Black And White 2 Guide
Tamela
Second to the eyes, most important is to find a location where your subject's face is brightly lit, and the falloff of light starting about the ears or back of the head is pretty abrupt. What works best for me when shooting natural light portraits is to place the subject in an area of open shade, trying to find a place where they are surrounded on at least three sides. Place your subject in the shade and as close to the line of light as possible (see diagram below). Bonus point are given if you can find a place where your subject is in the shade, you are standing in the sunlight, and there is something large and brightly colored and/or reflective immediately behind you (like a building or light colored fence).
My camera settings are simple. Using a fast lens, I try to shoot as close to wide open as possible - usually an aperture of somewhere between f/1.4 and f/2.2, maybe f/3.2 if the situation calls for it. Shutter speed is set to the situation and ISO is usually locked in on 400 or so (I can hear all the technical shooters grumbling and cussing at me right now). Once the camera is set, I start shooting, making adjustments as necessary. Additionally, I find that if I'm shooting for black and white, I set my camera to shoot in black and white. The feedback is instant and it's much easier for me to see what I'm doing as I'm shooting - especially if I'm standing in the bright sunlight photographing someone who is standing in the shade.
Location is key. For these shots, I scouted a few locations until I found this this incredible old shed which had three walls (barely) in place and was missing the fourth. Located in a place where I, and quite a number of other people, walk by on a daily basis, the old shed had suddenly become a perfect, natural light studio. Though most of these were shot on separate days, I made sure to position both subjects in the same place and took care to shoot about the same time of day. It was roughly about 3pm in October which meant that the sun was just over my left shoulder. One other important aspect that I should note was that the sidewalk I was standing on and shooting from was made of cement and was a much lighter color than the surrounding asphalt. The light it reflected back up pulled the shadows away from their chin and in addition, gave me a nice catch light in each subject's eye.
When shooting portraits, the overall goal is not to make something so technically perfect that it becomes a workshop in itself or a tribute to your technical ability. You want to capture the mood, the drama, the emotion, and even the flaws contained within your subject. For me, black and white portraiture is the medium which allows us to do so...and then some.
@ Mike Moss-They're head shots, they're portraits, they're snapshots, they're photshop'd, they're straight outta the camera, they're memories captured, they're a photographer's interpretation of tone, they're something that moved a photographer to capture that subject at that particular time in that particular light.
So, internet tough guy, how 'bout you ratchet down the attitude and answer the man's question?
The supposed difference between Portrait and a Headshot is basically the style. A Headshot usually only focuses on the head-face (a photo of the back of a head it's not considered a headshot), it tends to have clear backgrounds so that the focus is on the expression. They are also very direct. A portrait, usually also focuses con the head, but it should reveal more of the story behind the person photographed (whether this is the person's hands, torso, environment, etc. - sometimes it doesn't even includes the face, as in Helmut Newton's self portrait). A portrait also leaves more space for wondering.
To illustrate. A Headshot of MikeMoss web's persona would show his name and the FS logo and give us an idea that he is into photography. Then, a portrait, might show us his comment so that we don't only know he is into photography, but that he is also a dick.
Then again, head shots can fall into the portrait category. An in this particular case (if you still want to consider them head shots), they do. Since they are not necessarily direct and/or clear, as there's a photograph of one of the models looking away from the camera, or another one touching her lip, or showing the movement of her hair, yet another one showing us her shoulder.
A portrait is the representation of a person in whole or in part. Style does not come to matter. What you are talking about is the physical approach to the subject (and the inclusion or exlusion of its context) and the subsequent filling of the frame.
Good points Omar, but you're using reductionism when the key to understanding photographic genres is broad and historical. Reductionism would categorize a dog and a cat as the same since both have four legs. Of course, we all know that dogs and cats are different from each other, but we can't know that by comparing the parts that they share. On the contrary, we can only differentiate between them by comparing parts that they do NOT have in common.
The dog/cat example applies directly to the distinction between portraits and model headshots. There's no way to tell the difference between a portrait and a model headshot by comparing them according to qualities that they have in common. Instead, they have to be compared according to what makes them different.
If "genres" make some people uncomfortable, then it's possible to talk in terms of "class membership." A model headshot and a portrait might both be members of a class of pictures that contain humans as their subject matter. In that sense, they're both the same.
But, portraits can never be classified as "theatrical" whereas model headshots most certainly can be. A portrait is kind of like a person as himself/herself. A headshot is much more like role playing. If you'll notice, many of the pictures in this thread contain the subject doing theatrical things (swinging hair, forced gestures etc) and that's much more in line with membership within the photographic class of model headshots than within the class of portraiture.
People are free to classify pictures in any way that they want. However, it's a sign of dilettantism to blur distinctions between genres. On a personal note, my first job in photography was shooting portfolios for a talent agency and the reason I got the opportunity was because the head agent said that the other photographer interviewed could do the technical photography just fine but couldn't nail the appropriate genres.
I get the point. I know genres overlap between them; it is not a rigid thing. But it is not reductionism, it is understanding not what they do not have in common, but the essential structure of each. That's a type. Everything else is contingent.
You can name it the way you like, but a headshot is still a portrait. The same thing that a headshot portrays can be portrayed full body and viceversa. It is a matter of detail what changes, but it is not the detail, but how you manage it.
But in one thing I agree with you: agencies catch detail, and if that gives you the results to be hired, then go ahead. Again, name it the way you like. You are also free to classify pictures in any way you like.
I gotta tell you, I was intrigued by your post him showing only 'young and attractive woman' and you shooting older people. I went though 5 pages of your portraits and not one did I thing was great. you had some ok ones but you I could not see any connection with you and the subject in any of these portraits. Maybe instead of listing your 20k worth of Leica sony etc etc equipment and discounting others peoples work you could actually practice a bit more with you fancy equipment and read articles and be open to them instead of brushing them off. I can assure you I am not a troll. I read these articles all the time and rarely post comments but I had to say something here.
Thanks, Dierk. You are correct - they are all highly attractive women. I have a lot of respect for those who shoot portraits of the storied facial features of 90+ year olds, like you do, but unfortunately, the fashion industry is not yet accepting of that quite yet. In addition, if I were to shoot those types of faces (and I want to), I would perhaps light in somewhat differently.
I'm not quite as brave as you. I now shoot almost exclusively in B&W mode on my DSLR. I get to visualize the light better when chimping but the raw files contain color if I want it later. I've discovered nice high contrast photos that are great in B&W but I would have tossed in color.
How do we recreate this kind of light in camera? This "edge of open shade" light? I have seen a few photographers do it, but no matter how hard I try, my flash-lit images are always obviously flash. Is it that modifiers are simply too "perfect" and we need imperfection to feel like natural light? I'd love some discussion on this.
Damien Lovegroove made a YouTube video a while ago where he used a speedlight and a "dingle" (light / shadow modifier). Shooting a bare bulb strobe through a bit of weed or a tree branch produced really cool dappled light (screen grab attached). I've been playing around with this sort of lighting, it's an easy way to make cool shadows in an otherwise boring scene. Here's the vid if you're interested:
haha, thank you. I think that regardless of the hobby, every one of us goes through the gear-head stage at some point. It was true when I played guitar and it was certainly true in the first few years after I picked up a camera. The difference, imo, is being able to recognize it and break out of it - if for no other reason than to free up all that cash!
Hi. Enjoyed the article and my only quibble is why would you write a guide and tell us you are probably doing it wrong? This is how you do it and the results speak for themselves. Remember Ansel Adams- "There are no rules for good photographs. There are only good photographs."
Oh and for the guy who said these aren't portraits a definition from Mirriam Webster. Portrait: "A painting, drawing, or photograph of a person that usually only includes the person's head and shoulders" . So yes these are portraits.