Classical Portraiture

[ColColt]

I posted a few portraits I had taken on a FB forum and one fellow asked for some guidance on classical portraits. I'm not sure what that means in that I've always taken portraits the same way I did back in the 70's and 80's. This was a couple he was talking about but there were others.

I'm not sure how to answer him.

 

[AgX]

I assume with classical portrait the light setting could be meant, consisting of main-, fill- and hair-light.

 

[ColColt]

Could be. Many times I didn't use two lights but rather one bare bulb light in a light modifier and a 42" white reflector and small Novatron light on a boom inside a mini-Apollo for hair light.

 

[tedr1]

This is a huge subject and one that I would like to understand better myself. I like learning from books and one of the ones I can recommend is Techniques of Photographic Lighting by Norman Kerr, it is about lighting in general and covers portraits, it does cover the fundamentals of lighting. Amazon has a copy for not very much https://www.amazon.com/Technique-Ph...9&keywords=technique+of+photographic+lighting

 

[ColColt]

Reading and experimentation along with keeping notes is how I mostly learned. Wedding/Portrait photographers like Ed Pierce and Monte Zucker were an influence as well. Lighting setups were swayed by looking at the masters as Rembrandt and Vermeer.

 

[TSSPro]

MONTE ZUCKER!!! HA! I think that I still have a collection of VHSs of his from the 80s of him selling a portrait lighting/modifier system (vignetters, mirrors, and diffusion enough for all of us!). Not going to lie, though, Zucker was a useful resource for learning and seeing the techniques that were being used at the time. Today, online resources like photography and lighting blogs, to include Strobist and others seems to drive the learning and aesthetic trends and techniques for wedding and portrait work. At one point in time I cared enough to follow all of the blogs and forums, but I have long since lost interest in reading about the things that I would rather be playing with and doing them myself. I, too would recommend as mentioned above: look to the masters. Light hasn't changed and the classics are just that- classic.

All the best and look forward to seeing more of your work!

 

[frank]

Zucker was a master photographer for portraits of individuals and groups in a classic style. Anyone interested in portraits would do well to view his tutorials. The sad thing about some of today's photography youtube tutorials is that many are produced by instructors with just a little more experience themselves than a beginner, and they consider themselves to be experts.

 

[ColColt]

Zucker was a master photographer for portraits of individuals and groups in a classic style. Anyone interested in portraits would do well to view his tutorials. The sad thing about some of today's photography youtube tutorials is that many are produced by instructors with just a little more experience themselves than a beginner, and they consider themselves to be experts.

Exactly

 

[TSSPro]

Exactly

I have the same thought when I see younger photographers advertising themselves as "guru"s or experts when they haven't been even in the industry long enough to learn the skills they are trying to teach; charging good money to do so, as well.

I have a photographer out of WA that I still follow on social media b/c he is such an odd ball fellow- sells PS & LR actions and presets, speaks all over the country, dabbled in LF photography, fiction writing, weddings & portrait photography, ran for congress, advocates for who knows what politically- I think this guy is a Constitutionalist and staunch non-secular conservative- but in general I look to him when I need a laugh. (and I'm not making a qualitative judgment, he just strikes my funny bone the right way ) And in case you were wondering http://seimstudios.com/ and www.callmegav.com/

 

[Gargan]

MONTE ZUCKER!!! HA! I think that I still have a collection of VHSs of his from the 80s of him selling a portrait lighting/modifier system (vignetters, mirrors, and diffusion enough for all of us!). Not going to lie, though, Zucker was a useful resource for learning and seeing the techniques that were being used at the time. Today, online resources like photography and lighting blogs, to include Strobist and others seems to drive the learning and aesthetic trends and techniques for wedding and portrait work. At one point in time I cared enough to follow all of the blogs and forums, but I have long since lost interest in reading about the things that I would rather be playing with and doing them myself. I, too would recommend as mentioned above: look to the masters. Light hasn't changed and the classics are just that- classic.

All the best and look forward to seeing more of your work!

Monte Zucker learnead from Joe Zeltsman, Zeltsman's book on portraiture (lighting and posing) is free on the internet: http://blog.kitfphoto.com/Zeltsman/chapter-01.html

(my first post, Hello Apug)

 

[HiHoSilver]

Col., the two portraits were some of the first work I'd seen from you & was more than a little impressed. Whoever it was you learned from, you learned well.

 

[TSSPro]

Monte Zucker learnead from Joe Zeltsman, Zeltsman's book on portraiture (lighting and posing) is free on the internet: http://blog.kitfphoto.com/Zeltsman/chapter-01.html

(my first post, Hello Apug)

Thanks for the link- It's an interesting resource!

 

[ColColt]

Many thanks for the commendations, Silver, as always. I think the way we photograph in part come from within-the way we see a subject, the lighting, the way we know film will record it along with what we've seen in the past, be it the old masters such as Rembrandt, or masters such as Ed Pierce and Zucker. I love old classic portraiture whether it's studio or just available light.

 

[tnp651]

This is an old thread but here's a link to Monte Zucker on lighting and posing: http://www.montezucker.com/articles.html

 

[fotografnunta]

Interesting view. Nice pictures from long ago