Any tips for Photography?

As I am new so can anybody help me about portraits ?

Don't shoot straight on, shoot slightly from the side. Subject can turn head a little towards camera. Have one light in front above subject angled down shining towards face . Another light from behind, half the strength of the front light, but blocked by the subject so it doesn't cause lens flare. Do some experimenting with lighting etc but make a start and see what you get

 

Select unobtrusive backgrounds and keep them darker than you subject and out of focus

Head shots, half length???? Could you give more details....what are you looking for in results....dreamy, bitingly sharp, low key, high key? Not often mentioned, but IMHO essential for top notch results is having a good experienced makeup artist on hand.

Focal length is also important I think. If you are looking at a headshot or a full body shot, it’s better to use at least a 75 mm or higher focal length lens (35 mm equivalent), otherwise you will be too close to the subject and perspective effects will distort facial and body features. If you are shooting an environmental portrait, like a subject sitting across the table with some of the body and some background visible, a shorter focal length like 50 mm can be used.

 

This one was shot at 75 mm.

 

 

This one at 50 mm. Hope this helps.

 

Edited June 30, 2018 by Supriyo

Everything above is pretty good advice.

 

I would emphasis that for "good" portraits, start out with that intention rather than trust to luck. Pick a place for the subject, preferably with a mostly frontal light and a darker background some distance away (a useful outdoors background could be a view into a wooded area, in the shade). Direct sunlight is generally not a good way to go (harsh shadows and squinty eyes).

 

"Focal length" is pretty important, but what I'd suggest, at least with a zoom lens, is to just pay attention to your distance, then zoom for the cropping you want. For a more or less head shot, try not to be much closer than about 3 feet, and not much farther than about 6 or 8 feet. For something like a full-length shot you can increase the distance.

 

From this point, the really big deal is getting a good expression. People who can relax in front of a camera and show their personality are pretty unusual. So really, your major challenge is to engage the subject so as to distract from the camera and get interesting expressions. Mainly this just takes a lot of practice, and will be easier if you are the sort who can easily discuss a variety of topics. You've got to be doing this at the same time you are operating the camera which will tend to overwhelm a lot of shooters; practice is the big key.

 

Ps, the significance of "practice" is this: we all have a limited amount of ability with respect to intentionally concentrating on a problem or task. If you have practiced using your camera so much that it is second nature to you, that you can use it while barely thinking about it, then you can apply more of your "active attention" to the portrait subject.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Bill C

Well, where do I start? :-) Okay, so basically all of the above is worth paying attention to.

 

My approach is to minimize the junk. Headshots of professionals are one thing, but portraiture IMO should have minimal junk. You can use a flash, but use a continuous light instead. You can use a light, but use a reflector instead. You can use a reflector, but try and find a point where the ambient light doesn't need any help. Lots of terrific portraits and other kinds of photos were taken with ambient light (which by definition can include artificial light that's already present).

 

If you can, take your time. You might take 200 frames and be happy with only one, but that one winning frame is all you need.

 

Have a look at this if you have a moment:

 

Link: leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - The Story Behind That Picture 60 - "The Hans Blix Portrait"

All the above seems solid to me, however a lot of great portraits were taken with light backgrounds. See Richard Avedon's work, some of the best portraits ever. So with that, its important to know how to get the exposure you want. Once you do that and understand exposure, you can set any kind of background you want, and how to get it in your exposure. Generally having light coming from the front and/or side is good. Backlighting can be very tricky.

Penn was great as well, but I like Avedon better.

Penn was great as well, but I like Avedon better.

 

Yeah, same here. Much better. Avedon's portraits were more revealing in capturing his subject's unique characteristics, energetic, compelling, naturally nuanced, and stir curiosity/imagination. I suspect people who admire Karsh's style of structured portraiture will also like Penn's. And that photographers who are not into making portraits will probably prefer Karsh's and Penn's work as well.

Irving Penn portraits

 

Richard Avedon portraits

 

Enough said...

 

I agree. And speaks to what I said above. I think most here know how to google a set of photos from a particular photographer.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Brad_

I don't like either one. Portraiture is not my bag.

So what is it that you're agreeing to? That Avedon was a better portraitist? Anyone with eyes to spare would think otherwise.

 

That I like Avedon's portraiture much better than Penn's

 

 

"Anyone with eyes to spare would think otherwise."

 

Is that shallow/juvenile response really necessary?

Yes, yes it is. Sometimes it really is necessary in order to make the f*$king point. Now don't you go all complaining and whining about it will ya.

 

No complaints here. Just an observation.

Sorry, but Avedon is a simpleton compared to Penn. A postcard type of portrait photographer in terms of psychological depth.

That's just a ridiculous, juvenile response. You seem to have the emotional depth of a 12 year old. We're just expressing opinions here, and mine is that Penn was a great, classic portrait artist, with command of light and process and depth of subject. His work is beautiful Avedon exhibited a consistent technical brilliance to match probably overmatched Penn's and an active creativity. Always exploring the frame, posing, and creating dynamism in content as well as style. Penn, was great, and he does have great depth in his renditions, but he just lacks Avedon's creativity.

All the above seems solid to me, however a lot of great portraits were taken with light backgrounds.

 

I agree 100%. But... this is allegedly a beginning photographer (albeit one who "was last seen" when he asked the question). And to shoot a "light" background takes a fair amount more skill - it's readily done under studio conditions, but outdoors? If the ratio, background to subject, is too high, lens flare gets out of hand. And how do you control the ratio, etc., unless you bring light onto the subject? And know enough to meter properly for the subject. So I think for a relative beginner it's much better to get a subject in place, and find a background that is inherently a bit darker in order to keep attention on the subject. (I'm skipping over the situation for a very dark-complexioned subject where you probably want to make them stand out with semi-specular reflections, so as to not lose the sense of the complexion.)

I agree 100%. But... this is allegedly a beginning photographer (albeit one who "was last seen" when he asked the question). And to shoot a "light" background takes a fair amount more skill - it's readily done under studio conditions, but outdoors? If the ratio, background to subject, is too high, lens flare gets out of hand. And how do you control the ratio, etc., unless you bring light onto the subject? And know enough to meter properly for the subject. So I think for a relative beginner it's much better to get a subject in place, and find a background that is inherently a bit darker in order to keep attention on the subject. (I'm skipping over the situation for a very dark-complexioned subject where you probably want to make them stand out with semi-specular reflections, so as to not lose the sense of the complexion.)

Agreed. But everyone was a beginner at some point. The first thing beginners should learn is how to get the exposure they want for the photographs they take. Everything tends to flow from that. Its basically the first thing any beginning photo class teaches.

Very much like Karsh's heavily structured portraits, Penn's don't communicate much to me. While both are obviously talented photographers, the heavy-handed forced gravitas/significance employed to create dramatic portraits, which seemed to be the norm for many portraitists in that time period, gets in the way and masks any subject nuance and character I hope to discover.

 

Karsh and Penn are a place to start, I suppose, when a photographer wants to learn about portraiture. Similar to when someone wants to learn about landscape photography, Ansel Adams' work seems to be the go-to place to start. Nothing wrong with that, btw. Many will not need or care to scratch deeper.

Edited July 5, 2018 by Brad_

Yes, but if you ever looked at Avedon's test prints and his very precise notes on exactly how he wanted them printed he had complete technical control and certainly artistic control because he knew exactly how he wanted his prints to look. But where we disagree is on creativity or as you say "the artists' vision". Penn had a singular style that he perfected and it is very formalized and somewhat dour, though his pictures are rich in tonality and they are gorgeous, but he never transcended his style. Avedon moved the idea of portrait and fashion forward in a way that Penn didn't. Penn didn't have any work that compared to the "American West". But this kind of discussion is like trying to argue if Windows or Macs are better. Preferences become subjective. I have seen a show of Avedon's prints, but not Penn's. I will take your word on the quality of his prints, no reason not too, but Avedon's prints were amazing.

Also, I've been looking at Penn's photos some more, and he really was pretty amazing and actually very creative when it came to fashion and his color work which I like better than his straight portraits. If you look at fashion, I also have to throw in Helmut Newton. These 3, Penn, Avedon and Newton changed fashion photography forever.

Horst FTW.

I've never cared much for Penn. I like Avedon's work, and Newman's. Avedon did change portraiture and fashion photography in a way that can't be dismissed as summarily as above. I disagree with the idea that backgrounds must be uncluttered, also. Look at Milton Rogovin's work.