I need some old-school rules-of-thumb on the issue of photographing people who a re a bit heavy in the cheeks and jowls. I'm doing heads and heads-and-shoulders and I have a couple friends coming in soon who are very pretty but do not suffe r from anorexia nervosa.... Lighting? Movements? Angles? Orientation of the p ose? I don't want to try and make a spade look like a magic wand but I don't wa nt it to look like a dirty shovel either. Thanks. -jeff buckels (albuquerque)
I just did an 8x10 portrait session with my 75 year old mother who is both overweight and has a double chin. I had her sitting in a chair and shot from above to minimize the heavier features. The chair and her body were facing camera left, with her face turned toward the camera. This made the shoulder facing the camera loom a bit large so I used a touch of rear swing to minimize it a bit. I also put a bar stool in front of her (like a posing table) and she put her elbows on the stool and held her chin in her hands to cover the doubleness. She has lovely hands and they looked beautiful. I shot TMAX 100 and Polaroid 804 with a 450 showing head and shoulders.
I would also suggest dark clothing and a dark background to minimize the body appearance. You may want a bit of a hair light to separate dark hair from the background.
As for lighting, I used a fairly flat approach because I like that but you might also try something more directional. For example, in my mother's case I could have used a ratio or one of the standard techniques that would be stronger on the face (camera left) and weaker on the shoulder and back side.
Check out Monte Zucker's site as he has lots of posing and lighting tutorials that include suggestions for shooting heavy subjects.
Two simple things are to avoid shooting them squared up and head on, and don't let them lean back. Leaning a bit forward and turning to face the camera is much better. But also, go with the flow. I remember twenty years ago doing an annual report photo of a company CEO who hated having his picture taken. The PR guys were worried about the shoot and kept warning me the guy was heavy. In fact, he was nearly a giant, way over six foot tall and easily 250 pounds. So I placed him in a setting where he *looked* huge and imposing, dominating the room like an old Irish chieftain (his name was Flannery). He loved the picture and I had a steady gig every fall for the next six or eight years
In photoshop, put a selection box around the area that displeases, choose "free transform" and gently squeeze until the desired years and pounds disappear. Don't forget to brighten the highlights in the eyes for added "sparkle"
You may have already thought of it, but don't do this job without polaroids. You'll have to play around with positions, you might consider starting with 3/4 pose(halfway between straight on and profilte) with the key coming from the same direction. That eliminates one cheek, and the key coming from an angle will give you a nice'fall off' on the other cheek facing the camera. Try the 3/4 pose either left or right, it doesn't make any difference.
Are these men or women? With women you can play around with hairdos, wafting hair over the cheeks, can narrow or deemphasize large or big or fat cheeks. Dark clothes or black clothes tend to disguise the issue of weight and elimnate another frame of reference for the viewer of the image to say 'this individual is heavy'.
The way a person dresses and wears their hair can say 'heavy' or 'fat', so their might be some issues there, explain that what they wear in real life doesn't always photograph well. You should as diplomatically as possible explain the situation to them so that they understand that you'll be trying a lot of things that may take additional time. If you're taking the additional time in trying to play down the weight and they're expecting the shoot to take five minutes then you'll have a problem. You'll need to talk all this through so everybody has the same expectations.
Dark clothes, turlenecks or a high starched collar which covers a up thick or fat neck, maybe darkrer backrounds if you want to demphasize their outlines, a little less fill if you want to darken and/or demphasize certain areas, you've got a lot of cards to play, especially since you control the lights. Light what you want to be seen, leave dark what you don't want to emphasize.
Good luck
Short lighting.
I picked up one of the Magic Lantern guides (called 101 Tricks, or something like that), and read about how to use short lighting to take pounds off of subjects and turn the photographer into a hero/heroine. They had example photographs, and the difference between the short- and broad-lit photographs was amazing. I would suggest that you check out the book.
Why hide the truth? I know as a society we always prefer a comfortabel lie than the terrible truth, but it doesn't have to be this way in photography. Fact is we're a nation of obese slobs. If we "let it all hang out" in real life, why not have the pictures show it like it is? Ah, because the client is paying you to prop up a bogus illusion of self? I suppose satsifying the client is a legitimate goal, but my lens screams for the truth!
I've thought a lot about shooting for a book called "Obesity in America," which would be a celebration of all those beer guts and super-wide loads.
A photograph is incapable of telling the truth, a photographic image gives a version of something, framing cuts out everything but a slice of the truth, and picking a lens, aperture, film, processing, and print paper 'colors' that slice to where it is always going to be different than what was originally there.
People in general do not pay for nor do they want a 'butt ugly' close-up of every pore, pimple, puss bump, wild hairs, wrinkles, and zit that becomes obvious when you close in with a shot that duplicate the effect of standing in a persons space. We usually don't get that close to people to see that kind of detail, except for close friends and loved ones.
Photojournalism is something else, a shot going for every single bit of detail is something else, but if you're doing that kind of shot hyper, you better make sure the client/subject knows what you're going for, or else they're going to be in for a shock!
You've actually touched on what can sometimes be the hard part of portrait photography, figuring out/understanding/interpreting the expectations of the client. Many clients will start out by telling you they want a straight photograph, and will show you another photograph indicating what they want, you look at the photograph and it's obvious the phtographer used diffusion.
Don't get me wrong, clients aren't shy about telling you what they want, but you need to be dead on regarding what they really mean. When you do a portrait for somebody you not working for you, you're working for them, it's not what you want, it's what they want.
Fat in front of your eyes many timeslooks different than fat in front of the lens, and in terms of trying to make somebody look their best, you play the weak spots and play up a persons strong point. Most people pay you to help them look their best so that they can hang the results up on the wall, send to relatives and friends. If you're shooting for yourself that's different.
If you no not care care to do this type of thing, so be it, we should all pursue the kind of photography we believe in, but no image can tell the truth. Whatever you shoot, there is also an infrared version, and ultraviolet version, and x-ray version, there are several different realities for that shot.
I only have two portrait lenses...one I use for most people and the other for really ugly people.Purely subjective decision on my part on which lens will do in a given situation. Just kidding!!!
I sure hope that your clients aren't in the habit of reading this forum.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks