just a statement of fact

[Azuth]

I think the dictionary definition of what portrait is travels in a different direction to what I believe portraiture to be.

Wikipedia sums it up best for me in their definition.

Portraiture is the process of painting, sculpting or photographing a portrait. The term is also used to describe the final result from the creative process.
Portraiture is a way of recording people. Their personality, character, status, the place and time they lived, the environment in which they live or simply showing beauty. Artists over the years have created many portraits to express their feelings about themselves in self-portraits or other people they don't know. Creating a self-portrait can be one of the most rewarding and challenging experiences. It allows the artist to express themselves in a realistic or idealistic way. Even if we do not know the person in the portrait there are many clues or codes in the form of colours, objects, and symbols within the work that gives us an idea of what the artist was trying to communicate to the audience. Some clues are obvious and some are a little more obscure.

I have no portraits on my web site (yet). My images of people are all glamour / fashion shots and are not about showing the person. I've only attempted a few portraits by my own definition. And photographically, technically, I'm not impressed by my results.

I post them here to illustrate my point, in some ways I think I succeeded in capturing a portrait, I just failed at taking a great picture.

1. This man busks in the same place in Sydney all the time, and I don't think he makes much money, his instrument is part can and obviously home made. The music isn't soothing or mournful, it's just sound and I couldn't tell you if he goes home at night to a warm bed or a doorway.

These things that I can tell you from being there, from personal observation, can also (I believe) be 'read' from the photo. To me, that's a portrait.

2. This is a picture of Brian, he seems like a nice guy, I know he sleeps in a doorway. He doesn't beg, or sit with his head bowed waiting for charity. He shines shoes in a busy mall. He does a good job, and pays attention to his customer.

I long for the day I can take a portrait that's also a good photograph.

 

[dgs]

I've been reading this thread and others of its ilk <g> with interest as one who A. aspires to learn to do portraiture and B. is painfully aware of how far away that goal is.

I think our learned albeit mysterious Scribe's most pertinent comment is:

not every picture of a person is a portrait by quality or intention

Is it fair to add "intention" to the list of necessary conditions to justly call a photo a portrait?

The picture of the young bride I put up earlier is a case in point. I have trouble thinking of this as much more than a fortuitous snap. It was taken in a park with a hyperzoom point & shoot at max focal length WITH a 1.7X teleconverter screwed onto the lens. (35mm full frame focal length equivalent works out to something like 734mm) In retrospect it's hard for me to see this as much more than me playing misguided peeping Tom. Paparazzi photos of Britney Spears with flabby arms and pimples may well say something about Ms. Britney, but I don't think they are portraits either. That the young bride is lovely and seems serene and happy are good things. I don't know if those good things are enough.

I'm finding portraits to be pretty difficult to pull off. Seeing so much good work on the web is both inspiring and daunting. It just makes it harder when it's so difficult to even define what this thing called portrait truly is. But I'll get there, someday. You see, I want this skill set pretty badly. <Grin>

 

[Alex_B]

I never took any portrait ... although I tried.

 

[LaFoto]

Well, I think you gave Brian a portrait of his self here.
And there is more of his self than his face and features showing. He looks at us and communicates with us though his eyes firmly set on the camera lens and through his smile. The shoe brush in his hands tells even a tad more of the story, and the funny Santa-hat shows some of his humour. Apparently you were sitting there getting your shoes polished when you decided you wanted to take his photo?

The decision may have been a spontaneous one, and the outcome may be less "clean" than some would think a portrait would need to be (what with the white chair in the background and the legs of passers-by to be seen), but that is what Brian does daily: polishing the shoes of passers-by in the street. And you captured that - and more. So yes, I think that one is a portrait, all right.

As to the busker ... the POV isn't one that I like personally (you make us look "down" on him, literally, though you might not have meant for anyone to really look down on him in the other sense of the word). We see what he does for a "living" and we see his face and we see the surroundings in which he sits, but this one looks quite candid ... and, as I was saying, it is the POV that makes me think, maybe this one is NOT a portrait.

As to the photo of the bride ... and the circumstances under which it was taken ... it might not FEEL like a portrait to you, dgs, since your really and truly snuck up on her from afar to take her picture, and yet you managed to get something that speaks more (to me) than it might be speaking to you ... there is something in this "paparazzo"-style attempt to capture this bride than you might think. And definitely more than there is in very blurred photos of a unsuspecting-totally-relaxed-just-being-herself-and-enjoying-comfy-clothes photo of Britney Spears (and photos of her revealing her knickerless state are downright mean and cheap and striving for a very low kind of voyeuristic attention).

So I tend to think that albeit taken candidly and from very far away, this photo of the bride might be considered a portrait, all right.

 

[dgs]

Thanks for the comment, Corinna. For the record, I didn't "sneak up" on her <grin> That's much too much work. This is less a case of stalking than setting up a spiders web and sniping from it. Perhaps that's too fine a point to place on too pointless of a distinction.

There was a much better photgraph that came out of that particular sniping attack. I think, though, any legitimacy it may have is more as an editorial shot than a portrait. Interested to hear what you think.

 

[LaFoto]

Well, with this last example also I am curious to hear what our mysterious Scribe will say ... being not quite familiar with the expression of "editorial shot" but having an idea of what it might mean, I tend to agree with you. It is the very open, smiling, engaged and engaging face of a person here, but I don't think this photo qualifies as a PORTRAIT of said person. Too much surrounding (and distracting ) action around her ... though I do like the composition of this one really much!!

 

[fmw]

this image has a lot of meaning to me but I dont consider it a portrait it is just a snapshot.

Why is it not a portrait? The other image of the child with a guitar is not a portrait because a person is not the primary subject of the image, a guitar is. What is the difference between a portrait and a snapshot of a person? The time spent making it? Because the purpose was not to make a portrait?

Sorry, to me the word snapshot has no meaning. Most photographers tend to use it to define a poor photograph or one made with no thought. The image of the woman above was made with thought. It is not a snapshot.

A portrait is an image with a person as the main subject. It doesn't have to look like a formally posed shot in a studio. In fact the best portraits are not, in my view. Most people aren't good models. Shots of them doing what they do or shots made when they aren't aware of it are usually the best portraits. But you define it as a snapshot. We're just mired down in definitions.

 

[J.E.]

Wow, this is an interesting discussion (thanks to Alex and Corinna for leading me here), especially as I'm so new to the more professional take on photography.

I see that everything is about opinions and I tend to agree with the opinion that only a few pictures really are a portrait in the sense of "portrai-ing" something more than the display of a pretty face or person. I mean pretty faces are fine, too, but they lack something that speaks about the person. I already see that I can learn so much on here and hope nobody minds that I hop right in, despite being new and all. :blushing:

So help me grasp the idea of what you consider a portrait. With this picture I went for "portrait" (meaning more than just a picture of a person). Alex suggested that you might approve of it, mysteryscribe. Was he right? Or not? And why? What do you others think?

 

[mysteryscribe]

As a photograph it is a very good portrait. I don't think you will get any debate on that.

Now as a photograph speaking to me personally, I like the lights expecially when combined with the musician theme. Now if I might be so bold as to suggest.

To change the mood and feel without doing much to the image try toning down the brightness about ten to fifteen notches. Just that one little thing in my opinion will change her from a pretty girl with an instrument to someone who belongs in a club. Also try darkening out the corners to give it a more moody look.

We don't usually post changes to someone elses image without permission so I won't post it but I did it and it makes a huge mood change. That's the beauty of portraits they can shift moods at the drop of a highlight or two.

 

[mysteryscribe]

about the chick with the cleavage... It isnt a portrait because the quality is something you find a family album not on my wall. Not to mention what my wife would say...

I sorry to me it isnt just the crop that makes a portrait. In my mind at least portrait implies a certain amount quality. To me a photographic portrait isn't the dictionary definition. As I said before the dictionary tells us what it is not what it isn't

 

[J.E.]

Go ahead please, mysteryscribe, and post your edit! I'd be very curious to see it to really "see" what you mean. I mean I can imagine, but seeing it is better. And I have yet to print that picture, so it's not too late.

Edited to add: Seems like a wise thing to put in my signature that editing is okay with me.

 

[fmw]

about the chick with the cleavage... It isnt a portrait because the quality is something you find a family album not on my wall. Not to mention what my wife would say...

I sorry to me it isnt just the crop that makes a portrait. In my mind at least portrait implies a certain amount quality. To me a photographic portrait isn't the dictionary definition. As I said before the dictionary tells us what it is not what it isn't

So the sharpness of the image defines portrait or, perhaps, it is defined by whether you intend to hang it or not? It seems like you would be eliminating a lot of decent portraits.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Ps you can certainly like your version better there isnt much difference.

 

[mysteryscribe]

So the sharpness of the image defines portrait or, perhaps, it is defined by whether you intend to hang it or not? It seems like you would be eliminating a lot of decent portraits.

Never said I wasn't a snob...

It might eleminate a lot of decent shots but they arent gone just not of portrait quality in my mind. Family albums are full of interesting pictures that arent portraits. The chick with the cleavage falls into that category only I don't have it in MY family album.

Yes quality goes into it but it isnt all. I keep saying I cant tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it. If you dont think that works checks the supreme court decission on porno.

 

[J.E.]

Darkening did such a trick, mysteryscribe! I now did that to my high-resolution version of the picture and the result is seriously making me speechless! Thank you for taking the time to edit, it made such a difference!

Snob maybe, but one with a keen eye!