Portraits - what makes is good or bad

[sridip_nag1]

<p>Over the years, I've learned / been taught that a good pleasing portrait is one that is not always dead nuts tack sharp, except of course for the eyes. With a Nikon D800E and say Nikkor 85mm f/1.4, you get some razor sharp detail of the entire face, with all it's glorious details. This is not always pleasing, right?<br>

Or is getting absolute sharpness really the only thing that makes for a good portrait and photograph in general. I personally don't think so. To me, content is king, however, I have discussion with others that think 'sharpness' is all that matters.<br>

What do you people on this forum think. </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Leaving aside commercial considerations, such as actor headshots, PR photos, etc., a portrait works best when it conveys something. Technical aspects are relevant only in how they support what the image is conveying. Sharpness certainly isn't the primary issue. There's a <a href="http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ph/web-large/DP106541.jpg">great Walker Evans self-portrait </a>in which sharpness is totally missing.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I don't even recall who I'm paraphrasing, but the general idea is: I'd much rather have a slightly soft portrait that tells the right story than a razor sharp image that says all the wrong things about the subject.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Depends on who is paying the freight...if a man wants to show masculinity, power, ...absolute sharpness of all features isn't necessarily flattering...for instance what if he has unsightly big ears or nasal hairs? Women prefer less aging wrinkles, no signs of facial hair, etc. So, IMHO, sharpness of the desired features may make the image more memorable or treasured - but when it encroaches into areas the subject prefers to not have emphasized, it destroys the value. Of good value, but often underlooked by people who don't make a living exclusively thru portrait photography, is a good makeup assistant. Although I love images of my subjects to be "sharp"...it doesn't extend to sharpness of all their features.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p><em>content is king - </em>In general, I agree. It should be about content first of all (regardless for the type of photography). But linked directly to that is the presentation; the way you present the content is as much part of that content (or better said, your view on that) as the actual subject itself.<br>

Sharpness, softness, vignetting, contrast - they're not just technical aspects but they 'set the scene'. They're how you present the content, and create an atmosphere in which the viewer will perceive your intent. A pin-sharp portrait communicates something else than a soft portrait. That's not a matter of right-versus-wrong, but a matter of intent, point of view. As Jeff said, it's how you convey something, and the technical choices do play their part there. You cannot fully seperate the technical concerns from the content or artistic considerations.<br>

So, sharpness isn't ever "all that matters", but in context it can be awfully important, or incredibly unimportant. </p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Stieglitz had an image criticized at the NY Camera club as not sharp. He said it wasn't supposed to be. </p>

[John G.]

<p>I think it's silly to discuss successful portraiture in terms of 'sharpness'. </p>

<p>I'd sooner look for a Photographer to Subject connection.</p>

<p>Assuming we're talking about Fine Art Portraits, I might evaluate quality on what a viewer says about the image. I am presenting the image for an audience after all.</p>

<p>If someone looks at a portrait I did and says, "Who's that? Someone you know?"</p>

<p>Then I can assume I failed because I haven't created something greater than my relationship to the viewer. They aren't seeing past me.</p>

<p>Another test I might give it is to ask myself, "Will this photo have any value in fifty years?" If the answer is yes, then I have created something of lasting value. If not, not.</p>

<p>Finally, if I really want an in-depth opinion of a portrait, I would ask a painter. Their frame of reference is limited only by imagination and they should be tougher critics.</p>

<p>My 2cents anyway,</p>

<p>Good Luck!</p>

<p>J.</p>

 

[dave_wilson1]

When the person or publication paying for it likes it.

All else is opinion, everybody has one.

[bob_bill]

<p>Matt, I believe you may be referring to Ansel's quote "there's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." Thanks to one of our deceased great members, Nadine and also to Bob Bernardo, I often still screw on a softar filter. Putting it in the bag now to shoot it in her honor tomorrow. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> To me, content is king, however, I have discussion with others that think 'sharpness' is all that

matters.<P>

 

Most of the portraits I make are of strangers I encounter on the street. As a viewer, I enjoy looking at

photographs that withhold some information and pose questions, rather than supplying a complete set of

answers. That stirs my imagination and helps release narrative. Photographs, especially portraits, that are about sharpness

rarely satisfy that aspect.<P>

 

In addition to the portrait below, <a href=

"http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/TL%20Faces%202011/">here is a set of portraits</a> I made in

one particular neighborhood in San Francisco. Sharpness was not on my mind when making them.<P>

 

 

<center>

.<P>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2013%20photos/Shirt.jpg"><BR>

<i>

San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2015

</i>

<P>

.<P>

</center>

[sjmurray]

<p>Having done casual, "non-scripted" type portraits all my life, I agree with the others above. Specifically, for me, I try to capture a moment where there is some "energy" conveyed from the subject to the camera. Absolute sharpness is not the prime factor. Sometimes sharpness can be an integral part of the portrait if you are trying to enhance age, "grittiness," character, and so forth.</p>

[savagesax]

I use soft filters. My favorite is the Softar 1/2 or the Softar 1 for older people.