Okay. I'm asking for a reality check for myself.
Having at one time owned a successful and award winning portrait studio (big whoop), one of my favorite threads is always the monthly portraits section.
Some of the work here is spectacular. Much of it I look at as simply people snapshots that just happen to have been taken on large format film.
But, I look at that last statement with recognition that it is from a narrowly focused and possibly even arrogant point of view. Namely, that of someone who has a big case of hero worship for the like of George Hurrell, Phillipe Halsman, Karsh and the like; all of whom devoted tremendous energy toward the creativity and personality in each image and how the structure of the lighting is used to draw the viewer's attention into that all important element "the eyes are the window to the soul" .
So, what I want to find out is what is everyone's definition of what a portrait is. Is it just a face or person in the field of view regardless of structure or image quality, or should there be elements of design, controlled lighting, meaningful expression, and at least a reasonable attempt at conveyance of the personality of the subject.
In short, what to you, defines what a portrait is?
Bookmarks