Grand Daughter

[The Phototron]

Yes, I am sure that there are some starving pros out there who specialize in unflattering portraits of their subjects but I am not one of them and to belabour what should be obvious, best work in portraiture does concern flattering the subject.

skieur

Art is not money, best portraits are art, not what you're striving at.

But I agree with you on de-emphasizing on unpleasing aspects of a face to please the customer.

Anyway, right or wrong on this is retarded, so I'll stop arguing now. Here's my attempt:

What I did:
Sharpened the eyes, and increase of the contrast of the highlights on the eyes.
Increased overall contrast a bit.
Remove blue-cast on the hair to the right.
Lighten the background.

 

[skieur]

You still have not handled the freckles well in your edit, phototron!

skieur

 

[The Phototron]

You still have not handled the freckles well in your edit, phototron!

skieur

Cause I think freckles are attractive!

But, here's one just for you skieur, so you can drool all over the freckleless face:

 

[skieur]

Subtle editing is certainly not your style, eh? My edit de-emphasized the freckles without eliminating them just like I said was basic portrait technique.

skieur

 

[The Phototron]

Subtle editing is certainly not your style, eh? My edit de-emphasized the freckles without eliminating them just like I said was basic portrait technique.

skieur

Subtleness is hardly fit for over the top sarcasm, which I think you missed. I could've just easily lower the opacity of the paint layer to get the freckles back a bit.

 

[The_Traveler]

why are you guys bickering over someone else's picture?

 

[The Phototron]

It's a forum?

Depends on how you look at it, but "bickering" is too strong.

 

[abraxas]

So anyhow, thanks for the advice and ideas. I showed the little girl what you got, what she wanted, what I can do and we're on our way.

 

[skieur]

"Art is not money, best portraits are art, not what you're striving at." Phototron

There is no contradiction at all between professional and art photography. The best is saleable;the worst isn't; irrespective of how you classify it. The worst may not be saleable perhaps because the photographer is the ONLY one who thinks it is art and the ONLY one who would want to look at it more than once.

The role of the serious portrait photographer: professional or artistic is to flatter the subject, create the best possible shot of that person reflecting possibly beauty, style, character, charisma, mystery, personality etc.

The photographer through technique and composition has control of the shot, so that in evaluating the artistic/commercial quality of the work the following question is basic:

Does a particular picture element contribute to the overall effectiveness of the photo? If it does then you emphasize it. If it doesn't, then you de-emphasize it, so that it does not detract from the photo.

Josuf Karsh did a portrait of Churchill. What he wanted to portray was the power and charisma of the man which he got through the facial expression. He certainly did not want to distract viewers with an image of a short, fat, politician, whether "real" or not. He de-emphasized Churchill's girth using dark colours and lighting.

You may think that freckles are pretty, but unless you are a woman and has them, then I take your view with a large grain of salt. I am sure there are those who rationalize wrinkles as character lines too, but most would certainly prefer not to have them and considering the growith in cosmetic surgery, many are rushing to get rid of them.

Bottom line of most portrait subjects which I happen to agree with, is that they realize that their face or body is not perfect but want people to see past that..to the real person inside. The role of a serious portrait photographer is to help the subject achieve that goal in a high quality commercial/artistic portrait. It can't be done by distracting viewers with skin blemishes, minor teeth problems, zits, moles, scars, or even freckles.
To repeat again, these distractions are NOT eliminated, but they are de-emphasized by a good photographer so that the viewer can see "past them" to the "real" person.

skieur

 

[The Phototron]

You can't possibly see the "real person inside" from a portrait. Both the complexity of a character and the ever changing stage that is life he plays in is infinite. The role of portraits is to show the person in a way that he could be recognize, and hopefully through some symbolic set up or facial expression some of his traits could be interpreted by the viewer.

Portraits that try to hide imperfections doesn't necessarily show more character, though they are certainly more "beautiful". Just because some physical aspects of a person doesn't effectively contribute to the theme you're trying to capture does not mean you need to "de-emphasize". A lot of aspects of a person probably aren't even related to the theme you're trying to capture. But they still have a role in the portrait, because they are what made the person recognizable. A powerful message speaks for itself, it doesn't need to shout louder than the rest, the meaning it has resonants stronger.