A portrait is:

a photograph of someone who <i>knows</i> they are being photographed.

Right? Not survellance. <p>What other essential qualifiers are

necessary for the rendering of a personal likeness to be called a

portrait?... t

Why do they have to know?

You can take a portrait of your dog.....whether it knows it or not.

I guess you can't take a portrait of your dog. The Dictionary just says it a picture of a person,where you can see the face.

1. I don't care if <i>they</i> know... <i>I</i> know and <i>you</i> know. <p>2. I don't care about the dictionary (in this instance).<p>3. My dog knows... t<div></div>

<p>Why do they have to know?<p> Because other wise, it's either journalism, "street photography", survellance/voyeurism, or laziness. <p>A portrait is like a conversation. You can have one with yourself, or with somebody else, but you can't have/take one without the subject's knowing (but not necessarily willing) participation. <p>A portrait is a "face" shown to you, not just seen in passing... t

<i> a photograph of someone who knows they are being photographed. Right?</i><P>

No. I don't think the term portrait implies that the subject know they are being photographed. At least to me, that's not an essential qualifier.

I too think that the fact the someone 'knows or not they are being photographied' doesn't qualify a portrait. In most portraits I shot, people don't know. I am using a waist level finder with enough natural, it needed long practice though :o). On the other hand, most of the time there is a human exchange between those people and me, regardless of the camera.<p>

IMO, a portrait is more about to try to define or try to make the viewer 'understand' the photographied character, choosing appropriate focal length, angle and Dof; composing image with his/her wrinkles, attitude, clothes or immediate surrounding (can be tools (s)he uses, place (s)he works or lives...). With attention not to be too much distracted by anything else than the character who has to remain the center of attention for the viewer (which is not the case of street photography, where, IMO, the surrounding has much of importance).

I understand your point, in most of the cases that I can imagine a portrait implies that the subject "knows".... ok. But, still I do not think that you can have a concrete definitino or that there is any interest in a strict definition.

 

My opinion, is that you have to see if a photo is a portrait or not based on the individual photo.

'portrait' comes from old french verb 'pourtraire' (with latin root), used both as: 'to milk' a cow or 'to draw' (which in english seems to cover both definition of 'pourtraire').

<I>'to milk' a cow </i><P>

 

Well that certainly explains some of the ugly bride shots I've seen (and taken myself!) ;-)

:o))

Tom, if I take a photo of an elderly relative in the hospital, one who no longer recognizes what is around them, but who I was very close to for many years, is that not a portrait?

That would be a personal momento. Regard Avedon's portraits of his father as the man was dying. The entire sequence was one long portrait effort. Avedon's father new his son well enough, I imagine to know he would be photographing him up until, and probably after his death. I dare say your friends know you to be a non stop sort of guy with a camera, and as my friends know, when I am there with a camera, their picture will be made. This may be enough to qualify those images technically as portraits. Other criteria might come into play at that point, in order to satisfy my own definition of <i>my</i> portrait work.<p>Mike D. could you give some examples of your own portraits made of unknowing subjects? I'm sure your style of spontaneous personal work (as compared to Jeff's more direct approach) might be a serious challenge to my premise.<p>"<i>I don't like the implicit perjorative in some of the words you have artfully chosen </i>". Excellent, then I have chosen my words well (at least to satisfy my intent). And thank you for chosing "artful" as your descriptor of my motivations. I was, as you surmise, being intentionally contentious. I like to disagree with smart people. I like to have my mind changed.<p>I also like the "cow milking" metaphor. I'm sure the cow (and a portrait subject) knows when it's being milked... t

I just photographed a three week old baby. They don't know what a camera is, can't see more than 12 inches in front of them, hasn't given consent...is that a portrait?

The "relationship" between photographer and subject has to be consensual--both have to be aware of the camera's presence.

<i>...a three week old baby. They don't know what a camera is, can't see more than 12 inches in front of them, hasn't given consent...is that a portrait?</i> Could the baby see you? Did you have a camera in front of your face? Were you behaving differently than the other people who were interacting with the baby? Then I'd call it a portrait. My premise has nothing to do with consent, only awareness, and I place no significance on the level of sophistication in that awareness. And besides, how do you know what a baby's level of awareness actually is? Certainly the child cannot communicate verbally with you... how do you know what he/she is thinking? My dog is thinking things that I may never know, but she certainly behaves differently when I point my camera at her than when I am empty handed. Hence, the photo of your baby friend, and my dog, are <i>also</i> portraits... t<p>This question came to me while surfing the "portrait" section of the photo.net critique forum. Many people apparently think that <i>any</i> photograph of a person is a portrait. I began to formulate what for me, a minimum requirement for a photographic "portrait" might be, and this was it: The person photographed must be aware they are being photographed. I still like it... t<div></div>

Tom, I still don't understand where your definition comes from. It's not a dictionary definition, and it's not one I've seen used by photographers or any books.

"Were you behaving differently than the other people who were interacting with the baby? Then I'd call it a portrait."

 

me too.

A portrait is a portrayal.

 

In depicting an accurate portrayal, it is always helpful, but not necessary, to

have the consent and cooperation of the subject at hand.

 

Unless the characteristics of your subject are well known, it is difficult to judge

whether or not your portrayal is accurate.

 

I suppose if I were surveying someone from afar for long enough and got to

know them well enough, I could in time create an accurate portrait.

You mean I've finally had an original thought?... t

Is there a candid portrait?

 

eg. A friend of mine is looking away, I am ready with the camera and when he turns to face me, I snap. He realises one split of a second late or the same moment that I have taken his photo, does it make a difference?

 

What I think is important in the portrait is the intention of the photographer, if the intention is to portray the specific person and character then it is a portrait (he knows it or not). If I am treating the other as an abstract face, then it is not...

 

But what I 've just written makes things more complicated...

accurate? Accurate this morning over coffee, or accurate this afternoon after that person had a haircut, or just had a fight with their spouse, or brain surgury? Accurate ten years from now? Accurate 10 minutes from now? Have you ever heard this: "I don't look like that! That doesn't look like me!". <p>"<i>Unless the characteristics of your subject are well known, it is difficult to judge whether or not your portrayal is accurate"</i><p>...Even if the characteristics of your subject are well know, is that knowledge accurate and unchanging? Do you actually know anything about Whoopie Goldberg after seeing her in a tub of milk, that you didn't know before that "portrait" was made? Was it an accurate portrait, or was it a fiction? Does it reveal personality or personna, illusion or fact? <p>"All photographs are accurate, none of them is the truth"...(was that Avedon?) t

intentions or results? <p>Intentions of the artist are almost irrelevant to the viewer of that work, except in academic and commercial concerns. The artist's intention frequently has no relevance to a personal experience of art, unless that intention is imposed on the experiencing of the work, either verbally or in explicit language embedded or associated with the work. It may be an issue for the artist, but not to those engaged in the secondary experiencing of that artwork. I think this is especially true of what we are discussing here; the photographic portrait. Do you title your portraits with anything other than perhaps the name of the subject?<p>Duane Michaels and Chris Verene do this, but they are subverting the portrait to other ends: narrative, social analysis, mythology and symbolic metaphor... t<div></div>

No, Tom, I do not know anything more about Whoopie Goldberg after seeing

her in a tub of milk.

 

But Annie and Whoopie probably do.