what is considered portrait?
Ben
This could be a fairly obvious question but I sometimes get confused.
I'm just wondering if portrait photo is the one that shows a face
covering at least 80% of the frame (photo)...?? If there are more than
one person in a photo, is it a portrait? If there is a person in a
photo involved in some task (where the emphasis is on both the task
and the person), is it considered a portrait? The reason I'm asking
this is because I'm making my personal website with photos. So i'd
like to catergorize my photos.
Thanx
Ben
Joseph Meehan
por·trait (pôr"trąt, -trłt", p˝r"-) n. 1. Abbr. por. A likeness of a person,
especially one showing the face, that is created by a painter or
photographer, for example. 2. A verbal picture or description, especially of
a person.
Since it is your website, you can decide. Consider that an "official"
answer. ;-)
There may be some specific rules for competitions but for show, it is up
to you.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Al Denelsbeck
news:d99e1341.04072...@posting.google.com:
I consider any photo where the main subject is a person (and quite
often animals) to be a portrait. More than one - group portrait. If they're
engaged in a task that typifies their career/hobby/interests, then sure. I
prefer seeing people doing things, or displaying some honest emotion, over
the typical cheese portraits.
I've done portraits from a significant distance, using the scenery,
which is great for the camera-shy. Some might consider this "scenic" rather
than portraiture, but to my way of thinking, if the scene only works with
the person in there (in other words, nothing else is grabbing or directing
attention), then it's a portrait.
But you may also find categories such as photojournalism, character
studies, moods, cultural, and so on, may work as well. Many images might
fit into multiple categories - there's nothing wrong with this, and as long
as it doesn't demonstrate that you only have five photos, it shows you
recognize various interpretations of an image.
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
Patrick L.
"Ben" <cresc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d99e1341.04072...@posting.google.com...
Any one can take a portrait, but whether or not your portrait is of a
sufficient quality that someone would pay you money, that is another thing
altogether.
I would say that a portrait is a photograph of a person or small group in
which the standard of quality is clearly above that of a snap shot, it can
be posed, or candid in nature.
Outside of the quality debate, I think most photographers will agree that
the minimum for portraiture would require a sentient being or beings as the
subject matter, so it is usually of humans or pets. I can see a portrait
of one's favorite horse, but not of one's favorite tarantula :)
Patrick
TP
>
>I consider any photo where the main subject is a person (and quite
>often animals) to be a portrait.
So a figure study would be a portrait?
You make me laugh, Al.
;-)
Al Denelsbeck
news:outag0llgj874cgsi...@4ax.com:
> Al Denelsbeck <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote:
>>
>>I consider any photo where the main subject is a person (and quite
>>often animals) to be a portrait.
>
>
> So a figure study would be a portrait?
Of course not. A figure study is a figure study. A portrait is a
portrait. Duh!
What you fail to realize, however, is that these are only labels, and
are defined rather arbitrarily. There is nothing that says that a
photograph cannot be both, or that one person may call it a portrait, and
another call it a figure study. And yet another calls it a figment of your
imagination...
Which is pretty much what I said further below that part - you know,
the part you snipped yet again when it exceeded your ability to comprehend.
You should probably stop responding to posts longer than thirty words if
you can't keep up.
> You make me laugh, Al.
I make many people laugh. But I cannot hope to claim the title on
this newsgroup...
Joseph Meehan
Only if you consider a figure study a image of a person. I personally
don't think figure studies fit that category. Most people would consider
them photographs of shape, form, etc.
Gordon Moat
Ben, you are asking such a beginner question. We frown very heavily on
this. Search the web first. We are expert professionals. We don't have
time for your horse shit baby questions. Sign up for a photo.net
account and ask the fellas over there.
jjs
"Gordon Moat" <mo...@nazis-angreifen.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:64dca33f.04072...@posting.google.com...
Another bad forgery. We will out you, but you are such a sociopath that it
probably won't make a difference. The real Gordon Moat would never, ever say
such a thing. Coming right up, our outing.
Richard Cockburn
news:10gb5r8...@news.supernews.com:
He's already been outed for a long time.
--
"Live fast. Die young." (Nikki Sixx)
-Richard Cockburn
A Nomal Us Poaster
"jjs" <jo...@mychain.stafford.net> wrote:
I hope its true JJS,....the gutless wonder doesn't realize most of us here
recognize each others style. I would like a good way to root out weasles
of thier ilk that impersonate good people like Gordon.
TP
>TP <t...@nospam.net> wrote in
>news:outag0llgj874cgsi...@4ax.com:
>
>> Al Denelsbeck <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I consider any photo where the main subject is a person (and quite
>>>often animals) to be a portrait.
>>
>>
>> So a figure study would be a portrait?
>
> Of course not. A figure study is a figure study. A portrait is a
>portrait. Duh!
So your statement that "I consider any photo where the main subject is
a person (and quite often animals) to be a portrait" (quoted verbatim)
is utter and complete nonsense.
I thought so when I read it. Thank you for confirming it.
;-)
Al Denelsbeck
news:ad6cg01kct4o701bf...@4ax.com:
"Verbatim" is a big word for you, Tony. New copy of "Reader's Digest"
arrive today?
You're actually not doing too badly at your second language anymore,
though there's still some rough spots. It's a shame an American has to help
you with your english, but the world's an ugly place sometimes.
> I thought so when I read it. Thank you for confirming it.
No prob. When you get to the point where you can read it without
moving your lips, we'll work on comprehension!
Baby steps, baby steps...
:-)
Bandicoot
news:Xns95333DDE67127sa...@65.32.1.7...
[SNIP]
> You're actually not doing too badly at your second language anymore,
> though there's still some rough spots. It's a shame an American has to
help
> you with your english, but the world's an ugly place sometimes.
>
English - proper noun, capital 'E'.
Live by the grammar flame, die by the grammar flame.... ;-)
Peter
Bandicoot
I'm with those who say that a portrait is what you say it is. Especially on
your own website. Take a look at the Rogues' Gallery entries to the
Shoot-In and you'll see a bit of a variety. My own entry is something that
many people wouldn't call a portrait if they saw it on its own, but it makes
sense as such when seen in the context of a group of other portraits. In
fact, to anyone who knows me, it is a portrait in far more ways than just
including my shadow: the fact that I'm clearly taking a photograph, the sign
saying "Museum", the bicycle, the table and chairs, and the
(semi-subliminal) piano reference all relate to things that are 'me'.
One can divide things into traditional portraiture, both individual and
group, and environmental portraiture where someone is placed in a scene that
itself tells us as much about the person as their face does. But I don't
think it's a division that has to be made. I think that if a person is
recognisable - even if only to those who know them well and only through
'clues' in the picture - then it is a portrait: essentially a portrait is a
picture that tells us something about the person (or people) depicted. If
the person is just a prop - a silhouette of a couple holding hands on the
beach at sunset - then it isn't _for me_ a portrait. But you may have a
different view and as they're _your_ pictures we're talking about, it's
your view that counts.
On a practical note, I think if you include enough pictures that everyone
will immediately identify as 'a portrait' in that section of your website,
then you've established the legitimacy of calling the section "portraits".
You can then add in other things that stretch the boundaries of the
definition in whatever way you like, and whether people agree with your
choices or not, they will mostly accept the overall concept and that it is
'your vision' of what is or is not a portrait.
Well, have fun.
Peter
Al Denelsbeck
news:109093494...@dyke.uk.clara.net:
> "Al Denelsbeck" <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns95333DDE67127sa...@65.32.1.7...
> [SNIP]
>
>> You're actually not doing too badly at your second language anymore,
>> though there's still some rough spots. It's a shame an American has to
> help
>> you with your english, but the world's an ugly place sometimes.
>>
>
>
> English - proper noun, capital 'E'.
Maybe over *there*... ;-)
Nah, you have me, and I hang my head in shame. Even worse, it occured
to me but I didn't correct it before posting. Ah well.
Frank Pittel
: "Gordon Moat" <mo...@nazis-angreifen.zzn.com> wrote in message
: news:64dca33f.04072...@posting.google.com...
My guess is that this a kid out of school for the summer using the parents computer
without proper supervision.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Lisa Horton
Frank Pittel wrote:
>
> In rec.photo.equipment.medium-format jjs <jo...@mychain.stafford.net> wrote:
>
> : "Gordon Moat" <mo...@nazis-angreifen.zzn.com> wrote in message
> : news:64dca33f.04072...@posting.google.com...
>
> : Another bad forgery. We will out you, but you are such a sociopath that it
> : probably won't make a difference. The real Gordon Moat would never, ever say
> : such a thing. Coming right up, our outing.
>
> My guess is that this a kid out of school for the summer using the parents computer
> without proper supervision.
Try men in their 40's. But with the income and intelligence of a kid
out for summer vacation. Well, actually a typical kid is smarter with
better income possibilities.
Lisa
Rebecca Ore
Lisa Horton <Lisane...@lisahorton.net> wrote:
>
> Try men in their 40's. But with the income and intelligence of a kid
> out for summer vacation. Well, actually a typical kid is smarter with
> better income possibilities.
Snip the newsgroups, you brain-dead troll enabler. You should know
better than this by now.