Possible Professional Portrait?

[Christie Photo]

Sorry steve, but my reply was extremely good advice. I used to be a full-time professional portrait shooter....

Looks like the joke's on me.

Derrel, I'm still shooting portraits. Been doin' so since the 70's. I've never heard of any such thinking in the professional community. In fact the first print ever I had "hang" at convention was a horizontal portrait of an individual.

And, really... I think the "portrait/landscape" terms came out of computer printers for less-than-stellar secretaries that don't know the difference between vertical and horizontal.

Here's a few from the PPA Loan Collection:

http://www.leavittphoto.com/loan/manssearchformeaning.jpg
http://customdigitalimages.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834552d9a69e20120a59d127a970b-320wi
http://www.ppa.com/ppa-today-blog/China RSN-0605-2 Comp.jpg

 

[Derrel]

Are you regularly lopping off foreheads and shooting floating heads?

If you don't know how to orient your camera properly or to complete a pose, it's no fault of your own. There's hundreds of years worth of guidance available on composition. Most self-taught shooters don't understand compositional ideas either. Your example of the punk rocker is a crappy photo,typical of an internet aged newbie. Plenty of room left for a huge,gaudy copyright, but no real impact from the empty space. The old Chinese man smoking the cigarette--well, there's actually a "subject" in the compositional space on the left hand side--ie, the cigarette. So, that picture is framed horizontally, for a ***reason***. The OP has no reason or rationale for the horizontal framings....no merit to them at all.

The little girl shot...looks pretty weak...

 

[jonib101]

Hi jonib101,

I've been watching this thread for a while; I wasn't going to reply as there had already been feedback on the work and there's no point in just repeating what others have said, however I've had to respond to some of the....less helpful....comments that have been put on here. Why? Because I thought this forum was supposed to be helpful to newcomers, I thought I'd finally stumbled across one that didn't operate as a click, I thought the replies (whilst being repetitive) were on the whole, fairly well balanced and to the point but, God help me, I think I've just be lured into a false sense of security...

First, just your initial question, can you call yourself a professional and charge for your work? The difference between pro and amatuer is that a pro charges for their work, there isn't a level of quality where you move from one to the other, despite people expecting it when they hear professional. What you should have probably asked is will your work be good enough to earn a living from photography? I'd say yes, it will be, against the common grain of the threads here I think your work is good for starting. There are certain points you need to read up on, DOF, affect of zoom etc etc etc, but they'll not take long for you to understand. You will need a pro camera, SLR, MF or whatever, but that's not going to make or break your work. If you're a good photographer you'll take a good photograph with your phone, if you're a bad photographer, you can mix a Canon EOS 1Ds Mk3 with Lightroom 3 and Photoshop CS5 and a big, fat, juicy memory card and it'll not make any difference, your work will still be awful.

If someone is happy with your work and is happy to pay you, that's the real acid test, the proof of the pudding and the rest, not what someone here tells you about how they don't like your style....or that you're going to be sued.

Now...

Derrel, you're reply wasn't helpful and was, bluntly, incorrect. It wasn't helpful because, when I read it, it came across as unbelievably patronising. You're incorrect because (a) you don't have to rotate...camera....to portrait....orientation, it's commonly held that cropping up to half the forehead makes for a very good portrait and (b) Jonib101 didn't 'butcher' 5 out of 5 portraits.

KmH...what sort of 'help' is that? Yes, there are areas of photography business that are not to do with photography, people sort them out when they are required to. But in the vein of your reply; were you asked about them? Are you a professional tax / business advisor? Do you honestly, really, truly, think your reply was useful, answering the question asked, or leading the discussion onwards? I don't.

ivomitcats, do you cross a road at all, because people have actually been killed by passing cars. It's happened before. Do you fly at all, because people have actually been killed in plane crashes. It's happened before. Do you stick your face in a fan at all....well, I'm sure you know where this is going...like KmH, you're not really leading the discussion onward with this, all you're doing is scaremongering and making unrelated points.

Now before someone jumps up all bloated with righteous indignation and froths at the mouth typing a reply tellng me I'm wrong because 'he's been thanked 1,000 times in half a thread' or 'she's written over 1,000,000 threads in a day' or 'they've got a really long lens on their camera' read my signature and ask yourself is it worth it?

Steve

Thank you very much.

 

[jonib101]

Until a 16 year old girl using a point and shoot learns the primal rule of professional portraiture, she is in no way headed toward becoming a "professional" at portraiture. She can't even get a head shot right, or a head and shoulder shot right because she's shooting in the absolutely,totally WRONG camera orientation for a portraiture subject in head shot, or head and shoulder, or half-body poses...

Thank you very much for your advice. I understand what you were trying to say now. At first it seemed more like a mock than a help. I don't believe there is a right way of photography, but I understand that there are guidlines that would definitely improve my work. Thank you, and sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[jonib101]

jonib101...take the criticism and advice of the people on here with a grain of salt. Learn from it, but don't be discouraged by it. Practice and learn and if you can get paid for your work, then do so.

Thank you.

 

[Christie Photo]

Are you regularly lopping off foreheads and shooting floating heads?

If you don't know how to orient your camera properly or to complete a pose, it's no fault of your own. There's hundreds of years worth of guidance available on composition. Most self-taught shooters don't understand compositional ideas either. Your example of the punk rocker is a crappy photo,typical of an internet aged newbie. Plenty of room left for a huge,gaudy copyright, but no real impact from the empty space. The old Chinese man smoking the cigarette--well, there's actually a "subject" in the compositional space on the left hand side--ie, the cigarette. So, that picture is framed horizontally, for a ***reason***. The OP has no reason or rationale for the horizontal framings....no merit to them at all.

The little girl shot...looks pretty weak...

Now, Derrel... deep breath now...

Of course I'm not loppin' off heads and the like. I learned a long time ago that I can always crop and image but can't add later. So I tend to shoot with plenty of room (probably too much).

These aren't "my" examples. These come from the Professional Photographers of America (PPA) traveling Loan Collection. You've been around the block a few times. You must know how hard it is to get a print into that collection.

You've seen my work. You know how traditional my approach is. But I don't think any one's work that doesn't conform to MY standards is crap. And I'm not one to go for "different for the sake of being different." Sometimes "different" seems to be more important than being "good." But some negative space in a portrait (especially an illustrative/fine art portrait) is not always a bad thing.

I too am not a fan of shooting in really close with too short of a lens. But you can't force-feed conventional thinking (as much as I'd often like to).

It's OK, Derrel. Really.

-Pete

 

[Raizels]

I might repeat what others have said, but I'd like to offer my opinion anyway.

In my humble opinion, (and please take into account that I'm a beginner), you cannot call yourself a professional. You obviously have little background and no training, not to mention the unprofessional gear. Most importantly, for a professional, experience is vital. Shooting with a P&S for a year is not nearly enough.

What you do have, I think, is an eye, and I think that with guidance you might become a good photographer. Patience, practice, instruction - you'll get there.

I think if someone is happy to pay you for your work, accept it - but I wouldn't market myself as a professional at your current level. Clients will expect something better and be disappointed.

Come and join us in the beginners forum, post your pics and start learning.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Portraits should almost always be shot vertically. The focus is off in a couple of the shots. Auto-focus is unreliable.

 

[Sebastian Riel Ph.]

That guy has no idea what he is talking about. And to answer your question, probably not. You need a whole helluva lot more experience before you should start charging people. Just judging from the photos you posted in this thread, you could still use a whole bunch more on location training. Just keep shooting for the fun of it and eventually people will see that your work is excellent and they will hire you for paid jobs

You don't need any experience at all to start charging people. I haven't read all the replies but it looks to me like you saturated the eyes without sharpening them because they look soft and out of focus.

 

[Village Idiot]

jonib101...take the criticism and advice of the people on here with a grain of salt. Learn from it, but don't be discouraged by it. Practice and learn and if you can get paid for your work, then do so.

Thank you.

Step 1: Get a job.

You can get nice used capable DSLRs for under $400. Get a kit lens and a cheap prime like a 50mm f/1.8 for about $100 and you're off to a good start.

If you want to shoot people, you have to learn about lighting. Truthfully, the exposures are at least good in your posted photos, but overall they're a bit flat.

Learn about lighting, manual modes (because if you start shooting with anything but a TTL speedlight, then it's absolutely necessary to use), composition, posing, etc...

Learn. That's probably going to be the biggest piece of advice I can give you. You'll eventually find out why 100% of professional photographers won't get out of bed for $15.

If you learn and do a good job and become proficient, you're going to have a client base that will be proud to show off the photographs you've created for them and will in turn bring you new business. I'd be ashamed to show people those photos and tell them that I paid for them.

I mean, I'm doing a personal project now with building a portfolio of local musicians and the last one I shot I haven't delivered because I'm not sure it's something I want other people to associate with me. The conditions just weren't right and so it didn't turn out.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Sorry steve, but my reply was extremely good advice. I used to be a full-time professional portrait shooter, some 20-odd years ago. There's a really,really,really,really,really,really basic rule in portraiture,and especially professional portraiture: when the subject is taller than it is wide, the camera will be oriented in the vertical direction.

A head and shoulders "portrait" with the forehead lopped off and NO SHOULDERS is a floating head...it's a butcher job. Sorry Steve, but did you happen to look at the Google search results I posted, linking to "famous portraits"? Some of those famous portraits are over 450 years old, and you know what Steve, 99 percent of them are framed in the vertical or "portrait" orientation. Hmmm...I wonder why....

Until a 16 year old girl using a point and shoot learns the primal rule of professional portraiture, she is in no way headed toward becoming a "professional" at portraiture. She can't even get a head shot right, or a head and shoulder shot right because she's shooting in the absolutely,totally WRONG camera orientation for a portraiture subject in head shot, or head and shoulder, or half-body poses...so, Sorry Steve, your attack on my advice doesn't hold much stock with me. Every single one of her shots would have been improved if the camera had been rotated to "portrait" mode. Every shot.

Why do you think experienced photographers so often try and call vertical "portrait mode" when talking to newbies, and why has the use of the term "landscape mode" become popular as more and more untrained shooters hit the scene???

I agree with this post. The photos need to be vertical. People are vertical (well, most of the time) . She needs to see what really good, professional portraits look like. This isn't a Cinemascope movie. You can turn the camera 90 degrees. You ought to!

I think people see so many movies in wide-screen it doesn't bother them to see badly framed portraits. While I'm at it, wide screen films are almost always bad. The aspect ratio is very unfortunate for most scenes. Cinemascope is great for movies about snakes, whales, railroad trains, submarines, torpedoes, fish, blimps.......

 

[jwnelson65]

Personally, what does the camera really matter? I've seen good photographs from a phone. It's like the Harley, Jap bike argument. If the customer is happy, they are happy. I'm guessing, if she hadn't told you the pics were shot with a point and shoot, you'd have never known. Unless you looked at the exif data. My self, I think she is off to a damned good start. You can't make everyone happy with what you do. Keep practicing. I think you have a pretty good eye for photography.

 

[Village Idiot]

Personally, what does the camera really matter? I've seen good photographs from a phone. It's like the Harley, Jap bike argument. If the customer is happy, they are happy. I'm guessing, if she hadn't told you the pics were shot with a point and shoot, you'd have never known. Unless you looked at the exif data. My self, I think she is off to a damned good start. You can't make everyone happy with what you do. Keep practicing. I think you have a pretty good eye for photography.

So if you show up as a professional to shoot corporate headshots and are using a camera phone, then you don't think you're going to be laughed out of the building?

 

[jwnelson65]

So if you show up as a professional to shoot corporate headshots and are using a camera phone, then you don't think you're going to be laughed out of the building?

I agree with that, but most didn't realize it was a point and shoot camera until she told us. But, then again, you get what you pay for. I doubt she'd be going for coporate headshots with a point and shoot either. I think she did a better than average job, with what she had to work with.

 

[ivomitcats]

I thought it was pretty obvious it was a point and shoot camera tbh. Mostly because of the poor editing job.

Can someone close this thread? I think everyone's bastardized this poor girl and argued with eachother enough. No one takes THIS much interest in GREAT threads on here.