Street Portrait

Norma Desmond · February 11, 2011

I have an abiding respect and affection for John Crosley and his ways but, and I think he would agree, one John Crosley in this world is enough! His storytelling to go along with his photos is unique and often uncanny. I'm glad others do it very differently and, though I don't want to project onto him, I sense he's glad others do things differently as well.

Brad_ · February 11, 2011

>>> There is a difference between setting someone up for a portrait, choosing a background, a pose,

focus, getting the subject to smile or react, or grabbing a couple quick shots that turn out to look like

portrait shots.

Indeed there is. And at the root it's about intention and control. Rather than redefining a grab shot after the

fact as portraiture simply because there appears to be eye contact or engagement.

jgredline · February 11, 2011

Javier, sure. It's about the process of engagement towards purposefully making a well-considered portrait, being in control of the subject and circumstances. Kind of like taking your kids to a portrait studio.

</blockquote>

thanks Brad. I will have to disagree with you on this. i will also say that these are the simplest ones to make, atleast for me. maybe it is because i have been working with homeless people for over 10 years now and am used to engaging with folks. Anyway, while this may be what a street portrait is and certainly it is for you, i prefer a more varied selection. for you this seems to be a systematic approach to making a street portrait. for me, and what i believe a street portrait is, i will stick with my examples.

jgredline · February 11, 2011

A rigid definition of any category is troublesome, because I prefer those lines to remain blurry. When is a street portrait not a street portrait and another kind of photo, and when does a street photo SEEM LIKE a portrait, whether it IS or not? For me, photographs are more about SEEMING than BEING. So I give a little leeway here and there. Sometimes, I will judge (?) or determine (?) what's a portrait by what I see rather than what I may know about how it was taken. In that case, if it seems like a street portrait then it may as well be a street portrait and if the photographer wants to come along and tell me otherwise, that's fine. I may or may not listen to what he has to say. Just like a photographer may want to tell me his subject was sad and have that influence me. It usually doesn't, especially if I don't see sadness.

Some photos defy categorization. I've started out thinking I was taking many a portrait that wound up seeming both like a portrait and like a not-portrait. I think the same is true with a lot of photos of people on the street, one way or the other. So . . .

</blockquote>

fred, this is beautifully written and i agree with 99% of it. well said.

Norma Desmond · February 11, 2011

Thanks, Javier. It's great to explore these differences of opinion.

Be warned, next time I'm going to aim for 110% agreement! Deal? LOL.

MarieH · February 12, 2011

Got to agree with Javier. It bears repeating Fred.

Norma Desmond · February 12, 2011

Thanks, Catherine. You're right about this thread. A gem!

Brad_ · February 12, 2011

>>> i will also say that these are the simplest ones to make, atleast for me.

I understand you like keeping things simple and that's great if it works for you. But for me, that's neither here nor there for

producing photos that rise to the notion of portraiture. In the end, I look for quality in a well-executed portrait.

What I like to see is the photographer being in command of the process, subject, and environment. Rather than those being

in command of the photographer. And accepting the circumstances that may be thrown at you - bad light, poor composition with

extraneous elements/limbs/etc sneaking in the frame, etc, etc.

>>> for you this seems to be a systematic approach to making a street portrait.

Is that bad? Honestly, after thinking about many well known portrait photographers, I can't think of any that do not employ

some kind of systematic approach to their craft. From engagement, to thinking about light, to thinking about composition

and what is and is not in the frame, to getting their subject to react in the desired manner to reveal whatever character the photographer seeks being revealed. Maybe I'm wrong on that and the

well known portraitists like Newman, Ritts, Avedon, Dorfmann, Arbus, etc just do a quick grab and get lucky on all of the

other considerations. I doubt it.

In a few days I'm going to see a series of 100 Mapplethorp portraits. Something tells me I'll detect some kind of systematic

approach to managing the variables. Rather than taking a shot and letting those fall where they may.

<center> Susan and Stan in the Tenderloin</center>

jgredline · February 13, 2011

Brad

I understand you like keeping things simple and that's great if it works for you. But for me, that's neither here nor there for producing photos that rise to the notion of portraiture. In the end, I look for quality in a well-executed portrait.

</blockquote>

And this is what makes your photos yours and I think it is great. We just have different styles.

What I like to see is the photographer being in command of the process, subject, and environment. Rather than those being in command of the photographer. And accepting the circumstances that may be thrown at you - bad light, poor composition with extraneous elements/limbs/etc sneaking in the frame, etc, etc

</blockquote>

Not sure I follow, since I / the photographer am still in charge of releasing the shutter. If anything, I think the way I go about it is more RAW street portrait. Maybe I am wrong in this but it seems more pure to me.

Is that bad? Honestly, after thinking about many well known portrait photographers, I can't think of any that do not employ some kind of systematic approach to their craft. From engagement, to thinking about light, to thinking about composition and what is and is not in the frame, to getting their subject to react in the desired manner to reveal whatever character the photographer seeks being revealed. Maybe I'm wrong on that and the well known portraitists like Newman, Ritts, Avedon, Dorfmann, Arbus, etc just do a quick grab and get lucky on all of the other considerations. I doubt it.

</blockquote>

No, not at all. Anytime someone uses a systematic approach to something weather good or bad, it will give you the best results for what you or i am trying to achieve. As far as those other togs are, I really do not know who they are. I am sure I should know, but I don't..Maybe this is part of my problem. :)

But here is what I think and this is my opinion only. Keep in mind that I am as amateur as they come. While I love photography and it truly is a passion, I am more into the pure raw captured emotion that comes from an image that is not completely set up. Sure I take composition and try and keep to the rules as they do make for a better picture, but those come secondly to capturing the ''moment''. So if it means getting a ''lucky shot'', then so be it. For the record, I also do not believe in luck. Luck is what one makes it.

As far as getting ''to know'' my subject before I pose him / her, I am just not into that. That to me seems dis-honest. To befriend someone to get a good picture of him or her is just not me.

Rather like I said above in my first post of this thread. If I see someone I want to shoot, I will be upfront and ask them If I can take their picture and express what ever my reason might be. 9 out of 10 times, people are cool with it. I get there name, give them my card and offer them a print or an email pic. the whole thing is done in a few minutes if that.

With my second approach, if I see someone coming, I will say something to the affect of, ''Hey, how about a smile, or another appropriate adjective, or simple eye contact and it is a click and go. I smile and I am off on my way. All in a few seconds. No name or card exchanged. Sometimes it will lead into my number 1 approach....but not always.

With my third approach, it is simply point and shoot. I see someone I want to shoot, I simply shoot. I am never sneaky and I point to try and get my subject in the center and fill the frame. In fact I am so obvious, that most of the time, my subject will not notice me and or apologize for getting in my shot. This is perhaps the most pure and RAW which I love..

So for me this works. I know the vast majority will likely not agree with me, but this is what I like for me. We simply have different styles and this is what makes this hobby so cool. :)

MarieH · February 13, 2011

I wanted to try street portraiture this summer as a mean to getting out of my comfot zone and to contribute to bettering my 'street' technique in general. (have none yet) Brad you need to come back and tell us your impressions of Maplethorpe, either here or a new thread. I think I'm somewhat on the line with Javier as to his approach which will work best for me. It takes time to develop rapport with people,get to know them and set up 'composed' portraits as Brad appears to do. They are beautifully done and expressive, but people such as myself who don't spend a lot of time on the street, due to life responsibilites, probably will have to shoot on a more casual snap and go basis.

Norma Desmond · February 13, 2011

This is great. Thanks, Javier. What's interesting is that our styles and our opinions are very, very different. Yet we do agree on the openness of the category of portraiture. I don't find much purity in candidness. As a matter of fact, I more often see candid shots as the photographer hiding behind his camera rather than anything approaching honesty. I'm not referring to your own photos, many of which I like. I am, however, referring to a lot of so-called street photos. The same, of course, is true of more posed photos. Many are stiff and seem fake to me.

I tend not to work in studios so my portraits aren't as set up as many portrait photographers but they are not candid. I appreciate the balance and tension between pose and spontaneity that I can achieve that way. I think honesty and authenticity are NOT found in pose itself or in candidness itself. I think it's hard to achieve photographic authenticity and when it's achieved it's a combination of a lot of factors, but is not about the particular genre or even the particular approach. As I said in a companion thread, one can approach shooting someone on the street with the greatest of respect and care and still wind up with a very exploitive photo. Photography has to do with a lot more than intent. It has to do with seeing and with seeing photographically. One can capture what's genuine and one can also create what's genuine.

A candid portrait can be better or not than a posed portrait. And a well thought-out portrait can be better or not than a posed one.

Brad, one can shoot spontaneously and in a very spur-of-the-moment fashion, outside the studio and at the whim of the lighting conditions given him and still not merely "accept" the conditions given. A photographer knows what conditions he has and uses them to his advantage. In poor street light, a good photographer will not try to take the same kind of picture he would in a well-lit studio or on a nicely-lit, partially overcast day. Photographers don't just "accept" their conditions, they accept and adapt to them. They use them to their advantage. In an instant, someone can intuit how to use strong backlighting, motion, and an odd perspective to create a good street portrait.

The idea that a portrait is "kind of like taking your kids to a portrait studio" brought a smile to my face because I so disagree. The idea of a portrait, in so many significant ways, is NOTHING LIKE taking your kids to a portrait studio, thankfully.

MarieH · February 13, 2011

Its to late for me to edit: Javier, sure. It's about the process of engagement towards purposefully making a well-considered portrait, being in control of the subject and circumstances. Kind of like taking your kids to a portrait studio. I would like to try this in future as well, possibly when I retire and have more time to be a 'street' urchin. Not saying when that will be lol :) But it is an appealing idea which I am sure will yeild different results, and will be more arranged and from my p.o.v, which intrigues me.

I don't think Brad means kind of litterally 'Sears Portrait Studio" but more choosing your focal distance, background, aperture, pose etc.. rather than a quick snap? Meaning an arranged portrait shot from his p.ov, on how he wants to present his subject is what I'm thinking, No portable studios lol :)

MarieH · February 13, 2011

Its kind of why I will choose to use a 50mm or 35mm lens when I start out, to force me to make contact. Its too easy with a zoom to hang back and just snap. What's your opinion on focal distances?

Norma Desmond · February 13, 2011

Catherine, that's not what I meant. I didn't think Brad was thinking of a Sears studio. I mean just the idea of studio and setup at all. I'm saying thankfully portraiture includes stuff that is very UNLIKE even the best studio work.

MarieH · February 13, 2011

I was just kiddin Fred :) And what about color versus b&w...

Norma Desmond · February 13, 2011

Catherine, indeed! Seriously, though, another thought. Yes. I think the lens you use will have a great impact on your level of engagement. But there's something else to consider. Photographic engagement is different from personal and street engagement. And for photographic engagement, in addition to getting closer in it might be interesting to stay further out. Coming up with photos that are engaged even from more of a distance. A close-up portrait is one thing. A portrait that includes environment and a bit of a story is quite something else. If you can create an engaging photo/portrait (even if the subject is not engaged with you) with a little more distance, you will have accomplished something special as well.

chansonbleu · February 13, 2011

Javier: Not so sure engaging a person and befriending them before taking their portrait is dishonest. Speaking for myself, I don't photograph people I don't find interesting. I treat all subjects with respect, and enjoy the interaction as much if not more than the subsequent image.

Steve

Brad_ · February 13, 2011

>>> While I love photography and it truly is a passion, I am more into the pure raw captured emotion that comes from an image that is not completely set up. Sure I

take composition and try and keep to the rules as they do make for a better picture, but those come secondly to capturing the ''moment''.

And that's great. And that's what, for example, Garry Winogrand does really well, street photography. But I don't think most people that engage in SP or street

portraiture would classify what GW does as "street portraiture."

>>> As far as getting ''to know'' my subject before I pose him / her, I am just not into that. That to me seems dis-honest.

Kind of an strange comment on what constitutes dishonesty. Please explain. As one who goes out of my way to engage strangers on the street because of my love

of humanity, I find that really offensive. Many times it's as simple as saying, "I like your tats/glasses/purse/face/shoes/piercings/etc, can I take a portrait." Hardly

dishonest. If you're speaking to moral issues, it's a fair negotiation with both parties understanding what's going on and what the end result is. It's respectful and

dignified. As an aside, I think doing walk-by snaps of the "homeless" without engagement is undignified and dishonest.

>>> As far as those other togs are, I really do not know who they are. I am sure I should know, but I don't..Maybe this is part of my problem. :)

I'm really sorry to hear that. They were/are some excellent portrait photographers put out just off the top of my head. If you're trying to break new ground and

redefine what portraiture is, it would be good to understand who some of the masters are/were. If you were to take some classes and workshops on various

photography topics, you would expand your view about photography. And understand why portraiture is not merely taking candid pictures on the street with people in

them and calling them portraiture. You may want to call it that, but that comes from your lack of understanding. As a very personal aside addressing understanding, for me

learning about the craft and history photography is a life long endeavor. In six years I've taken seven photography classes at a local university and another three at a

local junior college. One of the seven was "environmental portraiture," it was about what I and others are doing now, not candid shots redefined as portraiture. Next

month I'm starting another one on portraiture. I also like workshops. One 3 day SF workshop last year I really enjoyed was about street portraiture. That same workshop was also put on in LA last year; it's a shame you missed it, I know you would have enjoyed it. All of these (classes and workshops) are taught by

people that are well-known in their field and superb photographers. Does that entitle me to define with the final word? Of course not and obviously not. But at least I'm

coming in with some understanding and desire to learn.

In the end it's about what one want's to call portraiture. It doesn't take much searching to find a somewhat broad consensus on that.

>>> Brad, one can shoot spontaneously and in a very spur-of-the-moment fashion, outside the studio and at the whim of the lighting conditions given him and still

not merely "accept" the conditions given. ... Photographers don't just "accept" their conditions, they accept and adapt to them.

Absolutely yes, one can. But I don't see that here much. Rather in many cases I see what looks like regular street photography of someone walking down the street being

redefined as "street portraiture." With what seems like little command of the circumstances.

>>> I'm saying thankfully portraiture includes stuff that is very UNLIKE even the best studio work.

Obviously (and I think you know this) I'm saying the same thing as we're talking about portraits taken on the *street* in a subject's *local* environment without lights, props, backdrops,

etc.

>>> Brad you need to come back and tell us your impressions of Maplethorpe, either here or a new thread.

Ha, that was a little bit tongue-in-cheek regarding about how he worked. Yes, I'm seeing his portraits this week, but from knowing about the artist, studying his work and

controversy of the past, etc, I'm already going in with a ton of respect.

<center>Cory, in the Tenderloin</center>

Brad_ · February 13, 2011

>>> I wanted to try street portraiture this summer as a mean to getting out of my comfot zone and to contribute to

bettering my 'street' technique in general.

Catherine, just keep shooting on the street doing regular street photography. That's how I started. After time, and when

your comfort level is raised a bit, you'll have even more interest and care about people and want to go deeper,

understanding who they are, what they're about, etc. That can be your transition into street portraiture.

By the way, I often write about the subjects I engage on my blogs. For me it's the engagement and learning I find rewarding. I have

so many "friends" on the street in San Francisco now as a result. Friends not in the social sense, but as people where there is a lot of

mutual respect and care flowing both ways.

<center> Ted, a Glide cook, in the Tenderloin</center>

jgredline · February 13, 2011

Steven

Javier: Not so sure engaging a person and befriending them before taking their portrait is dishonest. Speaking for myself, I don't photograph people I don't find interesting. I treat all subjects with respect, and enjoy the interaction as much if not more than the subsequent image.

Steve

</blockquote>

Thanks for the response and I apologize to anyone I may have inadvertently offended. My statement did not come out as intended. Having said that, I too love the engagement process and infact this is a huge part of what it is that I do on the street, but not for the purpose of taking a picture. Here I will give you an example. I met Terry last summer in Santa Monica at Palisades park. The way I met Terry was because I saw this lady crying on a bench, so i went to offer some help. He came from Ohio and found himself homeless, hungry and cold, something I have seen allot of, sadly. That day I was out handing out care packages. A care package is a bag I fill with a days worth of food, tooth brush and paste, wipes, cream, and chap stick. I will hand out 13 packages a day on weekends, usually twice a month...It may not seem like much, but for those folks it is like Christmas come early.. Well by the time I got to Terry I was out of care bags and felt pretty bad. Here was a guy who could really use one and nothing. So after spending a few minutes with him, I invited him to lunch, but he refused because of his appearance. ( He is a transvestite, he was the lady on the bench)...So I said, no problem. I left and came back a 1/2 hour later with a pizza and water. We ate together as the people around us where staring and one person even snapped our picture of which I personally did not care and Terry never noticed. After we were done eating, I asked him to take care of himself and left. As I was leaving he ''asked'' me if I wanted to take his picture. I said no, I would rather this picture stay in my mind. At that, he lit up with a huge smile. I never spoke of this particular event with anyone other than my wife. If ever there was an opportunity to take a cool unique picture, this was it and I chose not to. So to me sometimes the best pictures are the ones I never take. ''please, I am not tooting my own horn and hate talking about these things''..As for Terry, I ran into him a few weeks later and then a few months after that in Hollywood. SADLY he was worse and did not remember me any longer. But altleast for that one day, he knew someone cared about him....So my statement was coming from my own POV and again, I did not mean any offense to anyone.

jgredline · February 13, 2011

Brad

And that's great. And that's what, for example, Garry Winogrand does really well, street photography. But I don't think most people that engage in SP or street portraiture would classify what GW does as "street portraiture."

</blockquote>

Now GW i do know off and really enjoy his captures. :)

I'm really sorry to hear that. They were/are some excellent portrait photographers put out just off the top of my head. If you're trying to break new ground and redefine what portraiture is, it would be good to understand who some of the masters are/were. If you were to take some classes and workshops on various photography topics, you would expand your view about photography. And understand why portraiture is not merely taking candid pictures on the street with people in them and calling them portraiture. You may want to call it that, but that comes from your lack of understanding. As a very personal aside addressing understanding, for me learning about the craft and history photography is a life long endeavor. In six years I've taken seven photography classes at a local university and another three at a local junior college. One of the seven was "environmental portraiture," it was about what I and others are doing now, not candid shots redefined as portraiture. Next month I'm starting another one on portraiture. I also like workshops. One 3 day SF workshop last year I really enjoyed was about street portraiture. That same workshop was also put on in LA last year; it's a shame you missed it, I know you would have enjoyed it. All of these (classes and workshops) are taught by people that are well-known in their field and superb photographers. Does that entitle me to define with the final word? Of course not and obviously not. But at least I'm coming in with some understanding and desire to learn.

</blockquote>

Thanks for the names Brad. I woke up this morning with the intention of looking up their work. I am also not trying to redefine anything. I believe there is nothing new under the sun. As for classes, I will admit that I have considered them and I am sure I will benefit from taking a few.

Kind of an strange comment on what constitutes dishonesty. Please explain. As one who goes out of my way to engage strangers on the street because of my love of humanity, I find that really offensive. Many times it's as simple as saying, "I like your tats/glasses/purse/face/shoes/piercings/etc, can I take a portrait." Hardly dishonest. If you're speaking to moral issues, it's a fair negotiation with both parties understanding what's going on and what the end result is. It's respectful and dignified. As an aside, I think doing walk-by snaps of the "homeless" without engagement is undignified and dishonest.

</blockquote>

Brad, I am very sorry for the way it came out. I did not mean to imply that you where being dishonest. I explained my thoughts up above and meant it as a ''personal conviction to myself''. This is why I should not write when I am tired, so I humbly ask for forgiveness.

Norma Desmond · February 13, 2011

"If you were to take some classes and workshops on various photography topics, you would expand your view about photography. And understand why portraiture is not merely taking candid pictures on the street with people in them and calling them portraiture. You may want to call it that, but that comes from your lack of understanding."

I agree with Brad that learning and understanding is very significant when it comes to any art or craft. Learning in a school setting, however, may not be the only way. Learning by looking and reading can be just as important. Looking at other photographers' work is of special value. Balancing between that looking and not being unduly influenced is also of value. Depending on one's needs and desires, none of this is necessary, however.

I don't think Javier's and my (and I am familiar with every one of the photographers you mentioned) use of the word portrait comes from his or my lack of understanding any more than I think your insistence on limiting the word comes from an over-emphasis on a school-book type of very narrow and restricted understanding, which is what we often get in school.* It may simply be a difference that is really not a difference. It's just a word. It may be no more than that we choose to use it differently. We argue whether a photographer is anyone with a camera or someone who has earned money or reached a certain level of expertise. We argue whether or not this or that "thing" is art. Categories can be used descriptively or restrictively. They can be understood rigidly or more loosely. They can be used as a bludgeon. They can be used in order to devise exclusive classes or they can be used to welcome more diversity. Usage says something about the manner (not manners, just the way, the approach, the general tendency), not just the understanding, of the user.

*Lest you think I'm anti-school. I'm not. I've learned a lot in my classes over the years and am thankful to many a good teacher. I recognize the advantages of school, as well as the disadvantages or at least potential traps it can set.

Brad_ · February 13, 2011

Javier, no problem, we're good... :)

Fred, from your response, in the general sense, I wasn't implying (and even stated with an appropriate caveat) that learning "in school" is

the end-all be-all defining word on the subject. But is just one element in the learning process. Which also includes practicing

one's craft, reading, seeing exhibitions and shows at museums/galleries, having a wide circle of friends getting together in

discussion groups, viewing films, etc. BTW, and as a coincidence, yesterday I saw a large exhibition of Helen Levitt and Leo Rubenfien work at a

local museum. Some work I (and possible even the artist may, I suspect) would call portraiture,

some street, and some documentary. Rather than labeling everything portraiture. But if someone want's to label everything in the show in that manner because there are people in the

frame, that's fine. But I'll disagree.

I'm not using the "category" as a bludgeon, but rather to communicate about certain types of photography. Especially when

communicating with people starting out with their craft. I'm sure sports photographers have their views about their craft and are

probably rather restrictive. As do photographers who do commercial, wedding, motor-sports, documentary, landscape, glamour,

event, advertising, travel, etc photography. There is a common language used as a basis for understanding.

Fred, I think you're local, and I really enjoy and respect your photography a lot. Care to hook up for coffee sometime?

<center>Mark, at odds with Tenderloin Section 8 housing</center>

chansonbleu · February 13, 2011

Javier: Your image of Suzie exemplefies your connection with your subject. No doubt some photographers shoot for their ego rather than the experiance. It usually shows in their work. Some wedding photogs I've watched fall into this category.

Catherine: You have gotten some very good advice from forum members on pursuing street photography. May I add a little technical advice? Don't limit yourself to a single focal length. Using one exclusively as an exercise in understanding its strengths and limitations is a good idea. However there are times a 50mm viwe helps isolate subjects from distractions. And times a 28mm will allow you to get in front of distractions, or when you are in a tight spot. I like a fast wide to normal zoom. My 2 cents.<div></div>

chansonbleu · February 13, 2011

Working in a tight spot with wide angle.<div>

00YDFI-332003584.jpg.a0e4859c86b5fb0c2f5a2977116b15b9.jpg

</div>

Sign In

Street Portrait

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in