Good Portrait Photography

[benjiboy]

I don't know. Very few, if any photo portraits I've seen by "great" photographers communicate anything profound about the subject. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just making an observation regarding the portraits I've seen.

As you quite rightly remark Michael very few even "great" photographers ever reveal their sitters soul however that's what they should be striving to achieve, to show what the person is like inside.

 

[Worker 11811]

Portraits aren't just about showing someone's exterior face that they shown to the World, but more about trying to reveal their soul .

I get it but I don't necessarily agree.

A photograph... any photograph... can only capture a discrete moment in time.
Any good photograph transmits a message or tells a story.

A good portrait will tell a story about a person at a particular moment in time but I don't necessarily agree that it can tell the viewer about anything beneath the surface.

 

[blansky]

If you wish to be a famous photographer, take pictures of famous people.

When Karsh or any great photographer photographs famous people, we are instantly attracted to it because we "know" that person. And we know that person is famous. And we feel connected in some strange ways to famous people. Quirk of human nature.

Karsh was a studio photographer in Ottawa, the capital of Canada, and as a way to maintain the carriage trade of his city, he tracked down famous people coming through town and tried to arrange time to photograph them. He was a smart promoter and a great photographer, and he expanded his famous people photographs into a number of good books.

My theory of a great portrait is that is should reveal a person in some way, but the problem with doing it with famous people and especially actors, is that we have preconceived ideas due to he characters they play, so we really have no idea if it's a revealing portrait at all. I've said this before if you transpose an "unfamous"person into that exact shot, does it stand out. If it does its a great portrait. If not it isn't.

Probably the most defining portraits we see are actually done by photojournalists, migrant mother, Afghan lady, etc, partly because it takes us to another place and exposes the human condition.

But the bottom line is a great photograph is usually in the eye of the beholder. We put our own "stuff" in there, even when it may not have been in the essence of the soul of the subject.

 

[cliveh]

Blansky, nice post and good to see you back on APUG.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

You're back!

:w00t:

 

[Bob Carnie]

late to this thread.... but Mike hits it on the head.... looks like pretty much the same person...

Blimey. Most of them look like they've been taken by the same person. Maybe they're the digital ones! And as others said, it some travel thing. Loads more famous portrait photographers out there I think.

 

[canuhead]

I'm not sure I would call McCurry a great portrait photographer, in spite of the attention that That Picture has garnered. I would put early Annie in the mix over the ones in that list and even though her subjects were her family, Sally Mann would be better as well.

 

[naaldvoerder]

I see here Steve McCurry and some HDR photos. I don't like HDR in portraits, technique is so aggressive that I don't see the subject/person.

I fully agree with you on the HDR. It's extremely ugly in portraits. The Afgan Girl is a stunning photo.

 

[blansky]

Blansky, nice post and good to see you back on APUG.

Thanks. I never really left.