+1. I don’t understand the question either, so this post is just meant to get some more words around it. After ~40 years of photography I have become more and more convinced that a lot of photography domains, and portraiture not the least, is in the end an intuitive thing. Like football. You can train, have strategic concepts, plans, ideas, etc. But in the end it depends on how you act in real time, at that precise moment. And consciousness is rather an obstruction than helpful. In line with that, arguments to underpin an appreciation are idle in my view.
But what makes a good portrait is, if you can see/feel/experience contact with the portraitee, which is a sort of genuine and not posed
Working with actresses and actors could be fun. "Show me the real you." "Which one?"
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Portraits are like Yosemite. Photographs of famous people tend to dominate, for the same reason that photographs of Yosemite do.
We think of a portrait as capturing something important that is greater than simply what the sitter looks like, but we don’t know the sitter, so we don’t know if that important thing is actually real.
For me, if a sitter looks relaxed and happy, or relaxed and thoughtful, then I’m probably happy with it.
This is one of my favorite portraits of my father:
But you had to know the story to appreciate it. Everyone who does laughs.
This one of him didn’t require a story:
It’s just a picture of a man, maybe not too technically flawed, but nothing special, really. But it made my sister cry.
How much does the subject make the photo? And how much of what people take from it is real? I don’t know any more.
Rick “he passed in January 3” Denney
Good points Rick, may our fathers rest in peace
and a good use of a thread
Here is a 1938 pro shot of my father and my first ever 4X5 shot handheld Speed Graphic 1998, borrowed camera, next LF was when I joined here. He passed 2008
Father 1938 by TIN CAN COLLEGE, on Flickr
Father 1998 by TIN CAN COLLEGE, on Flickr
Tin Can
I know this is the LF forum and all but I don't really differentiate portraits by their formats. I just like looking at portraits, love looking at photographs of people, not sure why, its fun cause we are a species of really weird looking animals. Personally, I can't really tell if something was taken with an iPhone or 8x10 sheet of film ( and I'm OK with that ). I remember a photographer well known to this forum who used to frame some of his digital images with notch coded film. I like stories behind photos not so much knowing the gear behind the photos, although sometimes the gear is the story.
Why is any portrait done? What gives any portrait image meaning?
Having done portraits of many with many film formats and digital. It is lesser about the image recording method, it is much about trying to capturing some expressive aspect of the portrait sitter. The result is can vary from the artist-photographer trying to share some aspect of the portrait sitters personality to using the portrait sitter as a prop meet the artist-photographer's expressive intent.
This portrait was made some years ago.. what does it mean
(and no means of digital image sharing can transmit what this image looks like as a print) ?
How this LF portrait was made camera wise.
Near identical image result could have been achieved using a roll film or digital image recording format instead of a view camera..
Bernice
I vastly prefer to shoot people in any format, not easy at all
I try to set stage ahead of time
My model is no longer available, ever again
Here are my 2 best, one 11X14 and the other D750, both would have been impossible without the camera/lens/format used
I had her in constant motion with one and the other still and calm
Each took 20 minutes, after we drank wine and talked for hours
5 long years ago, I am weeping
E XRay2x11x14crop by TIN CAN COLLEGE, on Flickr
E Best Color by TIN CAN COLLEGE, on Flickr
Tin Can
i love the effect in the b&w.
Bookmarks