Facial expression

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>This, is the definition according to the encyclopedia:</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You seem to have picked fairly carefully. Encyclopedias aren't the place to look for word definitions anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Dictionary.com: a likeness of a person, especially of the face, as a painting, drawing,or photograph </p>

<p>Merriam-Webster: a pictorial representation of a person usually showing the face<br>

<br>

Farlex: A likeness of a person, especially one showing the face<br>

Oxford Dictionary, often regarded as definitive: A painting, drawing, photograph, or engraving of a person, especially one depicting only the face or head and shoulders.<br>

<br>

Vocabulary.com: A portrait is a portrayal of a person, usually showing the person's face (but not always). <br>

<br>

Cambridge Dictionary: a painting, photograph, or drawing of a person<br>

<br>

MacMillan Dictionary: a painting, drawing, or photograph of someone, especially of their face only<br>

<br>

YourDictionary.com: a representation of a person, esp. of the face, drawn, painted, photographed, or sculptured</p>

<p>Collins English Dictionary: a painting, drawing, sculpture, photograph, or other likeness of an individual, esp of the face</p>

<p>Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: a painting, drawing, or photograph of a person<br>

<br>

It's even the same thing in French:<br>

<br>

Dictionary LaRousse: Représentation de quelqu'un par le dessin, la peinture, la photographie, etc.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not one dictionary definition references "expression." And dictionaries are where one looks for definitions.<br>

</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>As a result of all that, the portrait I posted above is, by every dictionary definition I can find, a portrait, even though there is no discernible expression.</p>

[robert100]

like i said................"not if you ask the "experts" at photo net"

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>However, if you go to the photo,net gallery page and do a search using the portrait as the <strong>“tag”</strong>, among many images pulled up, you'll find this one: ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you're oversimplifying the purpose of "tagging" which is primarily used (for me at least) more as a general and bit broad way to get folks to look at one's photos whether they're an expert or not on defining a genre of photography.</p>

<p>You know, make it so anyone swinging a cat will hit something that may or may not look like a portrait if only you tagged it that way.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Social-Emotional Agnosia among other expression recognition inabilities is another issue that needs to be addressed on this topic and may or may not be part of a photographer/subject condition. Just FYI.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-Emotional_Agnosia<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunted_affect</p>

<p>Another reason I suggest to improve upon the ability to discern and anticipate effectively facial expressions in a subject and whether a subject has that ability to emote with the face study or at least read "Cartooning the Head and Figure" by Jack Hamm.</p>

<p>It has an entire page gallery showing all the possible facial expressions reduced to its simplest form and that being the line which is about all that's going to be seen when trying to anticipate whether a subject is going to emote with their face before you photograph them. You're suppose to get a feel, an impression through their timing of when this person being photographed is about to express with their face. Reduce their face to lines as is done in cartooning.</p>

<p> </p>

[robert100]

the question was "how much does facial expression .....(etc) ......."portrait".

 

regardless of how much you enjoy cartoons, the answer to the question which was asked, is "there doesn't

even need to BE a facial expression in a "portrait".

 

And despite people on photonet throwing dead cats at each other, and the approach i used in my initial

response, in which i deliberately sought out and used a "back of the head no face" image from photonets own

data base, this "no face needed in a portrait" is not just a photo.net concept. It is also a "working

professional's concept", and despite the explosion all over that page which came from one of the photonet

"experts". I was totally well aware of that when I posted my response, deliberately limiting it to a photonet

example at the time.

 

The PPOC and PPOA both, among their annual awards, have an award which goes to the "portrait

photographer of the year". There is no requirement for the images entered, by working professional portrait

photographers who are members of those associations, in the "portrait" category, to include a face. Thus,

also, no need for a facial "expression" of any nature. Cartooned or otherwise.

 

Although your information is "interesting", it isn't needed in order to answer the original question.

 

If indeed the original poster had asked a question along the lines of "how much does facial expression have an impact on you in a portrait in which the person's face is the prominent feature....?" That would be a totally different question. And one to which your answer would provide interesting insight.

 

Don't ask how far it is to Texas if you're headed for Oklahoma.

 

And if you think the need for accurately asking specific questions is "nit picky", remind me never to hire you to write software or design a web page/

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Photographer Fred Lyon even has a book and a current local exhibition called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/San-Francisco-Portrait-City-1940-1960/dp/1616892668"><em>San Francisco, Portrait of a City: 1940–1960.</em></a></p>

<p>The various uses of the word "portrait" are nothing new.</p>

<p>I don't think the need for accurately asking specific questions is "nit picky", though I had no trouble discerning what Michael was asking about and enjoyed the substantive part of the discussion that ensued, including some relevant examples.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

 

<blockquote>

<p>regardless of how much you enjoy cartoons, the answer to the question which was asked, is "there doesn't even need to BE a facial expression in a "portrait".</p>

</blockquote>

Never said I enjoyed cartoons, robert. I included it as a way for those to study and understand what makes a face register as a facial expression. There are a few famous photographers and fine artists that started out studying cartooning in its many forms.

 

But I get your point that a portrait doesn't have to have a facial expression in order to win a photography award.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Although your information is "interesting", it isn't needed in order to answer the original question.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's clear you didn't read the original question. Here it is...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>How much does facial express matter to your perception of a portrait photo?</strong><br /> Does a smile, scowl, or neutral expression matter? or is <strong>one subject to more interpretation than another thereby thought to be more artistic?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>My input was addressing perception/interpretation of facial expression and whether it can be considered more artistic which I provided rather relevant insight by providing excerpts from a book on cartooning the face that shows how we humans easily pick up on facial expression based body language that can be easily detected with as little as dots, dashes and check marks in the surround of single line oval shaped enclosure that resembles a face in it's simplest form. If you missed that link I'll post it again.</p>

<p>http://terahdrawing.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/hamm_faces.jpg</p>

<p>If you don't see different expressions with each dot, dash & check mark drawing then you may be one of those that don't quickly pick up on seeing faces in clouds, trees, etc. which is why I provided the wiki links above. Again all is relevant to the subject of the value of seeing or not seeing the importance of facial expressions in portraits and whether it can be considered as part of an <strong>artistic expression</strong> of a photo.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And if you think the need for accurately asking specific questions is "nit picky", remind me never to hire you to write software or design a web page/</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And how is that relevant to the subject of the importance of facial expressions in portrait photography?</p>

[LineMartel]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2361079">Fred G.</a><a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub8.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /><img title="Current POW Recipient" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/trophy.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 17, 2014; 05:05 p.m.</p>

 

<p>Anticipate. Empathize. And be prepared for it by giving that expression you sense may come photographic space and story to work.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p><strong>Exactly!!</strong><br>

Expressions can be subtle</p>

<div></div>

[LineMartel]

<p>....... or extravagant.....they are telling a story and are always present. I have never shot models, but would think that if I was, I would be looking for a good "actor". Sincerity in the emotion is the essence.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[jasonjherring]

<p>I think it is absolutely critical... photography is nothing more than visual storytelling and facial expression can be such an important part of the story...</p><div></div>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I just try and make sure their facial expressions are real and not forced. As I photograph kids for a living this can be a challenge as some parents want their kids to smile. I ask them not to interfere and let their personalities come through first. Same with my travel portraits. Most of my favourite images don't have smiles. </p>

<p><img src="https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4138/4825518739_c7d3f27daa_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5597/15303872890_5e1a2bae82_c.jpg" alt="" /></p>