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

[greybeard]

Part of the context

 

[smoke665]

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.

No my friend it is you that don't understand. Where I took issue with your comments is where YOU SAID "The rules of environmental photography are different than the rules of formal portrait" as if it's some sort of different photography entirely, when the sames "rules" as you call them apply to all portrait photography. Things like exposure, composition light/shadow, frame management are still relevant regardless.

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

Then you suspect wrong. From the article you prize, he says "both are technically “portraits"". He goes on to say that environmental "tries to tell us a deeper and more human story". That's it, he didn't go on about different rules required. He doesn't define it as in a studio or on site, with lighting/without, posed or not posed. In fact the only thing he alludes to being potentially different is the background, but as I illustrated above it's possible to create a set in studio with only minimal items that create enough of the look that it fooled you.

As I stated earlier a portrait. Is a portrait, is a portrait regardless of the adjectives used to describe it.

 

[21limited]

. I’ve given you links that would allow you to uderstand the subject. But no one can force you to understand the differences. You can choose to be obstinate an ignore them. NO sweat off my back.

I taught a unit formal portraiture for 15 years, twice year in all 30 one week sessions.
I suspect you’ve never taken a course in formal portraiture, or you’d know the diifference.

Your assertive, arrogant defiance of the obviosu is deflating. I feel no need to engage with you further, please get out of my thread. I came to encourage knowledge, you come to defeat it.

 

[smoke665]

He goes on to say that environmental "tries to tell us a deeper and more human story".

I acknowledged that in the post above.

, you seem to be hung up in the word. The practices and procedures of envoromental and formal portraiture are different.

No where in the article you referenced does it say that.

Your ignorance has pretty much ended any good that could have come from this thread in terms of helping people understand photography. A

It should be pointed out that you yourself took this off thread in your post #5 when others tried to comment in response to your title question, and are now taking offense when called out on your baseless claims.

Throughout this thread I've remained civil, as per the terms of this forum, despite your ability to do the same. This is a public forum where ideas and opinions flow freely, whether you agree or not, civility is always expected.

 

[21limited]

"A portrait is an image of a person's face that clearly displays their likeness and may often display some aspect of their personality. A formal portrait is not a snapshot but a carefully arranged pose under effective lighting conditions"

https://www.dpreview.com/challenges/Challenge.aspx?ID=2133

On formal and informal protraiture,
"Formal portraits don’t necessarily mean the subject must appear stiff and lifeless. Informal doesn’t have to mean unprofessional, but often means natural. Even if the subject is dressed in a formal manner, the end result can still be more casual. For example, a friendly, laid back businessman might wear his buttoned up suit for the portrait, but a natural, relaxed pose at his desk can make the portrait informal. All of the information collected by the artist about the subject will help determine which style is more appropriate."

"
Environmental portraits are snapshots of people in their environments. In these portraits, people are connected to and reflected in the location you photograph them in.
Environmental portraits can be candid or staged shots. There is no rule for how spontaneous they should be. And it’s a kind of photography that’s quite popular among travel photographers."

10 Tips for Innovative Environmental Portrait Photos

Environmental portraiture is intertwined with documentary photography and photojournalism. And when an environmental portrait is a candid portrait, it can sometimes be seen as street photography.

expertphotography.com

Keep reading, eventually it will sink in.

 

[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.

​

I just want to say, I saw zero issue with this response to my comment whatsoever, I did not see it as off-topic as you have been accused, and I found it informative. The argumentative replies you received from a staff member in response to it however come across as personal and intentionally argumentative.