
Jak
news:jrKu8.275449$s43.72...@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
I have not looked at the image in question, but I have to respectfully
disagree on this definition of "portrait". I have seen a lot of images that
I would consider portraits - and incredibly beautiful ones at that - that
were neither posed nor professionally lit. Actually, I usually much prefer
these "candid" types of portraits since I think they often convey more about
the subject's personality and who the person is....
--
:)
Jak
"A person who is nice to you, but
rude to the waiter, is not a nice person."
~unknown
**********
zeitgeist
close but no cigar.
the focal point is the obvious eyes, which are placed not quite in the
middle. One eye has no catch light which would have picked the image up.
the color highlights work against you here, being placed so far out to the
edges, both the hair clip and the lips.
its just the balances are all off for no particular reason, you are
emphasizing her forehead, or at least drawing our eye there. cause her
head is tilted down, her nose and mouth are squeezed, and her nose is
elongated, this doesn't seem to be a deliberate intent, and this is what
causes the big forehead. Its almost as if you have two images here, cover
the top half and then the bottom.
when using a normal (which I consider a semi wide...) is important to keep
the plane of the face parallel to the film plane, also try to keep the
catch lights in the eyes, a tilt of her head up would have given so much
balance to her face and kept the distortion to her nose down, while that
might have been an effect you were looking for, it wasn't exactly flattering
here.
accents should be placed compositionally, the location of the hair clip
makes it more of a distraction than an element, its lost up there,
disconnected by position from the similar color in the lips.
this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
Paul Ferrara
something to the thread whether it made sense or not?
> were neither posed nor professionally lit.
Those are called "snapshots."
There are a lot of ways to achieve good lighting and there's nothing wrong
with more casual poses but a "portrait" always includes both.
Paul
Jak <JSW...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cbcfb33$0$30322$ac96...@news.raex.com...
mp
You
> pic has neither. It might as well be a close up of a flower or something.
> And the color isn't great either and there's no light getting into her
eyes.
Scott may not have the technical skills. That comes with practice, but his
portrait has immediacy and impact, whereas your images are dull, lifeless,
boring, and flatly lit. I think you should be a bit more humble in your
critique.
Paul Ferrara
mp
Wonderful! Thanks for asking.
Paul Ferrara
all talk and no pics.
Paul
mp <m...@dcc.com> wrote in message news:ucc2pe6...@corp.supernews.com...
Jak
OK, I looked at both - the one in question as well as the ones in the
portrait section of your website. I have to say I prefer the one in
question. Yours are posed and lit it's true, but IMHO there is no
sparkle or personality showing in your work. The poses are all very
similar and technically well done, but lacking in creativity. I would
call it "cookie cutter photography" at best. I used to work for a
couple of outfits that shot youth sports and school pictures. The
prescribed shots we were required to shoot were very similar to your
samples.
Here is a link to an image that I consider a simply wonderful portrait
(an example of my line of thought from my previous post).
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=485978
From what I understand there was no posing, no manipulated lighting,
but it is absolutely georgeous as far as I am concerned...
I really think it was pretty unnecessary for you to take such a harsh
tone with me since, as far as I can recall, I have not had any prior
dealings with you before this post. It is just my opinion that a
portrait doesn't necessarily have to fit into the rigid definition
that a lot of people subscribe to, and I am certainly within my rights
to both have, and express, an opinion. I believe I said, "I
respectfully disagree" - not, "You all MUST agree WITH me..." It is
not necessary for me to see any image at all for me to know what my
own definition of a good portrait is.
I feel that type of response was both unkind and uncalled for...
Jak
"A person who is nice to you,
but rude to the waiter, is not
a nice person." ~Dave Berry
Jak
> So Mr. Wonderful, SHOW US some of your portraits. I love you guys who
> are all talk and no pics.
>
> Paul
>
It is entirely possible that there are people who aspire to shoot beautiful
things, as well as some who already do.
It is not necessary that someone be able to paint a stroke in order for
them to walk into a place like The Louvre or Museo del Prado and know what
is beautiful...
--
:)
Jak
"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."
~Dolores Ibarruri
**************************************
Email Replies to: Alle...@bigfoot.com
Paul Ferrara
make it so. And just because you like a particular snapshot, that doesn't
make it a portrait. The goal of lighting and posing is to flatter the
subject and the concepts go back many hundreds of years to the great
masters.
Go to an art gallery sometime and look at the portraits. You'll see the
same "cookie cutter" approach used on most of them.
Paul
http://www.paulsportraits.com/
Jak <JSW...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:959f5e89.02042...@posting.google.com...
Jak
> Just because my definition of a good hamburger is a hot dog, that
> doesn't make it so. And just because you like a particular snapshot,
> that doesn't make it a portrait. The goal of lighting and posing is
> to flatter the subject and the concepts go back many hundreds of years
> to the great masters.
>
> Go to an art gallery sometime and look at the portraits. You'll see
> the same "cookie cutter" approach used on most of them.
>
> Paul
> http://www.paulsportraits.com/
>
Yes, and the ones that "sparkle" have captured something lovely about the
PERSONALITY of the one portrayed despite the restrictions of the period...
They are unique. Dimensional. They breathe life into themselves. The
ability to do THAT is a very rare art.
Portraiture has never been static - otherwise picasso would never have
painted his wonderful, definition defying PORTRAITS. It has changed,
evolved and been re-defined many times throughout history. And it will
continue to evolve, with or without your consent.
See A History of Portraiture at:
http://www.netkin.com/portraits/history/history1.php3
I don't know if you are always nasty, mean, ill-tempered, unpleasant,
disagreeable, sarcastic, and apparently-bitter-about-something, or if you
are just having a bad reaction to your medication, but I really have done
nothing to you to warrent the condescending tone you keep presenting to me,
so at this point I am choosing not to be further abused by you in any
way...
[PLONK!]
--
:)
Jak
"It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees."
~Dolores Ibarruri
**************************************
Email Replies to: Alle...@bigfoot.com
**************************************