Back ground clutter. Part of the context, ambience or just clutter?

[21limited]

#1
2025-05-18-AP-canoe Lake rentals girl by Norm Head, on Flickr

2.
2023-09-02-Bluesfest by Norm Head, on Flickr



3.2023-02-17-Enid's End-D-SF by Norm Head, on Flickr

 

[Jeff15]

A nice set ...

 

[terri]

Since you asked: of the three, only the kitchen shot has a bit too much background clutter - the stuff on the stove is a bit distracting. An easy crop.

The rest of that shot, with the kitchen cupboards directly behind the couple, is perfectly fine, and the backgrounds in other two shots are part of the context of the subject matter.

My two cents.

 

[DanOstergren]

It really depends on the context of the shot in my opinion. These all seem more like candid shots to me than posed portraits, so the clutter makes sense and doesn't really detract from the shots to me. If they were posed, traditional style portraits, I would view it a little differently.

 

[21limited]

It really depends on the context of the shot in my opinion. These all seem more like candid shots to me than posed portraits, so the clutter makes sense and doesn't really detract from the shots to me. If they were posed, traditional style portraits, I would view it a little differently.

I believe the correct term here would be "environmental portraits.” as opposed to formal portraits. Both are photgraphy.

How to Create Environmental Portraits (Tips and Examples)

Master the genre of environmental portrait photography. Our ultimate guide helps you handle settings, props, and lighting for unforgettable images.

digital-photography-school.com

Like any two rules of photography, you compare like to like. The rules of environmental photography are different than the rules of formal portrait photography, which are different the the rules of fashion photography, commercial photography, wildlife photography, landscapes or medical photography.

I think issues arise, when one tries to apply the rules of one to the other. Perhaps, that comes from not understanding the different concepts governing the approaches. In environmental it could be considered inappropriate to remove elements from the images. It should be done judiciously.

Even in my outdoor and landscape images, I always try and control the back ground as much as possible. But if you are capturing the environment as well as the person there will always be case for just leaving it as it is. But personally I’m inclined to in environmental photography to leave things as they are. Just by their nature there will be distracting elements. My guess is, when you start removing objects from environmental portraits, there will be disagreement over what to keep, and what to leave. I just find it easier to compose in the viewfinder, and leave everything. If an image doesn’t work, toss it and move on.

As general rule if it's, in the background and out of focus, I don’t see it as a distraction. It’s part of the environment. In my estimation, the current emphaisis created by Google and Apple of cloning out elements, is way overhyped. I understand it in the context of commercial photography. Not in environmental portraits.

In formal protraits, the emphasis is on a clean non-distracting enviroment. In environmental portraits, the chaos is part of the portrait. Any way, that’s how I think about it. In images I posted above, none of them is really a snapshot. Or even a candid. They all show people in the environemnt they work in.

​

 

[smoke665]

any two rules of photography, you compare like to like. The rules of environmental photography are different than the rules of formal portrait photography, which are different the the rules of fashion photography, commercial photography, wildlife photography, landscapes or medical photography.

Maybe to specific points, but not a blanket difference. Most of the "rules" overlap when it's portrait that includes a subject, and frankly there isn't that much difference between a well composed "environmental portrait" and a "formal portrait".

In formal protraits, the emphasis is on a clean non-distracting enviroment. In environmental portraits, the chaos is part of the portrait. Any way, that’s how I think about it. In images I posted above, none of them is really a snapshot. Or even a candid. They all show people in the environemnt they work in.

While the following quote specifically refers to a painting the crossover to photography is the same. "every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter. The sitter is merely the accident, the occasion. It is not he who is revealed by the painter; it is rather the painter who, on the coloured canvas, reveals himself.”
― Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray.

The one behind the lens is the one responsible for determining what is or is not distracting or complementary to the scene. Whether you're looking to include the environment or not, the "subject" is the main focal point, that dictates if it's a portrait. Everything within the frame should complement (not detract from the subject). By using Color schemes, textures, background elements, focus, light, positioning, etc you can still produce a well composed portrait. Not being overly critical, but only the first one in the set comes close to a portrait (and it could use a little work). As mentioned above the other two strike me more as candid snapshots, but that's just my opinion.

For example in this shot of a blacksmith at work, how else would he have context without being in his shop.
Dollywood09292017_205.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr

In this one from a series I did on film noir, how else would it be relevant without the background.
Dark-1.jpg by William Raber, on Flickr

IMO what you're missing is the real definition of portraiture.

 

[21limited]

I beg to differ. I took a semester of studio portraiture but definitely prefer environmental portraits. I don’t even have access to a studio. (most of us don’t.)

For example in this shot of a blacksmith at work, how else would he have context without being in his shop.

That’s an environmental portrait.

this one from a series I did on film noir, how else would it be relevant without the background.

Also an envorimoental portrait.

It’s not me that’s confused.

Check these out….

Yousuf Karsh

© Yousuf Karsh/camera press "Yousuf Karsh is a photographer from a bygone age", writes stern -Artdirector Johannes Erler, "who looke...

durrer-intercultural.blogspot.com

These are studio portrait images. Studio portraiture as in taken in a portrait studio with no reference to other elements of the person’s life. Like the ones taken in front of a back drop with a minimum 3 light set in your Walmart or local studio.

I’d post some of my own, but it’s been 60 years since I worked in a portrait studio.

How to Take a Professional Portrait Photo in 5 Steps

Capture stunning portrait photos in 5 simple steps.

photorelive.com

Formal portraits are well, more formal. Usually you get dressed up, go to a studio where lighting a can be 100% controlled etc.

I hope that helps. It helps to understand the definitions for clairty of discussion.

 

[smoke665]

It’s not me that’s confused.

Actually it is,........because a portrait is a portrait is a portrait. Environmental or studio, is a genre within the description of the class - Portraits. Shoot on scene it's environmental, even in studio it could appear environmental with a complex set, as could a off site shot appear to be in studio if you limit the background. Look at the work of Joey L. - NYC-based Photographer and Director and his on site and in studio work. Check out https://www.amazon.com/Studio-Anywhere-Photographers-Unconventional-Locations/dp/0134084179 , for on site photography. Just being in studio or out does not define a portrait. Almost all wedding photographers include outside portraits.

 

[21limited]

Studio everywhere says exactly what I say.
"

Studio Anywhere is a resource for photographers to learn through behind-the-scenes photos and lighting diagrams from a range of photo shoots–but it doesn’t stop there. Because directing a photo shoot involves more than simply knowing how to wield a camera or process a raw file, Nick also lets you in on the aesthetic decisions he makes in his signature photos, inspiring you to develop your own vision. And, finally, he describes his Lightroom and Photoshop workflow so you can learn how to deftly navigate post-processing.

• Shows how to create images with minimal equipment that is within reach of anyone’s budget
• Takes you through the entire shoot, from concept to lighting to exposure to post-processing in Lightroom and Photoshop
• Teaches how to build a portfolio without a dedicated studio space"

I’m always amused when someone thinks they are arguing with me, then post references that emphasize my point. Joey L takes environmental portraits, not formal portraits. Studio everywhere beleive it or not takes studio style portraits in other places than studios.

So whatever, the information to see this correct has been provided by both of us. Only one of us knows what it means. It seems to be you are being really obstinate about this, so, I’m out. Argue with somoene else, like this guy.

The Difference Between Environmental Portrait And Portraiture

Let's face it. We love taking photographs, and in many cases, these pictures include people. A lot of the images that we see depicting people fit comfortably within the genre of portraiture. Portraits have been with humanity throughout history and have left us not only with a huge number of...

www.lightstalking.com

 

[DanOstergren]

I believe the correct term here would be "environmental portraits.” as opposed to formal portraits. Both are photgraphy.

How to Create Environmental Portraits (Tips and Examples)

Master the genre of environmental portrait photography. Our ultimate guide helps you handle settings, props, and lighting for unforgettable images.

digital-photography-school.com

Like any two rules of photography, you compare like to like. The rules of environmental photography are different than the rules of formal portrait photography, which are different the the rules of fashion photography, commercial photography, wildlife photography, landscapes or medical photography.

I think issues arise, when one tries to apply the rules of one to the other. Perhaps, that comes from not understanding the different concepts governing the approaches. In environmental it could be considered inappropriate to remove elements from the images. It should be done judiciously.

Even in my outdoor and landscape images, I always try and control the back ground as much as possible. But if you are capturing the environment as well as the person there will always be case for just leaving it as it is. But personally I’m inclined to in environmental photography to leave things as they are. Just by their nature there will be distracting elements. My guess is, when you start removing objects from environmental portraits, there will be disagreement over what to keep, and what to leave. I just find it easier to compose in the viewfinder, and leave everything. If an image doesn’t work, toss it and move on.

As general rule if it's, in the background and out of focus, I don’t see it as a distraction. It’s part of the environment. In my estimation, the current emphaisis created by Google and Apple of cloning out elements, is way overhyped. I understand it in the context of commercial photography. Not in environmental portraits.

In formal protraits, the emphasis is on a clean non-distracting enviroment. In environmental portraits, the chaos is part of the portrait. Any way, that’s how I think about it. In images I posted above, none of them is really a snapshot. Or even a candid. They all show people in the environemnt they work in.

​

My bad for using the wrong terminology. You are correct, environmental portraits a much better description and is the term I believe I was looking for in reference to these photos, not “candid”. Perhaps my point was missed in my mislabeling though. As I said, in the context of these shots I don’t see any of the clutter as detrimental.

In context to the other part of the discussion taking place here, I’m not fully convinced with Smoke’s statement “a portrait is a portrait is a portrait”. I think that simplifies the genre of portrait photography a little too much, without giving validity to the different genres within portrait photography and the different expectations within those genres.

 

[21limited]

Ya, I had to think to come up with the proper term myself. I’m more than 15 years out of my last teaching assignment.

 

[JoolsW]

There are NO RULES. Some of the finest, most creative images are ones that break all the so-called 'rules'.

 

[21limited]

There are lots of rules. People are also free to follow the rules they find useful, when they find them useful, and ignore them when they don’t. But that doesn’t mean there are no rules. "There are no hard rules that must always be followed in every image" would be more accurate.

If not rules, then "suggested good practices” might appeal to you.

 

[smoke665]

These are studio portrait images. Studio portraiture as in taken in a portrait studio with no reference to other elements of the person’s life. Like the ones taken in front of a back drop with a minimum 3 light set in your Walmart or local studio.

Okay in the above example I posted two images a blacksmith and film noir. You said on the first "That’s an environmental portrait" and on the second "Also an envorimoental portrait". The first shot was taken on site but the second was in studio, so by your earlier definition it should have been a studio portrait. The most basic definition I could find of "portrait" is the artistic depiction of a person designed to convey the likeness, personality and mood of the individual.

The point I'm making is as with all types of photography there are sub categories within each genre. Just because it's more specialized, doesn't mean that they have completely different "rules" as you stated earlier. They're still an exposure, they still require lighting knowledge, they still require composition considerations, and they each have a subject. Location is just a just an adjective to further define the category of Portrait.

 

[21limited]

"The most basic definition I could find of "portrait" is the artistic depiction of a person designed to convey the likeness, personality and mood of the individual"

We go to school or engage in self study to move beyond the basics. The uneducated won’t understand the difference.
"The first shot was taken on site but the second was in studio, so by your earlier definition it should have been a studio portrait. "

Always interesting when people tell youwhat you said, then tell you you’re wrong. The problem being, if you didn’t undertand what was said, then the part where I’m wrong is in error.

I never said that what type of portrait it is depends on where it was taken. The whole topic reminds me of a guy who said his images were macro images, because they were taken with a macro lens.

Portraits are an important photographic genre – but, like all genres, there will always be variants that make a certain genre even more specialized.

The Difference Between Environmental Portrait And Portraiture

Let's face it. We love taking photographs, and in many cases, these pictures include people. A lot of the images that we see depicting people fit comfortably within the genre of portraiture. Portraits have been with humanity throughout history and have left us not only with a huge number of...

www.lightstalking.com

This man explains it very well. I suspect you didn’t read it.