The essential quality of a portrait that MUST be there

[rachelfoster]

I know portraiture has been discussed to death, but I was wondering what people

think is THE most important quality to capture in a portrait? How would you

describe it? How do you get it?

[ellis_vener_photography]

It's like porn, I know it when I see it. I call it a sense of connection -- as a viewer the photo has to connect with me on the emotional, "aesthetic", and intellectual levels , but quantifying it further is ultimately futile.

 

If you haven't seen them before, take a look at Arnold Newman's portraits, preferably in a book if not in a gallery or a museum, rather than just on-line.

[rachelfoster]

That's a good idea (Newman). I have also had a hard time articulating that most important quality and was wondering if anyone had had more luck in pinpointing or describing it than I.

[disneyry]

Hijacking the thread a bit, but Newman's portrait of Zero Mostel (the one where he's wearing a top hat, if there are others) is one of my favorite portraits ever.

[rachelfoster]

No hijack....especially if you can say why?

[Ian Taylor]

My unschooled view is that a portrait should:

 

- show a connection or collaboration between sitter and shooter

 

- show something about the character of the subject

[spanky]

It seems that one thing that defines a portrait is the distance between the subject and photographer. By this a mean the closer you are to the subject, the more likely it will be considered a portrait.

I've realized this due to a discussion on a street photograpy forum at flickr. It seems some believe that a close picture like the one below isn't really street photography even though it is a candid picture taken in a public place but rather a street portrait. I don't care one way or the other, but this is just to point out that there are many different approaches to portraits and just as many definitions.<div></div>

[randmcnatt]

Personality: the image has to let the subject say something about the subject.

[tonybeach]

Expression of emotion, followed by pose and/or composition, and then lighting.

 

Practice and luck.

[rachelfoster]

There seems to be a theme building that a portrait communicates something about who the person is. A connection between photographer and model (that translates into enabling a connection between the viewer and the model) is important.

 

Am I on the right track?

[tonybeach]

"Am I on the right track?"

 

Yes. Annie Leibovitz once said "Don't be afraid to fall in love with your subject."

[emre]

There are so many kinds of portraits that the only generalization that I can make is that it should pass the basic litmus test of being art: it should move you; make you want to study it.

[Norma Desmond]

I think, as others do, that personality and connection are key. Some of my favorite portraits

tell a story as well. Annie Liebowitz is really good at that. A lot of her more interesting and

emotional portraits are not traditional closeup shots. They locate the subject in meaningful

(even if staged) surroundings. I think an often-missed element of portraiture can be the

relationship between subject and environment. Also important to me is the right moment.

Often a meaningful expression comes when you least expect it, so be ready to grab it. That

wonderful glint in the eye can translate as a very important insight into someone's person. I

think intimacy is important, which is probably what Annie was getting at in talking about

falling in love.

[petemillis]

"THE most important quality to capture in a portrait?" - errrmmm, how about THE most important quality being the presence of a living subject?

 

I know a portrait would usually show the subject looking at and engaging with the photographer/painter/viewer, but is this really a quality that MUST be there? What if the person is shy or shifty or whatever and wouldn't look at the camera? Would this make it any less of a portrait or any less meaningful? After all, it would be a photograph depicting the subject's character. There may not be a connection to depict - in fact it may be a complete disconnection between subject and viewer, but it would nonetheless still be a portrait. I think!

 

Pete

[rachelfoster]

That brings up an interesting point: What does "connection" mean? Could it be a feeling that one has some sense of who the model is, even if that's shy?

[tonybeach]

It is up to the photographer to establish the connection, not necessarily with the subject, but with the viewer.

[inoneeye]

<p>very good point Anthony..... Many 'successful' portraits give the viewer an insight into

themselves as well. A strong portrait often says something about our identity while

revealing the sitter. A photographer reliant upon making a living at portraiture may choose

to be less concerned with a general audience and gear their style to a client. Annies client

was a more general audience and she managed to develop a style that reached out beyond

the sitter. The portrait of John and Yoko was very powerful to me as a young man. It has

since been driven into the ground through over exposure. At the time i saw myself and my

relationships in that image. In the same breath it was exposing John and Yoko and was

very genuine in doing so. <br>

Avedon through directness and simplicity managed to create portraits that gave some of

us a strong sense of revelation toward the indivdual being photographed. I would venture

to say that many respond to these images by comparing the sitter to themselves.<br>

I think Alfred Stieglitz <i> Georgia O'keeffe A Portrait </i> is another approach that is

noteworthy. Although the book/exhibit was published long after his passing it was an out

of the box idea. He was not the first to do it but it was my first exposure to the idea of

using multiple images to convey a single person. After seeing an exhibit of these photos in

the late 70s i began to photograph and display portraits in 3. I found that the possibilities

of capturing an individual and storytelling are greatly enhanced. A side affect of doing x3

images has been a more thorough understanding of my sitter and ability to make a more

informed and thoughtful single image portrait.

[petemillis]

Rachel, for me connection is when I can look at a portrait and I feel I could know or would like to know that person. Connection can be with someone who I don't like the look of, whose expression reminds me of feelings I don't like from past experiences and makes me feel uneasy. Or it can be someone or an expression who I do like the look of, that makes me feel comfortable, that makes me feel I want to meet them. Or they have features that I find attractive. Or maybe I see features or an expression that reminds me of myself - and I imagine I am looking at some part of me. Connection occurs for me whenever I look at a portrait and it makes me think about it and want to look more, or even be repulsed by it. And what connects me won't connect everyone else and vice versa. The only time I feel there is no connection is when I look at a portrait and feel nothing. But even then I suppose there could be some connection in that it has actually made me feel nothing!

 

Fred brought up a good point about location of the subject as well - some locations will reinforce the connection. If it's the sort of location I find attractive (wild open space, mountains, sea etc) then I will connect more strongly as I actually see the subject in that location. But some locations may have the opposite effect - a portrait in an office for example. I hate offices and have a dislike for a lot of people I worked with in offices. But I also have strong fond memories of some people I worked with. So a portrait in an office would reinforce my positive feelings toward a subject I liked the look of, and it would reinforce my negative feelings towards a subject I didn't like the look of!