Thoughts on composition in portraiture

[wclark5179]

Ulophot,

Thanks for you thoughts.

In my mid fifties, professional photography was a second career for me. Monte really helped me. There is a book that Monte had written that is quite interesting. I believe it is available on Amazon. Try You tube for a video or two Monte produced. He wrote, usually monthly, articles that appeared in Shutterbug.

At any rate, he really helped me get my business going.

[Bernice Loui]

Monte Zucker, Phillip Charis ( http://www.phillipstewartcharis.com/home.html ) and others from that generation of Portrait photographers adopted then popularized classic portrait painting style going back to Rembrandt's Portraits and perceived application of light in these paintings https://www.artic.edu/exhibitions/92...andt-portraits

These photographers not only popularized then commercialized this Portrait style, the brought forth an awareness of what GOOD Photographic Portraiture can be, If that is the style of Portraiture clients want and desire.

This is only one small means and method of what has been done with Photographic Portraiture. Others like Karsh, George Hurell, Clarance Bull, Edward Steichen, Richard Avedon, Sally Mann, Joyce Tenneson, Howard Schwarz and countless others have done their take on Photographic Portraiture, they have developed their own style in effective ways.

Yet, what makes an effective Portrait is not just composition, it is much about light, shadow, form and most of all expressiveness of the portrait sitter. In this sense, the Photographer can be a symbiotic means for the portrait sitter's expressiveness (Yousuf Karsh, Howard Schwartz) or the Photographer can use the portrait sitter as an extension of their ego expression (Richard Avedon, George Hurell as an example).

Portraits can be focused on the individual or the individual as part of an environment.. Regardless, it is again much about sharing some aspect of the human condition using a 2D image.



Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Kenny Rogers (singer) did a Portrait book years ago:

Your Friends And Mine.
https://www.artelisted.com/auction-l...ine_FC647B58B0

Worth a look as the Portraits started out in one direction then changed as this project progressed.
Kenny noted the difficulties going from 4x5 used for landscape photography (John Sexton student) to 8x10 and all involved for Portraits.


Bernice

[Tin Can]

Yes, the Male gaze

I was unaware of these http://www.phillipstewartcharis.com/home.html

I used to be in ARTIC everyday, sometimes just a shortcut to the other side

Monte Zucker, Phillip Charis ( http://www.phillipstewartcharis.com/home.html ) and others from that generation of Portrait photographers adopted then popularized classic portrait painting style going back to Rembrandt's Portraits and perceived application of light in these paintings https://www.artic.edu/exhibitions/92...andt-portraits

These photographers not only popularized then commercialized this Portrait style, the brought forth an awareness of what GOOD Photographic Portraiture can be, If that is the style of Portraiture clients want and desire.

This is only one small means and method of what has been done with Photographic Portraiture. Others like Karsh, George Hurell, Clarance Bull, Edward Steichen, Richard Avedon, Sally Mann, Joyce Tenneson, Howard Schwarz and countless others have done their take on Photographic Portraiture, they have developed their own style in effective ways.

Yet, what makes an effective Portrait is not just composition, it is much about light, shadow, form and most of all expressiveness of the portrait sitter. In this sense, the Photographer can be a symbiotic means for the portrait sitter's expressiveness (Yousuf Karsh, Howard Schwartz) or the Photographer can use the portrait sitter as an extension of their ego expression (Richard Avedon, George Hurell as an example).

Portraits can be focused on the individual or the individual as part of an environment.. Regardless, it is again much about sharing some aspect of the human condition using a 2D image.



Bernice

[LabRat]

Different styles, different approaches... The most common portrait approach is to put subject in center of frame (as they are the most important feature)... Then there was an approach to allow an artistic rendering of subject in frame off-center to allow negative space for the subject to co-exist with... In environmental portraits, the surroundings allow someplace for the sitter to exist...

In Newman's work, often there is a scene with its own composition, and subject is "dropped" into it... He would start with the scene composition, maybe "tweaking" scene reality with a wide lens, maybe tipping camera down a little allowing distortion, then figuring where to place subject somewhere in frame... A really radical approach!!!

Sometimes tech/process limits composition, such as using a Petzval or other lens with a focus fall-off from center puts subject in OOF areas unsuitable for center of interest, of light fall-off etc... (A.L. Coburn explored this "grey area" much...)

You can make or break rules here... Make your own waves, and ride them!!! ;-)

Steve K

[Tin Can]

A free look at reality, been a subscriber a long time, even when it was a FREE paper magazine

Eye-Catching Portraits and Photos of the Week

[Sean Mac]

I draw, paint and make images with cameras.

Faces near "Life Size" are where I feel comfortable.

The classic 8x10 "headshot" is great to work from in almost any media.

If I have no restrictions I like A2 with some space around the subject at "Life Size" or a little bigger.

Painters have used big canvases to great effect in "enviromental" portraiture without making their subjects much larger than life.

To me, "Scale" is an important consideration for portraits.

Once we get close to "Lifesize" I prefer to use the available space to establish subject/enviroment relationships.

So the size of the intended image influences the composition, for me........

[Ulophot]

Sean, I certainly agree with you on scale, though my prints never approach life-size. My printing set-up allows up to 11x14 paper, so a print with a fair amount of environment keeps the figure scale well below that. Other discussions here and elsewhere have taken up this subject over the years; it's interesting to hear or read how others think about the issue.

[LabRat]

It starts looking scary when heads are larger than life-sized (like "Big Brother" murals)...

Even scarier must have been when someone told me of going to porno films in some old quanset hut theater with an exceptionally large screen, and details were enlarged to many times natural size (like trees)... :-0

Steve K

[Tin Can]

Back then threaters had live porno stars before/during the movies

18 and above, we went because we could not go bars

My mistake, men were not allowed in bars, women/child were, really pissed me off to see that

The signs outside read, 'Bring Your Cameras!' I did not, but lot's of old guys were very excited, shooting with looong lenses kneeling in the aisles

My last studio was very close to that theater, now big $$$ condos

It starts looking scary when heads are larger than life-sized (like "Big Brother" murals)...

Even scarier must have been when someone told me of going to porno films in some old quanset hut theater with an exceptionally large screen, and details were enlarged to many times natural size (like trees)... :-0

Steve K