Studio Portraits

[Tom J McDonald]

Hi guys, I'm becoming extremely interested in this discipline and would like to see LOTS of examples of Large Format studio portraits. Please post! :)

[cdholden]

Watch the monthly portrait threads. Some of them are done in a studio.
Here's the current one: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=76718
You can find the others when you're done.

[Tom J McDonald]

How about the members who took the photos outside of the given month. What about, YOUR BEST EVER STUDIO SHOTS!!!

[cjbroadbent]

Mirjana Vrbaski (http://mirjanavrbaski.com/Girl.html) was a winner at the Brit National Portait Gallery a couple of years ago and has an enviable curriculum. She is into something different (http://mirjanavrbaski.com/Tijn.html) in lighting portraits.

[szadow]

Here you have few of my studio portraits.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5014/5439836312_47e549f883_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/macieklesniak/5439836312/in/set-72157624876138652/)
Globica 13x18 + Zeiss 250/4.5 on Shanghai 100 5x7

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5286/5375020346_5b4bf74129.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/macieklesniak/5375020346/in/set-72157624876138652/)
Sinar F2 + Rodenstock Sinaron-N 210/5.6
Ilford FP4+4x5''

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4146/5067995411_78ef56b19f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/macieklesniak/5067995411/in/set-72157624876138652/)
Sinar F2 + Rodenstock Sinaron-N 210/5.6
Ilford FP4+4x5''

[Tom J McDonald]

Good stuff Szadow.

[William Whitaker]

Mirjana Vrbaski (http://mirjanavrbaski.com/Girl.html) was a winner at the Brit National Portait Gallery a couple of years ago and has an enviable curriculum. She is into something different (http://mirjanavrbaski.com/Tijn.html) in lighting portraits.

Winner? I don't get it at all. Except for a couple of shots, pretty unflattering lighting overall with some distracting shadows. Do subjects always have to look pissed off?

[Tony Evans]

Will,
I imagine that by the time the shutter is finally clicked, all LF sitters would look pissed off :).

[lenser]

Mirjana Vrbaski (http://mirjanavrbaski.com/Girl.html) was a winner at the Brit National Portait Gallery a couple of years ago and has an enviable curriculum. She is into something different (http://mirjanavrbaski.com/Tijn.html) in lighting portraits.

Why? From what is shown in these links, her work and her lighting are anything but creative.

[cjbroadbent]

Lenser, Will, different, not what is generally acceptable. Somebody asking about studio portraits today could look beyond Irving Penn.

[Brian C. Miller]

CJ, how do you perceive the lighting as being "different?"

[cjbroadbent]

CJ, how do you perceive the lighting as being "different?"
I see two main schools of studio portrait lighting:

1. The 1950's-Kodak-manual school, high-street-portrait-studio - hard keylight, dish fill, background-light, hair-light cheek skim, plus scrims and flags for the ears and chin.
Cecil Beaton and Horst managed fine, but in the hands of the average photographer this school churns out unreal chocolate-box portraiture. Too many sources of light correcting each other's deficiencies. Today, the Arri lighting manual prolongs the agony of this school.

2. The north-window-light school. One source of natural light and the subject detached from the surroundings by differences in tone. I call it the Irving Penn school. Somebody must have bothered to look at what painters have been doing for centuries. Leonardo taught it to his students in 1480. Any ordinary portrait in whatever medium (https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9FXRXKvW4hE/TfE4Pn3a-_I/AAAAAAAAJXg/whqpf0S-OEg/s800/4706981.jpg) (Melville by Eaton) has grace and stature done this way.

I also see contemporary portrait photography that seems to have broken away from all this. Light is no longer what describes the subject. The two examples I gave above are making this break and are worth a look to someone starting out.

[lenser]

Lenser, Will, different, not what is generally acceptable. Somebody asking about studio portraits today could look beyond Irving Penn.

With the brilliance of the work that you produce, and I am a huge fan of yours, I am having trouble reconciling this statement with what I perceive as your work and artistic ethic.

For me, this is a prime example of the "dumbing down" of art, lighting and portraiture. Instead of shooting for the stars, this work (again, what is represented in these two links) is shooting for an alarmingly less than average common denominator.

I agree that looking beyond Penn and many of the other classic portraiture performers is a needed adventure and creative exercise, but if this is where "art" in portraiture is heading, for what little it may be worth, I think it is cause for distress.

Are there other sites or links that show more of her work? I hope to see something different and more exciting.

[cjbroadbent]

... I hope to see something different and more exciting. Plenty by others here (http://www.npg.org.uk:8080/photoprize/site09/index.php).
But I stick by the 2 examples I showed - particularly the angry man.

[lenser]

Thank you very much for this link. All of the work by other artists are exciting and I am envious of the vision of those people. But I have to stick to my own opinion on the work shown of Ms. Vrbaski. For me, it is terribly reminiscent of strip portraits from carnival self-photo booths only with mostly poorer lighting and mainly vapid expressions. Do you by chance know of a site for her work beyond her own website? That just shows more of the same.