The difference between a decently processed snapshot and a great portrait

[fjrabon]

So, the other night a friend of mine stopped by my apartment and I grabbed a snap shot of her. I'm sort of getting used to the Nik software suite, so I put more effort into processing it than I normally would a picture like this, just to practice on a non-paying 'client'. Then the idea for this post came about. I thought it might be a good example of why this shot ISNT a photograph, and why despite I think it being reasonably decent, it's still a snapshot, and no amount of post would change that.

First, the shot:


snaptrait by franklinrabon, on Flickr

Pleasant enough, I guess. It's somewhere between a candid and a portrait, and a lot of portraits are like that.

Why is it a snapshot?

First, and foremost, the pose:
The way her left arm is resting on the couch has two big negatives: 1) it gives her more linebacker looking shoulders and 2) it forces her neck upwards, causing excess skin to show around her neck.
She also isn't extending her neck enough, further exacerbating the issue.
the half grin isn't as appealing as it could be, generally at least some teeth being in is almost always preferable
The close ear is too prominent and her hair is making it even more prominent

Next the light:

I did use OCF, but as it was just a snap, I didn't pull out light stands, I merely stuck a flash unit up on a shelf, put it in AWL mode and shot TTL with -1 flash compensation. This was combined with dark room light ambient for the exposure. The light had several major issues:
I had two different color temps, the room light was warm, the flash light is neutral, white balancing for one would throw the other off. Thus I had to use a compromise white balance in post. This is the primary reason the color seems off.
Next, due to how far away the book shelf was, the flash is too harsh. I needed an umbrella, on a stand, close to get the right light. Instead I had a bare flash with just a dome diffuser, across the room.
I also needed a fill light from the photographer's left, or at least a reflector. Instead I had empty room that sent nothing back. Leaving harsh (because of the distance) dark shadows (because of the lack of fill).

Further, the red blanket in the background is distracting.

Put all of these things together, and that's why this is a snapshot. Despite a decent amount of processing and OCF. Still a snapshot. Which was fine. It's a fine enough facebook photo.

What would I have done differently had this been a paid shot?

1) light stands and umbrellas. You MUST not compromise with where your light is coming from. Just putting your OCF wherever is convenient isn't an option for portrait work.
2) gelled my flash to match the ambient.
3) have her either sit up taller, and/or move her arm off the sofa.
4) have her extend her neck
5) either a reflector or a second fill light from the photographer's left to fill in the shadows just a touch and put a bit more light on her eyes, so that they wouldn't need to be brightened in post as much.


I think sometimes figuring out the difference between a snapshot and a portrait is one of the difficulties for intermediate photographers. Some might look at a shot they took like this, for money and say "well, she was happy with it, success!" I certainly don't think it's terrible, but I also don't think it would ever be a shot you could charge for.

Hopefully this helps sort of point out differences between a nice snapshot and an actual portrait.

 

[tirediron]

Good analysis!