Portrait photography advice?

[pixmedic]

You mis

My advice is always the same. Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring. Photograph your friend doing what he does. The best portraits don't look like portraits.

yup. so boring. guess i should have just gotten a few snaps of him running around the yard, or in front of the fence.

DSC_1247 by pixmedic, on Flickr

its ok. I get that different people have different tastes, but it just seems counter productive to comment on a thread specifically asking about posed studio shots and tell the OP
not to do them. Its kinda like going on a thread asking about film developing and telling the OP to just shoot digital. The best portraits are ones that embrace what the client wants.

Dad specifically asked for studio shots, and this shot in particular was all his idea. Considering he paid $400 for the family set, I figured it was probably best to give him what he wanted.

I stand by what I said. They are boring. The portrait above is boring. Any photographer has to deliver what the client wants but that doesn't necessarily make great images.

Must remind you of your avatar I guess

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Why is that? The large format studio camera you see there was for commercial product photography. My favorite camera for portraits was the Mamiya RZ67. I shot some posed studio portraits in my day but I didn't like any of them. The clients liked them but so it goes. I loved capturing people doing what they do. That practice makes better portraits every time.

If I were to make a portrait today I would use a DSLR. What does a camera have to do with what I said?

i just figured that since your avatar was a boring portrait, my boring portrait got you feeling a little nostalgic, that's all. nothing to do with the camera.

your opinion on what makes a better portrait is duly noted. kinda narrow minded though. I suppose if your clients dont care about posing, or lighting, or any kind of setup at all, then running around taking random pictures of people doing things might be desirable. I never cared for it. always felt lazy to me. it used to be called photojournalism back in the day, but now I think its been re-dubbed "lifestyle" photography. personally, "I" call it, "didn't bother to learn lighting or posing" photography. just my opinion though, don't want anyone to think im stating it as a fact.
I suppose the lighting portion isn't entirely accurate, seeing as how the forum has some amazing natural light photographers...but again, the magic is in the posing.

You missed the point entirely. My avatar was a self portrait doing what I did. That is exactly the message I was trying to convey. Most people would see the self portrait and say "photographer" and you missed that entirely. You should make portraits any way you like. I was simply suggesting a better way.

by your own definition, your avatar is a posed portrait, ergo, it is boring. so no, i think i pretty much nailed it. you should have taken a picture if yourself in action as a photographer. according to you, it would have been a better picture. (although I dont personally think so because i think your staged, posed shot is great)
But i think you have missed the point. you have repeatedly tried to impose a purely subjective opinion as fact in a thread where the OP has clearly defined the parameters of his shoot.
I think shooting film (and i have shot a lot of film in my time) is boring with a capital "notdoingitanymore", but I dont get on film threads and tell people they would be better off shooting digital. noone here, including myself, is saying your opinion is wrong...were just saying its an opinion, and honestly, not really relevant to the OP;s question.

 

[fmw]

You mis

yup. so boring. guess i should have just gotten a few snaps of him running around the yard, or in front of the fence.

DSC_1247 by pixmedic, on Flickr

its ok. I get that different people have different tastes, but it just seems counter productive to comment on a thread specifically asking about posed studio shots and tell the OP
not to do them. Its kinda like going on a thread asking about film developing and telling the OP to just shoot digital. The best portraits are ones that embrace what the client wants.

Dad specifically asked for studio shots, and this shot in particular was all his idea. Considering he paid $400 for the family set, I figured it was probably best to give him what he wanted.

I stand by what I said. They are boring. The portrait above is boring. Any photographer has to deliver what the client wants but that doesn't necessarily make great images.

Must remind you of your avatar I guess

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Why is that? The large format studio camera you see there was for commercial product photography. My favorite camera for portraits was the Mamiya RZ67. I shot some posed studio portraits in my day but I didn't like any of them. The clients liked them but so it goes. I loved capturing people doing what they do. That practice makes better portraits every time.

If I were to make a portrait today I would use a DSLR. What does a camera have to do with what I said?

i just figured that since your avatar was a boring portrait, my boring portrait got you feeling a little nostalgic, that's all. nothing to do with the camera.

your opinion on what makes a better portrait is duly noted. kinda narrow minded though. I suppose if your clients dont care about posing, or lighting, or any kind of setup at all, then running around taking random pictures of people doing things might be desirable. I never cared for it. always felt lazy to me. it used to be called photojournalism back in the day, but now I think its been re-dubbed "lifestyle" photography. personally, "I" call it, "didn't bother to learn lighting or posing" photography. just my opinion though, don't want anyone to think im stating it as a fact.
I suppose the lighting portion isn't entirely accurate, seeing as how the forum has some amazing natural light photographers...but again, the magic is in the posing.

You missed the point entirely. My avatar was a self portrait doing what I did. That is exactly the message I was trying to convey. Most people would see the self portrait and say "photographer" and you missed that entirely. You should make portraits any way you like. I was simply suggesting a better way.

by your own definition, your avatar is a posed portrait, ergo, it is boring. so no, i think i pretty much nailed it. you should have taken a picture if yourself in action as a photographer. according to you, it would have been a better picture. (although I dont personally think so because i think your staged, posed shot is great)
But i think you have missed the point. you have repeatedly tried to impose a purely subjective opinion as fact in a thread where the OP has clearly defined the parameters of his shoot.
I think shooting film (and i have shot a lot of film in my time) is boring with a capital "notdoingitanymore", but I dont get on film threads and tell people they would be better off shooting digital. noone here, including myself, is saying your opinion is wrong...were just saying its an opinion, and honestly, not really relevant to the OP;s question.

I don't shoot film anymore either. Aren't you trying to bulldoze your opinion here? Sorry I criticized your image. Too bad you don't accept feedback with any sort of objectivism.

 

[table1349]

He's also bauld so no worries about a hair light with him I'll bear in mind for the future though.

In the trade, we call that a 'dome-light'!

In this country it is called a chrome dome-light.

 

[Derrel]

For accent or hair light on a bald head, it is important that the light be well- diffused, and not coming in toward the lens axis at a steep angle, otherwise it will be too specular.

 

[JonA_CT]

For accent or hair light on a bald head, it is important that the light be well- diffused, and not coming in toward the lens axis at a steep angle, otherwise it will be too specular.

I wish they had a wax or something to make my head less shiny. :|

 

[table1349]

For accent or hair light on a bald head, it is important that the light be well- diffused, and not coming in toward the lens axis at a steep angle, otherwise it will be too specular.

Derrel, that is to much work. I used to use this quite successfully.

 

[table1349]

For accent or hair light on a bald head, it is important that the light be well- diffused, and not coming in toward the lens axis at a steep angle, otherwise it will be too specular.

I wish they had a wax or something to make my head less shiny. :|

See above.

 

[pixmedic]

You mis

I stand by what I said. They are boring. The portrait above is boring. Any photographer has to deliver what the client wants but that doesn't necessarily make great images.

Must remind you of your avatar I guess

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Why is that? The large format studio camera you see there was for commercial product photography. My favorite camera for portraits was the Mamiya RZ67. I shot some posed studio portraits in my day but I didn't like any of them. The clients liked them but so it goes. I loved capturing people doing what they do. That practice makes better portraits every time.

If I were to make a portrait today I would use a DSLR. What does a camera have to do with what I said?

i just figured that since your avatar was a boring portrait, my boring portrait got you feeling a little nostalgic, that's all. nothing to do with the camera.

your opinion on what makes a better portrait is duly noted. kinda narrow minded though. I suppose if your clients dont care about posing, or lighting, or any kind of setup at all, then running around taking random pictures of people doing things might be desirable. I never cared for it. always felt lazy to me. it used to be called photojournalism back in the day, but now I think its been re-dubbed "lifestyle" photography. personally, "I" call it, "didn't bother to learn lighting or posing" photography. just my opinion though, don't want anyone to think im stating it as a fact.
I suppose the lighting portion isn't entirely accurate, seeing as how the forum has some amazing natural light photographers...but again, the magic is in the posing.

You missed the point entirely. My avatar was a self portrait doing what I did. That is exactly the message I was trying to convey. Most people would see the self portrait and say "photographer" and you missed that entirely. You should make portraits any way you like. I was simply suggesting a better way.

by your own definition, your avatar is a posed portrait, ergo, it is boring. so no, i think i pretty much nailed it. you should have taken a picture if yourself in action as a photographer. according to you, it would have been a better picture. (although I dont personally think so because i think your staged, posed shot is great)
But i think you have missed the point. you have repeatedly tried to impose a purely subjective opinion as fact in a thread where the OP has clearly defined the parameters of his shoot.
I think shooting film (and i have shot a lot of film in my time) is boring with a capital "notdoingitanymore", but I dont get on film threads and tell people they would be better off shooting digital. noone here, including myself, is saying your opinion is wrong...were just saying its an opinion, and honestly, not really relevant to the OP;s question.

I don't shoot film anymore either. Aren't you trying to bulldoze your opinion here? Sorry I criticized your image. Too bad you don't accept feedback with any sort of objectivism.

What are you talking about? I never had an issue with your opinion of my work. Now your just putting words in my mouth. Too bad you can't separate option from fact and actually help the OP with his question

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[Frankinfuji]

Is this a private argument, or can anyone join in?

 

[tirediron]

With apologies to the OP for potential derailment....

You missed the point entirely. My avatar was a self portrait doing what I did. That is exactly the message I was trying to convey. Most people would see the self portrait and say "photographer" and you missed that entirely. You should make portraits any way you like. I was simply suggesting a better way.

My advice is always the same. Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring. Photograph your friend doing what he does. The best portraits don't look like portraits.

Frank... let's be objective. Your posts above make it pretty clear that you think ALL posed studio shots are bad, and that we should all be outside chasing our clients around. Fair enough; we'll accept that as your opinion on the matter (despite the fact that my education in the English language would still contend that those are phrased as alleged fact). Explain to me how you would have created this gentleman's portrait. He is a WWII Veteran, 91 years old I believe...

 

[Derrel]

Back to genuine advice for portraits, as opposed to opinions. One issue is the way that focal length controls the width of the background shown in the final image. Camera-to-subject distance sets the perspective, and controls how "big" the person is, but the angle of view behind the subject can be altered by a lot by using a wider-angle or narrower-angle lens.

If you have a poor or ugly background, or not a very wide roll of paper, or only a small curtain, use a long focal length lens, which will show only a narrow angle. Similarly, when using a gelled flash head or speedlight to color a backdrop (as was done above in Tirediron's portrait, using a blue gel), a shorter lens will show the un-gelled parts of the backdrop, while a longer lens like say a 135mm, will show only the most-colored parts; it's really up to the photographer to figure out what looks the best.

I think the biggest issue many people combat is getting too physically close to the portrait subject, with too short of a lens; I think 7 feet is the absolute closest-ever distance, and even that is pushing it. I've found that 10 to 15 feet gives the subject more personal "space", mentally, so they feel more free to "act in their own, personal bubble" of space. Nobody likes a camera breathing down his nose.

 

[fmw]

You mis

Must remind you of your avatar I guess

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Why is that? The large format studio camera you see there was for commercial product photography. My favorite camera for portraits was the Mamiya RZ67. I shot some posed studio portraits in my day but I didn't like any of them. The clients liked them but so it goes. I loved capturing people doing what they do. That practice makes better portraits every time.

If I were to make a portrait today I would use a DSLR. What does a camera have to do with what I said?

i just figured that since your avatar was a boring portrait, my boring portrait got you feeling a little nostalgic, that's all. nothing to do with the camera.

your opinion on what makes a better portrait is duly noted. kinda narrow minded though. I suppose if your clients dont care about posing, or lighting, or any kind of setup at all, then running around taking random pictures of people doing things might be desirable. I never cared for it. always felt lazy to me. it used to be called photojournalism back in the day, but now I think its been re-dubbed "lifestyle" photography. personally, "I" call it, "didn't bother to learn lighting or posing" photography. just my opinion though, don't want anyone to think im stating it as a fact.
I suppose the lighting portion isn't entirely accurate, seeing as how the forum has some amazing natural light photographers...but again, the magic is in the posing.

You missed the point entirely. My avatar was a self portrait doing what I did. That is exactly the message I was trying to convey. Most people would see the self portrait and say "photographer" and you missed that entirely. You should make portraits any way you like. I was simply suggesting a better way.

by your own definition, your avatar is a posed portrait, ergo, it is boring. so no, i think i pretty much nailed it. you should have taken a picture if yourself in action as a photographer. according to you, it would have been a better picture. (although I dont personally think so because i think your staged, posed shot is great)
But i think you have missed the point. you have repeatedly tried to impose a purely subjective opinion as fact in a thread where the OP has clearly defined the parameters of his shoot.
I think shooting film (and i have shot a lot of film in my time) is boring with a capital "notdoingitanymore", but I dont get on film threads and tell people they would be better off shooting digital. noone here, including myself, is saying your opinion is wrong...were just saying its an opinion, and honestly, not really relevant to the OP;s question.

I don't shoot film anymore either. Aren't you trying to bulldoze your opinion here? Sorry I criticized your image. Too bad you don't accept feedback with any sort of objectivism.

What are you talking about? I never had an issue with your opinion of my work. Now your just putting words in my mouth. Too bad you can't separate option from fact and actually help the OP with his question

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

This thread is off the rails. I see no benefit in continuing with it. Best of luck.

 

[fmw]

With apologies to the OP for potential derailment....

You missed the point entirely. My avatar was a self portrait doing what I did. That is exactly the message I was trying to convey. Most people would see the self portrait and say "photographer" and you missed that entirely. You should make portraits any way you like. I was simply suggesting a better way.

My advice is always the same. Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring. Photograph your friend doing what he does. The best portraits don't look like portraits.

Frank... let's be objective. Your posts above make it pretty clear that you think ALL posed studio shots are bad, and that we should all be outside chasing our clients around. Fair enough; we'll accept that as your opinion on the matter (despite the fact that my education in the English language would still contend that those are phrased as alleged fact). Explain to me how you would have created this gentleman's portrait. He is a WWII Veteran, 91 years old I believe...

How could I have been more clear? His portrait would have more photographic and social value if it captured him in his own environment doing whatever he does. If you see him, thank him for his service.

 

[chuasam]

I've done a similar shot outdoors too

 

[table1349]

With apologies to the OP for potential derailment....

You missed the point entirely. My avatar was a self portrait doing what I did. That is exactly the message I was trying to convey. Most people would see the self portrait and say "photographer" and you missed that entirely. You should make portraits any way you like. I was simply suggesting a better way.

My advice is always the same. Posed studio shots are, frankly, boring. Photograph your friend doing what he does. The best portraits don't look like portraits.

Frank... let's be objective. Your posts above make it pretty clear that you think ALL posed studio shots are bad, and that we should all be outside chasing our clients around. Fair enough; we'll accept that as your opinion on the matter (despite the fact that my education in the English language would still contend that those are phrased as alleged fact). Explain to me how you would have created this gentleman's portrait. He is a WWII Veteran, 91 years old I believe...

How could I have been more clear? His portrait would have more photographic and social value if it captured him in his own environment doing whatever he does. If you see him, thank him for his service.

Perhaps that it why it is call Photography instead of Fredography. There are a wide variety of styles, likes, and dislikes. None of them are absolutes or the only correct one.