Black and white portrait skin tones...

[jim kitchen]

Dear group,

If you have a moment, I am trying to learn a few things about black and white portraits, and where to set the skin tones on the grey scale, so if I could ask a few of the portrait photographers within this group for some feedback, I would be forever grateful...

A gallery recently suggested that I should produce a few new exploratory pieces, where they suggested that I should investigate an emotive theme, and where I should try to expand my portfolio base to include the human form. For the moment, I do not photograph people, I do not know how to photograph people, I am more comfortable with rocks, trees and water, but I am willing to learn, and although this attached image is my first attempt at a portrait in three decades, I am completely lost within this subject matter.

Historical information and a few notes in the archive, lead me to believe that the placement is somewhere within, or close to Zone VI, and in this image I simply placed the shadows along the left side of her forehead within that zone. I imagine everyone has their own style in this very subjective field, but I am looking for a possible pseudo baseline to migrate too, or distance myself from, while I explore this suggested emotive avenue. I do welcome your comments and your healthy suggestions, while I look for a young pair of eyes to add to my portfolio...

Thank you in advance,

jim k

[John Berry]

Trying to learn? Looks pretty good to me. A green filter is recommended sometimes to smooth the skin tones.

[neil poulsen]

That's what I've always heard. I printed caucasion as high as Zone VII, and was criticized for it. I wouldn't change the photograph, though.

Your photograph looks like about a Zone VI on my calibrated monitor. It's very nice. Is this cultural clothing, or an interesting way to frame the eyes?

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi the pupils from the eyes are round but so I prefer also round reflextions from the light in the eyes!
My 2 cents, Armin Seeholzer

[Greg Lockrey]

Yellow-Green filter and Zone VI for caucasians is about right. Nice capture of the high zones. I would have liked the catch light to be a "hard" square and perhaps have a "window pane" in it too. My 1 1/2 cents

[Frank Petronio]

I wouldn't worry about the catchlights but harder dishes or umbrellas seem more popular for portraits these days, the softbox is so 90s.

Frankly I would never filter for a portrait unless I was going for a special effect (or gimmick). If you really want versatility just shoot color neg and convert -- it gives you the entire range of possibilities -- but unfiltered HP5 seems to be "right" to me.

[Bruce Barlow]

I don't use filters.

Play with them when you print them. I did a project of 19 portraits in a limited edition hand-made book. I learned that 1/2 second under the enlarger or - are you ready? - 1/8th paper grade with my variable head made all the difference in some cases. These were pictures of 8th graders, and I found I could make the skin tones glow if I got the enlarging right. So I made them all glow, and the results are quite nice.

So, what's right is what moves you when you look at the print. MAybe glow is what you want, maybe some other feeling. But when the feeling's right, the picture is right.

Portraits are a lot of fun. And yes, people can be like rocks for your purposes. Have fun!

[BrianShaw]

... the softbox is so 90s.

Frankly I would never filter for a portrait unless I was going for a special effect (or gimmick). If you really want versatility just shoot color neg and convert -- it gives you the entire range of possibilities -- but unfiltered HP5 seems to be "right" to me.

Is that 1890's or 1990's, Frank?

I also prefer unfiltered B&W also (FP-4, though), but I can't abide by the "shoot/scan clolor and convert" notion -- never seems quite right to me.

Jim K... your photo is excellent. You can probably stop "trying to learn" any day now

[Ralph Barker]

Nice image, Jim.

There is a gob (pardon the technical term) of theory, technique and practice relating to portraiture, much of it drawn from classical painters. How much of that one chooses to adopt is, I think, a matter of how "classical" one wants the portraits to appear, and what the portrait client wants. Once you've developed a personal style, or portrait vision, what the client wants may be exactly that - your style.

I usually place the skin tones based on the individual's actual skin tone, whether that's a Zone VI, a Zone VII, or a Zone III. Variations from actual skin tone, I think, should be based on mood, lighting, or some other obvious factor. I typically do not use tone-varying filters, either, unless for a special effect. But, I'll sometimes use a softening filter, if doing so contributes to the mood desired in the image.

Portaiture also opens the question of lighting technique, whether B&W or color. While there are always trends that are, well, trendy, it may be better to use the style of lighting that contributes best to the desired mood of the image, and what the portrait is trying to say about the person. Note, too, that there are various "classical" approaches to portrait lighting, all described well in various books on the subject. It's helpful, I think, to discuss these aspects of the sitting with the individual being photographed, and then work through little emotive exercises to achieve the desired looks or expressions. Good communication with the subject is probably as important as anything else in the process.

[steve simmons]

Since most skin has some red in it any filter with green would make the skin a little harsh in my book. Now, if you have a swarthy old sailor it might work but I would not use anything green for a female. It is just a matter of taste. For a caucasion female I would go zone 6.5ish, if they have an olive complexion zone 5.5 to 6ish and if they are African-American I am reluctant to go below zone 4

There is an article in the current issue of View Camera about portraiture and figure work with large format and in the Free Articles section of the web site there are some articles on metering for portrait and figure with flash.

It is hard to judge a black and white print from an image on the screen as the transmitted light can artificially give a luminence to the photo that may not be there but the white in the fabric of your image is quite nice and the skin tone seems about right.

Barker's portrait on the right is lifeless, even with the backlighting of the monitor. The lighting is too flat for my taste and there is no glow to the skin (to see someone who could make skin glow see Ruth Bernhardt) The portrait on the left is better but there should be a little more detail in the shady side of the face. Jim's photo above is much more engaging and seems to give off light much better.

steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com