Portraiture 101

[kundalini]

Lemmings.

Could you point me in the direction of the nearest cliff?

 

[kundalini]

...

...

...

...

Lemmings.

Could you point me in the direction of the nearest cliff?

(that's what I meant to do previously)

 

[Hertz van Rental]

There are a number of different kinds of portrait. Which one you do depends upon who you are taking the picture for and for what purpose.

 

[Alpha]

You have two very different forms of portrait photography entirely confused here. One is commerical portraiture, which does indeed emphasize some qualities you mentioned. The other is so-called "fine art portraiture," which knows none of those bounds. Some people make deliberate attempts to combine or cross-cut the two. To inadvertently confuse them is bad news bears.

 

[Mike_E]

If the subject initiated the shot then it's a portrait and how it's done should be determined (or at least greatly influenced) by the subject.

If you are the one initiating the shot then it's all your baby.

 

[skieur]

What if the subject wants to look real? Not everyone in our society is infatuated with looking their best, or being the best-looking. Some people want to be real and raw all of the time. If the person's request is to look best, then by all means, the portrait should do just that. But I don't think you can group all people in the same mindset, not everyone wants to be beautiful. Sometimes portraiture is about capturing the true person, and not that person looking 'pretty'.

Well, in several decades of photography and television work, I have NEVER had a single subject say that they wanted "to look real" but I have had a considerable number of women say that they wanted to look younger.

skieur

 

[skieur]

You may be confusing portraiture with photojournalism or snapshots at the backyard BBQ.

I guarantee you that if someone lets loose cold hard cash to have their photo taken, they will inherently do their part to look their best and expecting the tog to do his/her best. They are preserving a memory.

Certainly true for professional portraiture, but I have also found it equally true for public relations and journalistic shots of celebrities.

skieur

 

[skieur]

usually it means "I wanna look like the stereotypical attractive person, or as close to it as possible".

For girls this means playboy bunnies, supermodels, and professional beach volleyball players

For guys this means movie stars, professional fighters, and professional beach volleyball players

You can't always get what you want...but you can ask...lol

I would certainly not characterize my subjects as being that dumb. Most people realize that they have physical flaws. They would just prefer that those flaws not be emphasized and be the first thing visible in any photograph.

The subject wants to see the good things that they see in themselves and that does not mean a recent coldsore, droopy eye, stressed-out and tired look, bad hair day etc.

skieur

 

[Sideburns]

I would certainly not characterize my subjects as being that dumb. Most people realize that they have physical flaws. They would just prefer that those flaws not be emphasized and be the first thing visible in any photograph.

The subject wants to see the good things that they see in themselves and that does not mean a recent coldsore, droopy eye, stressed-out and tired look, bad hair day etc.

skieur

I would agree with most of those things. Blemishes, and bad days are different though. I would probably touch them up no matter what the purpose of the photograph is. However, a natural thing like a small mole, or beauty mark? I'd probably not take it out. Perhaps lighten it or make it less obvious...but it's part of the person.

I was simply pointing out that not everyone needs to be perfect in every situation...and that portraiture is not always about that.

I'm not questioning your worth as a photographer, just that sometimes a portrait doesn't need to be "perfect"

 

[skieur]

If a portrait is not "perfect" then the photographer could have done something better. I am not suggesting that a portrait photographer should attempt to make any woman into a beauty queen but at the same time ignoring some basics is poor photography.

In a portrait of a person, the first thing that should draw my attention is the eyes. It is the fault of the portrait photographer, if I am distracted by a wide or very narrow face, a poor hair style, jewellry, too much makeup, zits, nails bitten off, a long neck, no colour in the eyes, etc.

Any good portrait photographer should have the resources available to shoot around and de-emphasize any element that does not flatter the subject. Even if you know absolutely nothing about portrait photography, the literature is out there on how to do it. There is really no excuse.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Artistic photos by the way are evaluated based on the elements of design which are basic to any art course. They were even part of a computer art course that I was teaching in an Arts School.

skieur

 

[Sideburns]

If a portrait is not "perfect" then the photographer could have done something better. I am not suggesting that a portrait photographer should attempt to make any woman into a beauty queen but at the same time ignoring some basics is poor photography.

In a portrait of a person, the first thing that should draw my attention is the eyes. It is the fault of the portrait photographer, if I am distracted by a wide or very narrow face, a poor hair style, jewellry, too much makeup, zits, nails bitten off, a long neck, no colour in the eyes, etc.

Any good portrait photographer should have the resources available to shoot around and de-emphasize any element that does not flatter the subject. Even if you know absolutely nothing about portrait photography, the literature is out there on how to do it. There is really no excuse.

skieur

Ok, well this seems like a different angle than the original post. I agree with you.

 

[Alpha]

Artistic photos by the way are evaluated based on the elements of design which are basic to any art course. They were even part of a computer art course that I was teaching in an Arts School.

skieur

These, of course, are the rule of thirds, and the price of the camera.

 

[Joves]

Well, in several decades of photography and television work, I have NEVER had a single subject say that they wanted "to look real" but I have had a considerable number of women say that they wanted to look younger.

skieur

Well that is why they go to Glamor Shots.
As far as shooting clebs and, that. I think getting the worst photo of them is what pays. National Enquirer pays lots for the celebs looking terrible. Now for say corporate stuff then you do need to take out some of the peoples flaws but, in a way that isnt obvious. I have done the dropping the 10lbs off thing before and, hiding some wrinkles on people. Face it at time the camera picks up on things not visable to the eye. Well actually it does that alot.

 

[souljourney]

However, a natural thing like a small mole, or beauty mark? I'd probably not take it out. Perhaps lighten it or make it less obvious...but it's part of the person.

Bolding mine...because it is a part of the person. As a photographer, I would never edit out or even try to minimize something that is a permanent part of someone's features unless they specifically asked me to do so. IMHO, this is disrespectful to the person you are photographing and kind of says that you think they'd look much better without said mole/beauty mark/etcetera. I have a mole/beauty mark (whatever you want to call it) on my nose and I can't count the times I have had a photographer purposefully pose me with that side of my face away from the camera. I do not see this as a defect, per se, it has never messed with my confidence or caused me to be dateless my entire life. If I was not ok with it, I would not have a hoop in my nose right beneath it! So, speaking from experience, I would not "avoid" or reduce the look of any features unless the client asked me to. My .02, that's all!

Oh, and I don't think that by "looking their best", everyone aspires to look like Playboy bunnies and A&F models as a PP suggested. Not everyone is that shallow.