Who am I?

not every picture dominated by a person in it is really what I'd call a portrait.

Yes!

I think the idea of what a "portrait" is gets filled in by the photographer doing the shooting and sometimes winds up passing beyond the "portrait" itself. Nevertheless, when someone, especially a beginner, mentions portraits, I figure they mean pics with a person central to the scene, and any worry about which genre this or that picture will fit into will be a curator's or book publisher's job more than the photographer's. My own favorite type of photo is one that tells a story with a person central to that scene, though the person may not necessarily dominate the actual square footage.

Ruslan, the lens didn’t make that picture.

The eyes did......

My own favorite type of photo is one that tells a story with a person central to that scene, though the person may not necessarily dominate the actual square footage.

Yes, that's right. And this genre portrait is good. It renders the atmosphere, the mood, the ambience.

The eyes did......

I concur. That's what I said in my initial post.

This is your initial post:

Why have you decided on portraiture? It is an interesting and challenging genre. To do portriture you must be able to inteact with people and find people with a certain charisma and be able to reveal it.

As for 35 mm lens on APS - it is a very good choice for intimate portrait. One of the best portrait photographers of the world Alexander Vinogradov who I know, uses 50 mm on full frame. Get to know his works. There are numerous examples when 40 mm and ever 35 mm on full frame take just stunning portraits.

Ruslan, in your initial post you said nothing of atmosphere, mood, and ambiance and nothing about the amount of space the subject takes up in the frame and nothing about the importance of storytelling. You had me going. I thought I might have missed something you said and was upset because I try to read carefully and not to repeat what someone's already said unless I'm doing so for emphasis and giving them credit for it.

Ruslan, in your initial post you said nothing of atmosphere, mood, and ambiance and nothing about the amount of space the subject takes up in the frame and nothing about the importance of storytelling.

That's right. I told about your b&w work when I praised it.

But in my initial post I said about interacting with people and finding their charisma, which is more important than focal length, IMO. In my example I showed a close-up portrait against a white wall, but I often do render the atmosphere and ambiance (I do take genre portraits)

But I thought, in the case of my work her eyes would be enough.

@janedragon, I already mentioned the MoMA's course on 'seeing through pictures' at Coursera. The MoMA also has other learning materials freely available online.

The same is true for the Museum of Contemporary Photography (MoCP). One of their 'Resources for Editors' is on Portraiture and Representation: a downloadable Curriculum Guide (pdf) and Image Set (pdf). The 11-page Curriculum Guide includes a 3-page set of questions/activities that you can use in critically reviewing portraits by others (magazines, etc.) and creating your own.

Pretentious embellishment, contrary to the opinion of many, does not make a picture better.

You can’t talk something into something it isn’t.

You can try to con folks.

Some will buy into it.

Some won’t.

Get hold of something camera & lens. Download & semi-digest a manual, charge batteries insert memory card, go out and shoot.

+1

 

 

Sounds a bit odd to me if your focus is on portraiture especially. - For all the reasons [uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER] mentioned above. - I am not sure how you imagine

 

My gear shopping advice would be Sigma 60mm f2.8 macro as "the good prime" for compliant subjects + also a long zoom in the 50-100(+x...)mm range. - I am not familiar with the Sony catering market but there tends to be "a long counter part to the kit zoom" everywhere. In doubt a light comparably inexpensive but stabilized zoom can't be entirely wrong. - It might not become your professional go to lens but it 'll remain a great semi casual companion. (There will be a significantly more expensive alternative like a 70-200/4 or even 2.8 too. Make up your mind if you'll fancy to carry those around before you ponder buying them and take your time doing so.)

- I can't stress "intimate" enough in there and see problems connected to that. - Do you wish to get your picture's spectator that close to your subject? Are you comfortable that close or feeling to be invading somebody's privacy bubble framing a headshot with a standard lens or even something slightly longer? - Personally I like having something like a 135mm in my APS bag to do headshots with. - A 60mm is a good choice to shoot fashion full length without invading. - Another reason to buy a long zoom first: Use it & your kit zoom, to find out what focal lengths you'll really like, before you start spending on primes.

 

 

Content: There are various ways to do portraiture. The easier one is to stalk your otherwise occupied subject with your camera until it drops the "I'm getting photographed"-mask and nail the expression you are after. For this approach a bit of zoom reach can be handy. - It works quite well during family gatherings and similar (at least if your AF is playing along indoors with flash and dim zooms).

 

The other approach is formal portraiture. There you have to work with your subjects; i.e. direct them how to pose, try to provoke the expressions you are after.

This takes compliant subjects who are hard to get / wear out over time. For that reason a lot of photographers seem to own a mannequin head as a dummy to test their lighting on.

 

What kind of subjects do you have in mind? - Kind of family? or photogenic strangers?

 

IDK much about learning from courses. - They have their place. I recommend getting the basic camera operation drill into muscle memory on your own; i.e. practice getting auto ISO toggled on and off, read up how to select your various AF modes, how to notice that you dialed in some exposure compensation how to put it back on +/- zero, Selecting a preset white balance or setting a custom one, ... and such things.

Where courses really shine is: Introduction into post processing images and everything else digital darkroom related. After you got started that way YouTube tutorials might do the same job.

Not sure what might be there, to take home from shooting lessons. Maybe they raise awareness what kind of subjects you were overlooking during a photo walk?

The important thing is to practise, make mistakes, learn from them. - If being given a homework assignment helps doing so: Go ahead!

Thanks a lot for your advice!

I've tried painting portraits, but it's hard (In my opinion )

I agree. This is the best I could do:

I agree. This is the best I could do:

 

[ATTACH=full]1272787[/ATTACH]

- The eyes look a bit wonky to me, and you could have put some more work into that smudgy background.

- The eyes look a bit wonky to me, and you could have put some more work into that smudgy background.

This is a tough crowd............I guess it's back to the drawing board!:)

I agree. This is the best I could do:

 

Uh, you need to keep all of your chemicals and wash water at the same temperature to avoid reticulation.

Hello everyone! I have just started my photography courses. It consists of different genres, like a common introductory course. First, I think it would be good to get acquainted with photography in general, different genres and then decide what is more interesting for me. But now I think I would like to work with portraits. So I am hesitating, am I doing everything right?

Is there a wrong way? I don't think so. Sounds like you are following your passion step by step- according to a plan you devised. I say congrats and hurray. If portraits is what you feel is your calling for now, by all means explore away.

Hello everyone! I have just started my photography courses. It consists of different genres, like a common introductory course. First, I think it would be good to get acquainted with photography in general, different genres and then decide what is more interesting for me. But now I think I would like to work with portraits. So I am hesitating, am I doing everything right?

go out n shoot everthing till you find yourself. for instance, portraits in a studio, by natural light, in street environments, on the go, for advertising... do it all!

to help for inspiration, look at galleries, books, even adds in magazines.

- The eyes look a bit wonky to me, and you could have put some more work into that smudgy background.

Ha, I was thinking he'd nailed the bokeh.

Since this has evolved, somewhat, into discussion of portraiture classic and otherwise, and since I'm contemplating some form of portraiture myself, Id like to pose a question (OK maybe 2)

Have you all seen Richard Avedon's Portraits? and also his In The American West portraits? He removes his subjects so completely from any existential context, leaving only the subject with a small written description of who they are. White back ground, no shadows, even.

How is this body of work considered by this crowd?

Like/love/hate/dislike? Why are (or were) these portraits so compelling?

Thanks and apologies to Janedragon for the hijack.

Janedragon, are you studying other photographers' (famous or otherwise) works in portraiture? As for learning, I'm learning too... I have yet to take any courses but I plan to. Meanwhile I'm out shooting rolls of film, trying to gain some understanding of what works (or not) and learning to use my camera, learning more about composition etc.

Are you shooting at all currently?

Good luck in your own photography!

I think Avedon’s work has an important place in photography. Any photographer can learn a lot by looking at and understanding how he was able to create intimacy with faces, clothing, pose, and demeanor and isolating that from visual context. Do I like it? Sure. Some of his work, though, leaves me cold. That doesn’t keep me from appreciating all his work has to offer.

My own preference is for more environmental portraiture but in order to make that work I’ve done closeups and head shots and lots of environments without people. This way, I get a sense of what each element of a photo can do. For me, the combination of expression, gesture, and surroundings can provide a story, which attracts me to photography ... telling a story.

All the great portrait photographers are worth getting to know. And it’s sometimes worth NOT paying much attention to your own taste and just letting other photographers’ work speak to you without a whole lot of judgment.

I’ve found remaining as open as possible to be helpful and this has allowed me to explore avenues I might not otherwise have been naturally led to.

Annie Leibovitz, Diane Arbus, Nan Goldin, Rineke Dijkstra, Irving Penn, Alfred Stieglitz, especially his portraits of Georgia O’Keeffe, any of the great Hollywood photographers (Milton Greene, George Hurrell), Steve McCurry, Yousuf Karsh, Arnold Newman, to name but a few important names to get to know.

I think Avedon’s work has an important place in photography. Any photographer can learn a lot by looking at and understanding how he was able to create intimacy with faces, clothing, pose, and demeanor and isolating that from visual context. Do I like it? Sure. Some of his work, though, leaves me cold. That doesn’t keep me from appreciating all his work has to offer.

 

My own preference is for more environmental portraiture but in order to make that work I’ve done closeups and head shots and lots of environments without people. This way, I get a sense of what each element of a photo can do. For me, the combination of expression, gesture, and surroundings can provide a story, which attracts me to photography ... telling a story.

 

All the great portrait photographers are worth getting to know. And it’s sometimes worth NOT paying much attention to your own taste and just letting other photographers’ work speak to you without a whole lot of judgment.

 

I’ve found remaining as open as possible to be helpful and this has allowed me to explore avenues I might not otherwise have been naturally led to.

 

Annie Leibovitz, Diane Arbus, Nan Goldin, Rineke Dijkstra, Irving Penn, Alfred Stieglitz, especially his portraits of Georgia O’Keeffe, any of the great Hollywood photographers (Milton Greene, George Hurrell), Steve McCurry, Yousuf Karsh, Arnold Newman, to name but a few important names to get to know.

Thanks. I do try to absorb others' work without judgement or at least in setting aside my own lies or dislikes- actually I view my own taste for things an obstruction to objective viewing; since I'm trying to learn a lot right now it is especially helpful for me to just let myself fall into what others are doing or have done. In the end, will I find influence or inspiration? I hope so.

Just got a copy of Avedon At Work In the American West and it's a pretty good look at him and his way of getting those portraits. Some of the subjects he visited again and again, or revisited/kept in touch with. For better or worse, I guess. He took a lot of heat at the time, from various people in various ways.

Thanks. I do try to absorb others' work without judgement or at least in setting aside my own lies or dislikes- actually I view my own taste for things an obstruction to objective viewing; since I'm trying to learn a lot right now it is especially helpful for me to just let myself fall into what others are doing or have done. In the end, will I find influence or inspiration? I hope so.

Sounds pretty cool.

I love the Picasso quote ...

"Taste is the enemy of creativeness."

If you ever have the opportunity to see Avedon's prints in person in an exhibition, I'd recommend it. My appreciation for his work increased tremendously when I did. His prints are exquisite* and their being shown together at the size they are gives it a depth and has a kind of impact that informs his work a lot. It's, of course, true for a lot of photography that seeing the prints enhances the viewing experience but I do think it applies to Avedon especially.

*[interestingly, he once listed a bunch of no's for himself in regard to The American West, and if I recall correctly among them were "no exquisite light" and "no apparent poses" and "no seductive narrative." While I'm glad not all portraits adhere to such an approach, I respect his commitment to this kind of vision and to seeing where it would take him.]

As for his taking a lot of heat, most important artists do. It's often because many important artists don't give the public what it wants and break traditionally comforting molds. Of course, there are also some political critiques about the New York artistic elite take on The American West. I don't see that embodied in his work.

Thanks.

I believe that traditions are made to be broken, and of course delivering art that fails to adhere to expected norms or mores sets people off kilter, as such it is unsettling for those who come into viewing art with expectations. Probably all great artists have, at some point, defied traditions in oder to break the glass ceiling in fulfilling their own vision. And so... I know that anything is possible. When something feels right it docent have to be because it adheres to a particular set of rules.

One thing I found interesting about reading the Avedon "working" book was seeing his set-up procedures- shading the camera/lens and shading the subject as well. I often wondered hw he achieved the result of having zero shadows... maybe some of that was thru dodging or burning but I also think he just had that technique figured out by the time he went "out west".

I hope to take compelling portraits myself some day, and will definitely look at the photographers you mentioned above. Of course a compelling portrait might begin with an interesting subject and again, Mr Avedon was pretty good at cherry picking his subjects, then also pretty good at getting what he wanted out of them. Interesting how he would sometimes stand in front of or beside the camera and wait for the exact second to pull the trigger. For better or worse, and history seems to be favoring him by now.

Again, I apologize to janedragon and again I ask the OP, "are you shooting anything currently?"

Why are (or were) these portraits so compelling?

Things I notice:

• Low camera, looking up to the subjects' eye levels. - That's a way to express respect / adoration for them.
  
• What else is there to look at in those pictures? - The white background forces you to look at the subjects and see something in them.
  
• "Rules are there to be broken". In the pictures I spotted online I see a few "minor saw mill accidents" framing wise and recall a rule to not cut off finger tips.
  

Hard to say more about those pictures.

Can they guide me? - Not really, the logistics for a fully capable field studio would be beyond my means. But yes, it would be great to shoot every somewhat interesting face we encounter that way.

The elephant in my room: Learning to guide people into the poses and expressions I'd love to capture. So far I usually tried to watch through my VF and capture.