Thinking about Portaiture

Thinking about all the useful comments above (including my sample shots), and the broader context of today's world of Iphone, where almost everybody who owns one shoots everything and everybody, including themselves, it seems engaging a subject, other than in a formal setting, isn't that hard, as people are used to it. My thought is that one should have a thorough understanding of the technical issues of shooting - exposure, composition and lighting, and know their equipment like the back of their hand so that they are not fiddling with gear, but rather engaging their subject to bring out the look they want to achieve. Having periodically been a subject of a variety of amateur "street" or "documentary" shooters over the years, who had the stones to ask me to pose for them, I can tell you, that it it much easier to to do so with a photographer who is knowledgable and has self confidence than one who is fumbling around and can't engage me in conversation while shooting.

For most of the time I've had a camera I've only taken photos with people in them and have never really sure when I could call something a portrait. That said, when I started, and sometimes still, I carried my camera everywhere. Eventually the people I was with got used to it and to me taking pictures, and there was no challenge on that front, and I still use this strategy a lot, even though I've mostly moved to more formal portraiture. In this type of hit-and-run work, you can afford to shoot a lot and your victims have no expectations. This makes it a lot easier to relax because people don't expect to see results except when something is special. It was a long time I felt that I could control a situation well enough to ask people to sit for me, and I was very nervous about that until I could predictably get something good a high percentage of the time. I've never tried the carry-it-everywhere situation with my 500C/M, though.

 

One thing that has been very important to me all along was to look at the work of other photographers who were doing things I wished I'd done, imagining how those pictures had come to be. HCB's wide range of portraiture was a huge influence to me at the start. It was only much later that I learned that most of the informal portraits he took of famous people were contract work for books and magazines, not personal. I still spend a lot of time looking at fashion photography when I'm in the doctor's office, etc.to get lighting and posing ideas.

 

As others have said, the equipment has to be transparent--set it once and forget it from there on. I have always made it a practice to set exposure and some approximate likely focus range as soon as I walked into a room so that I didn't need to fuss if an opportunity came up, and I don't ever use a meter, so I can do this with minimal fuss.

 

Tap my avatar on the left to flickr links of some of my work....

Edited February 24, 2019 by michael_darnton|2

Years ago I was an instructor at the Professional Photographers of America school for continuing education. My subject was Color Print and Process. However, I often sat in as the Masters taught portraiture. Some small parts I retained by osmosis.

 

 

Some tips on portraiture and lighting:

 

 

Our media is for the most part 2 dimensional reproductions of a 3 dimensional subject. We depend upon the way we light the subject to give an illusion of depth. This is called “chiaroscuro” (of light and shadow -- Italian).

 

 

The basic set-up is two-lamps, a “main” and a “fill”. It’s the main” light that does the trick; the “fill” softens shadows otherwise the shadows go too dark and they are void of detail. We fill from the camera’s viewpoint. Thus we place the fill at lens height as close to the camera as we can without it getting in the way.

 

 

Mankind has existed for eons without the benefit of artificial light; thus it is the placement of the main that we need to concentrate on. Best if we simulate afternoon sunlight; likely placement is high and off to the side.

 

 

About lighting ratio: We are talking about the difference in intensity of the various lamps as the play on the subject, all lights on.

 

 

 

Flat lighting called 2:1 ratio: We place the main high and off to the side causing it to shine down on the subject. Let us say the main delivers 1000 units (watts if you like) on the subject. The fill is then placed near an imaginary line, drawn lens-to-subject and at lens height. The fill also delivers 1000 units of light. This can be measured using a meter or using two identical lamps placed so they are the same distance, lamp-to-subject.

 

 

Why is this 2:1? The main delivers 1000 units of light on the frontal areas of the face. The fill delivers 1000 units of light falling in the shadow areas. Both the main and the fill overlap on the majority of the face; they are additive, thus most of the face receives 2000 units of light (main + fill). The ratio is 2000 units frontal area and 1000 units shadow area. The ratio is 2000:1000. This is handled like a fraction; it reduces to 2:1. Again this is “flat” lighting.

 

 

Now consider a portrait set-up 3:1 ratio (bread and butter lighting). This is the one that wins contests and sells best. To achieve this we reduce the fill’s energy at the subject plane, so it delivers half power as compared to the main. We want the fill to be 1 f-stop or 50% reduced as compared to the main. We might do this by setting a knob on the fill lamp to ½ power or by just moving the fill further away from the subject. If the fill and the main are equal in wattage, we multiply the main’s distance from the subject by 1.4. This calculates a revised distance for the fill. It now delivers 1 f-stop less light at the subject plane. Say the main is 5 feet from the subject; the fill is now placed at 5 X 1.4 = 7 feet.

 

 

This added distance reduces the light energy playing on the subject by 50% (1 f/stop). The 1.4 factor is derived from a law in physics known as the inverse square law. The idea is to cause the main to deliver 1000 units and the fill 500 units. Now consider the frontal area of the face gets light from both fixtures. The values are 1000 main + 500 fill. Thus the frontal areas receive 1000 + 500 or 1500 units. Shadows receive only the fill’s 500. Ratio is 150:50 this fraction reduces to 3:1. This is achieved if the fill is subordinate to the main by 1 f/stop. You can also place main and fill using a meter. The trick is again 1 f/stop difference, fill subordinate.

 

 

Consider 5:1 somewhat more zippy lighting:

 

We reduce the fill to 1/4 power by a knob on the unit, if available, or by setting the fill even further back. If the fill is at the 2:1 distance (same distance as main), we multiply by fill-to-subject distance times 2. If the fill is positioned at the 3:1 distance, multiply fill-to-subject distance by 1.4. You are after a two-stop difference with the fill subordinate to the main. How is this 5:1? This placement causes the fill to be 2 f/stops subordinate or 25% of the main’s energy. Now the frontal area receives 1000 from the main and 250 from the fill-- for a total of 1250 frontal and 250 in the shadows. The ratio is 1250:250 or 5:1. This is contrasty lighting.

 

 

Consider 9:1 somewhat theatrical, very zippy lighting.

People fascinate me. I love the diversity in personality and expressions, and I love using my camera to capture all those personalities! People are by far my favorite subject to have in front of my camera.

If you are new to photography and getting frustrated that you aren’t creating portraits like you hoped, I’m here to help! Let’s go through six tips to get started with portraits. You’ll be a pro before you know it.

Get yourself a 50mm lens;Focus on the Eyes;Experiment with Distance and Orientation;

Create a True Portrait;Lighting Frist, Background Second; Don't worry about the "Rules"

more detail I tidy in the file: 6 Tips to Get Started with Portraits

I've broached the subject with a couple friends, of sitting for portraits- and for whatever reason it just feels more than a little awkward. Funny because in general, I have great people skills and can pretty much talk to anyone about anything.

One big problem in "portraiture" is guiding your subject into flattering poses and the facial expression you are after. - Suggestion: Watch Peter Hurley's ramblings on YouTube. - I'm no big fan of his "Squinch" (somewhat closed eyes), but the "Hold your sub" direction, to get arms angled right, in a head shot might make sense...

 

What I am trying to emphasize: Communication is key. And while I believe in your general people skills, I suggest taking a time out in front of your mirror to double check, if you have the words or substitutes at hand, to guide somebody into the poses and expressions you are after during a formal sitting. - I'm serious about making you problem aware! Humans have tons of facial muscles. - Maybe one MD could direct another, during a sitting by "tense anatomical term #1, loosen #2 ..." But that isn't how things work with ordinary people. Your(!) ability to strike the poses and expressions you are after, to model them for your subject will be key. Its also not bad to get the other directions drilled and under your belt. Basically you have to establish to ask your subject for small head movements maybe followed by suggested look at targets. Another issue might be getting a language code established for "relax, I am still fiddling with my camera / tripod" and "I framed and focused you; battle that resting bitch face now". <- You(!) are the native speaker, supposed to make things sound sufficiently polite; I only voiced the issue.

 

Posing people is hard. - I doubt being good at it. As others already told: It can be much more rewarding and productive to shoot somewhat candidly. What worked for me with folks grouped around a table, was to watch my subject with the left eye while focusing a prism findered camera on something else in the same distance and rapidly swinging the camera around in the right moment.

Another huge step "is winning the staredown" (still in a friends and family setting). "Listen I hit the gym to become able to hold this beast of a camera kind of eternally. - I am not happy with your "I'm getting snapped"-grin and I'll wait for you to drop it, OK?" Once your subject re-engages into a conversation with others, its up to you to press your shutter in the right moments. The important bit is that people bless you with their ignorance for those shots. - It doesn't work out all the time and I think using an awkward and slow camera isn't really to your advantage. - I shot mostly manual and slow AF cameras and recall countless times, when I wasn't able to get them focused quick enough, to nail my shot. But patience helps and yes, you have to establish some confidence into "film is cheap and I have a big trash can" + "I still haven't nailed what I'm shooting for" - That probably became harder these days.

 

Some instructors suggest to give the subject an idea about the problems you are facing / trying to master. Getting photographed can be as awkward / uncomfortable as a medical exam. - Doctors usually explain what they are doing on you. - I'd try to convey how kind of hard it is to nail manual focus. If pose changes are an option I'd ask to keep the camera distance constant. (I'd shoot with more DOF than a wide open 180mm's!)

 

Your project is among the hardest imaginable ones. - Yes, sure it was done in the past; it can get done again. - Still: Recalling my attempts to shoot folks in the early 90s with my Mamiya, I am happy to have less limited and prepaid digital clicks now. Current instructor types suggest to "Work your shots!" i.e. try things poses, shoot a lot, see where things might be going. - A current session is what, about 200 digital frames? Wide open attempts repeated about a dozen times to nail focus? - I'd prefer to have enough light, to avoid them...

 

Good luck! - I don't want to stop you. - Just try to sponge what is out there advice wise and maybe realize that shooting

in whatever existing light there is

is maybe not the greatest approach. - An indoors work place offers about 1/60, f5.6 at ISO 1600. - Hand holding for a tack sharp picture requires your 1/500 sec, shooting at f11 might still not provide nose tip to ear hair DOF in 2m distance...

Did it ever feel weird or awkward to approach people (especially strangers or people you never knew) and ask if you can shoot them?

"Nope" - Disclaimer: I'm referring to the old times when I did not need to hand out a data privacy statement. The awkward feeling starts once I need to direct basically consenting people in front of my camera.

 

How did you get started in portraiture?

To me having a slightly longer than normal lens + somebody near by + time + light, seems to inevitably lead towards portraiture. - I must have been 15 or 16, when I entered that stage. You can argue that I failed to learn by trial and error. I'm still (33 years later) catching up with sponging instructions.

 

Sometimes I ended in front of (my) cameras. Things I noticed / recall: I don't feel comfortable when somebody takes their WLF / chimney finder learning phase in front of me. "Which button to press?" is very likely to ruin my friendly facial expression, when asked after the before mentioned struggle.

A shooter buddy not utilizing the focus confirmation of my first DSLR (after choosing the slightly faster manual lens, I brought along) still earns a frown.

 

I recall flipping through vacation pictures a friend's now wife took during last film days with a P&S. He looked usually a bit annoyed expressing "Come on girl that thing is fully automatic. Get your shot!" There was one picture displaying him entirely happy, when they reached a fast food spot serving generous helpings. Some day I'll shanghai a volunteer, standing way behind me in line, to shoot me, when I 'll carry my plate of grub to a table. - I think I should leave a happy portrait of myself to the world...

 

subjects in their own environment, be it at work, at play, or at home.

It surely depends... - Will you be able to see them there? - A lot of work benches & desks, stoves, sewing machines... seem to face walls.

Do folks enjoy what they are doing? / Can they do it and look happy? - I've seen experts doing their tricky jobs with facial expressions they wouldn't like published.

Can they do it and look happy?

As happy as Churchill once his cigar was taken away —

Jochen,

I'm thinking more like not actually doing their job pre se but in situ, at the workplace, in whatever ambient lighting there is wherever they are working- be it a rail yard, foundry, shipyard, whatever.... .

There have always seemed to me to be at least two different issues involved.

 

The first, already addressed nicely, is that of feeling comfortable with the person(s) being photographed and having them feel at ease with you.

 

The second is that of technnology, such as lighting, either natural (as some portraitists prefer) or 'artificial' in the sense that the photographer provides and sets up the lighting angles, posing, etc.

 

The photo magazines, in the day, used to run regular articles on portrait lighting, and the internet now has the same sort of thing e.g., (6 Portrait Lighting Patterns Every Photographer Should Know).

 

There is, however, considerable disagreement about what is good and what works.

 

Consider a portraitist like Karsh, who many consider one of the finest portraitists and contrast the opinion of him held by A. D. Coleman.

 

 

review in Popular Photography 1973-08

 

De gustibus non est disputandum, eh?

 

Wonderful post. you stated your opinion well.

 

Karsh: I went to High School in Ottawa, where Karsh worked. I've met/experienced his Brother who produced good work too.

 

My interpretation: It's about style. I was a pro ski instructor for over 35 years. I recognized my colleagues because of their style. All experts, all the same, but different. I knew who they were when skiing, because I knew their style.

Mr Karsh photographed many people well. He sold a lot. I believe Coleman was reacting to Mr Karsh's style. That's ok. I predict Mr Karsh didn't care a bit about Coleman's opinion.

I predict Mr Karsh didn't care a bit about Coleman's opinion.

 

I'm even sure of it!

I predict Mr Karsh didn't care a bit about Coleman's opinion.

Maybe/probably not. That doesn’t make Coleman’s opinion less valid or less worth consideration by viewers and history. That Karsh wouldn’t recognize the validity of this criticism may speak to the fact that he doesn’t recognize the tediousness of his body of work, which is evidenced precisely by the tediousness of his body of work. Often, style is used expressively and to comment on the person in the portrait. Karsh’s photographic competence is evident in every shot while his style is unrelenting and lacks character. There will be plenty of viewers who disagree with Coleman, which makes sense. The fact that Karsh, who created this body of work, would either disagree or not care about this criticism, makes perfect sense, since it was Karsh’s choice to consistently photograph this way.

Maybe/probably not. That doesn’t make Coleman’s opinion less valid or less worth consideration by viewers and history. That Karsh wouldn’t recognize the validity of this criticism may speak to the fact that he doesn’t recognize the tediousness of his body of work, which is evidenced precisely by the tediousness of his body of work. Often, style is used expressively and to comment on the person in the portrait. Karsh’s photographic competence is evident in every shot while his style is unrelenting and lacks character. There will be plenty of viewers who disagree with Coleman, which makes sense. That fact that Karsh, who created this body of work, would either disagree or not care about this criticism, makes perfect sense, since it was Karsh’s choice to consistently photograph this way.

I understand.

However, that's Coleman's opinion. I'm happy you share it.

The man made a good living photographing famous subjects. That's really difficult to do, any time in history.

I admire good photographers with skill, style, and good business sense.

Photographers have style too. They chose how to represent their customers in the product they produce and sell.

I admire good photographers with skill, style, and good business sense.

Karsh was both a popular and financial success.

 

I sense Coleman was offering his critique of Karsh less in the context of his business sense and technical skill and more in the context of the history of photography and the art of his portraits themselves.

 

Other great portrait photographers developed recognizable styles as well and yet also gave something of a different and individual character to each of their subjects. Karsh didn't do that, IMO.

I had the good fortune to have a profitable photo business for years; I was nationally published. My clients were very happy. You'll find none of my work now.

Time goes by. I'm grateful I had a chance.

Mr Karsh did a heck of a lot better than I did.

 

Sometimes I judge a photographer by the impact they had in their day. If one of them shows me how they would find a subject, and their path to a finished product I am grateful.

 

There are many heroes in photography.

I'm recalling seeing a photo of a photographer's wagon on the edge of a battlefield, as he took daguerreotype images and worked magic there in horrible surroundings.

I used to buy Outdoor Photography every month. I read every word that Galen Rowell wrote there. He had a sad end to a wonderful life that inspires me to this day. His time was up.

 

I'm quite sure that if I had wondered into Karsh's business in Ottawa as a learning photographer, I would have been given the bum's rush. And I would have left quickly.

I sense Coleman was offering his critique of Karsh less in the context of his business sense and technical skill and more in the context of the history of photography and the art of his portraits themselves.

 

BUT

 

A.D. Coleman's view of history and art was more than a little peculiar. He was a great fan of Mortensen, for example.

A.D. Coleman's view of history and art was more than a little peculiar.

Probably why I appreciate what he had to say.

 

And, thankfully, I'm also able to make my own assessment of Karsh's work based on what I see.

I have enrolled in a workshop on B&W portraiture on February 15, tho it is not necessarily with film as far as I know. I guess I'll show up with my Olympus M4/3, the 500cm, and the tripod, and see what happens.

And what happened? Was it success in portraiture workshop? Result?

And what happened? Was it success in portraiture workshop? Result?

 

that portraiture workshop turned out a lot different than I thought it would. It ended up being basically a chat session with the person directing the workshop doing a lot of talking about me his (admittedly very interesting) projects. Everyone knew each other and all knew the photographer/workshop leader.

 

Meanwhile, lately, I’ve been approaching people I find interesting at events and asking if I may please shoot their photo. Some of the results can be seen in the “non studio headshots” thread here.