What is a portrait?

[blansky]

The degree of communication determines the strength of the image as a portrait.

However the strength of that communication may in fact be a false communication, that you as the viewer impose, or that the subject, or author falsely portray.

So you are looking at it as a piece of paper with a strong image and not legitimate portrayal of a person.

What if Migrant mother was a hired actress.

 

[removed account4]

The gallery photograph that prompted blansky's initial post and then this thread is one of many by illumiquest.

His work is very strong - when I see him posting I can generally count on at least an interesting photograph, and often a wonderful one.

But part of that strength is that his work challenges the preconception of what constitutes a portrait.

blansky's take on the matter is different than his. I'm surprised illumiquest was upset by that fact, because to me he seems to be very confident in his vision.

IMHO, if anyone reading this thread isn't a subscriber, illumiquest' photographs are reason enough to subscribe.

i agree matt, his work is wonderful and he exposes plates as if they were paper negatives in daylight or indoors with a flash.
the thing that i read that got him mad was the suggesting the wet plate process made his subject grotesque. ( which he later clarified )
similar things have happened in the gallery, when someone refered to a photographer's model as a prostitute ( either in the comments or via PM )
or the photographer himself refering to his model as "just another anorexic model" ... and they have caused similar problems.
i know i'd be pissed off if someone refered to someone i took the time to make a portirat of
as grotesque, or a hooker, ( and i would never refer to anyone i photographed as " just another anorexic model"
i have more respect for my subjects than to let stuff like that slide or say stuff like that myself.

 

[blansky]

i agree matt, his work is wonderful and he exposes plates as if they were paper negatives in daylight or indoors with a flash.
the thing that i read that got him mad was the suggesting the wet plate process made his subject grotesque. ( which he later clarified )
similar things have happened in the gallery, when someone refered to a photographer's model as a prostitute ( either in the comments or via PM )
or the photographer himself refering to his model as "just another anorexic model" ... and they have caused similar problems.
i know i'd be pissed off if someone refered to someone i took the time to make a portirat of
as grotesque, or a hooker, ( and i would never refer to anyone i photographed as " just another anorexic model"
i have more respect for my subjects than to let stuff like that slide or say stuff like that myself.

Interestingly when I first saw the picture my first reaction was to stand up for the subject. As in, he betrayed her.

My number one concern is always for the subject, and their self esteem, as they bare themselves to us, and when I first saw the picture my first thought was, he is more into his technique than he was caring about the feelings of his subject.

And my reaction was to say that the technique had a grotesque, then I said that's too strong a word, unpleasant affect on her.

Which is a good indication of how one picture can affect two people entirely differently.

 

[cliveh]

However the strength of that communication may in fact be a false communication, that you as the viewer impose, or that the subject, or author falsely portray.

So you are looking at it as a piece of paper with a strong image and not legitimate portrayal of a person.

Migrant mother may have been a hired actress.

True, but false or real if it communicates, it works in deception or sincerity. The Migrant mother is a good case in point, which I view as real, although I know it is posed; it is still a real life situation that communicates the message.

 

[blansky]

True, but false or real if it communicates, it works in deception or sincerity.

So your criteria is that a portrait doesn't have to be real as long as it does a good job pretending it's real.

Not arguing, just nailing down your feelings on it.

 

[cliveh]

So your criteria is that a portrait doesn't have to be real as long as it does a good job pretending it's real.

Not arguing, just nailing down your feelings on it.

No my criteria is that a portrait should communicate a sincerity of communication. However, I may be fooled by a good visual con artist.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

i agree matt, his work is wonderful and he exposes plates as if they were paper negatives in daylight or indoors with a flash.
the thing that i read that got him mad was the suggesting the wet plate process made his subject grotesque. ( which he later clarified )
similar things have happened in the gallery, when someone refered to a photographer's model as a prostitute ( either in the comments or via PM )
or the photographer himself refering to his model as "just another anorexic model" ... and they have caused similar problems.
i know i'd be pissed off if someone refered to someone i took the time to make a portirat of
as grotesque, or a hooker, ( and i would never refer to anyone i photographed as " just another anorexic model"
i have more respect for my subjects than to let stuff like that slide or say stuff like that myself.

Leave Stone out of this, as he's no longer here and can no longer defend himself from you. This discussion is about portraits. Not personal axes.

I know what's going on behind the scenes John...

 

[frank]

Blansky: Think of the raising of the flag photo on Iwa Jima.

 

[blansky]

Blansky: Think of the raising of the flag photo on Iwa Jima.

Same idea, but then we depart from portraits.

 

[blansky]

No my criteria is that a portrait should communicate a sincerity of communication. However, I may be fooled by a good visual con artist.

Basically what movies are. We humans are easily led into suspension of disbelief.

 

[frank]

It demonstrates success at being something that it isn't. I think that a portrait can be successful even when not being truthful, whatever that is.

 

[RobC]

No my criteria is that a portrait should communicate a sincerity of communication. However, I may be fooled by a good visual con artist.

or by your own perceptions which I think is the case for most of us. i.e. we will think what think and interpret it according to taste subconciously.

 

[cliveh]

or by your own perceptions which I think is the case for most of us. i.e. we will think what think and interpret it according to taste subconciously.

No, consciously.

 

[RobC]

Blansky: Think of the raising of the flag photo on Iwa Jima.

in my book thats a portrayal and not a portrait. People are offended by it because they believe a photograph should never lie. But in reality all photographs lie each and every one of them. They are all abstractions from the physical (and now virtual world) which are fundamentally altered in many ways. 3D to 2D. Misleading pespectives and size relationships, colour variations, stripping out colour and leaving black and white, changing tonal relationships in printing, air brushing etc etc etc etc.

But still people want to believe that photographs should be the truth. They ain't accepted in courts as evidence for good reason. So nearly all photographs are portrayals. i.e. the creators created impression to nake you believe what they want you to believe. And often the creator is deluded about their own work.

We could go into the ethics of photo journalism but these days with the internet and wifi from mobile phones, as soon as it happens we all have a fair idea of the truth of it if we want to look for it.

 

[tkamiya]

I recently paid good amount of money to have portraits of my girlfriend and I made. For this, we chose a local photographer who is skilled and who could take photographs that represent US. He is actually a nationally recognized person in portraiture.

What we didn't want was, "Look here, smile, snap. Look there now, smile, snap. Put your arm around her, snap" type of pictures. Our criteria was high as I fancy myself as an amateur portrait photographer. (go ahead and laugh, if you want...)

This is what portraits (of us) are for me: Photographs that represents US. Not just an accurate depiction of how we look but how we feel about us individually and as a couple together placed on paper. Yes, the images were technically superior to anything I could ever done. Poses, lighting, etc, etc, etc, were just perfect. Yes, the images were subtly altered. But only to an extent to reflect how we feel about ourselves. But best of all, they captured who we are.

I see many pictures of people that doesn't tell what kind of people they are, how they feel, and basically emotionless. TO ME, those are not portraits.

I just came in to this thread to give MY definition of portraiture. Everybody is free to agree or disagree.

Oh, another thing I believe in photography is, if I have to explain it, it failed. I think this applies to portraiture as well in more ways than one.

 

[RobC]

I recently paid good amount of money to have portraits of my girlfriend and I made. For this, we chose a local photographer who is skilled and who could take photographs that represent US. He is actually a nationally recognized person in portraiture.

What we didn't want was, "Look here, smile, snap. Look there now, smile, snap. Put your arm around her, snap" type of pictures. Our criteria was high as I fancy myself as an amateur portrait photographer. (go ahead and laugh, if you want...)

This is what portraits (of us) are for me: Photographs that represents US. Not just an accurate depiction of how we look but how we feel about us individually and as a couple together placed on paper. Yes, the images were technically superior to anything I could ever done. Poses, lighting, etc, etc, etc, were just perfect. Yes, the images were subtly altered. But only to an extent to reflect how we feel about ourselves. But best of all, they captured who we are.

I see many pictures of people that doesn't tell what kind of people they are, how they feel, and basically emotionless. TO ME, those are not portraits.

I just came in to this thread to give MY definition of portraiture. Everybody is free to agree or disagree.

Oh, another thing I believe in photography is, if I have to explain it, it failed. I think this applies to portraiture as well in more ways than one.

But if we saw those photographs of you we might think the same thing. And if the subject of the other peoples photographs saw the photographs of themselves they might well see something very different than you do.

look at it this way, when you look in a mirror do you see the same as someone seeing you in the street. i.e. do you percieve yourself as others percieve you.

That is what I mean about a portraits being a vanity a shot. Portraits are for people wanting to see themselves as they perceive themselves to be.

Isn't this why you can never make a good portrait of some people? They perceive themselves to be something else than reality shows them as and will reject all photographs of themselves.

A portrait is a very personal thing for the subject and doesn't need to say anything to anyone else. A portrayal on the other hand is not specifically for the subject. At least thats how I see it.

How many of you photographers like seeing photographs of yourself?

why do models want to be models ?

 

[frank]

My old signature said: Preferring to be on the shiny side of the film

 

[tkamiya]

I will not mention the photographer's name because I'm sure he doesn't want his name to be mentioned and threaded into bits in forum discussions. But I've seen his works which were featured for few weeks in our local museum (fairly big one). He took portraits of artists which most of them are now deceased. I don't know any of those people whom he took portraits of. But they all said something to me. It may sound funny but they each had a voice.

Was what I heard from each accurate? I don't know and I don't really care. I recently purchased a companion book which included interviews with each of the artists. I haven't read it yet, but it will be interesting.

 

[removed account4]

And my reaction was to say that the technique had a grotesque, then I said that's too strong a word, unpleasant affect on her.

exactly, that is what i meant by clarification ...
that the technique / process rendered skin tones harshly ...

 

[removed account4]

yes, this thread is about portraits and respect given to the person being photographed
(as blansky said ) ... and as i said ... over the years there have been instances where
people have been harsh, disrepected the subjects .... there have been others where
comments posted were mean spirited like " this is the worst photograph i have ever seen"
but that is not the same as attacking the person in a portrait.
there is nothing to defend and no axes to grind
the images and comments are public record in the gallery

 

[winger]

I posted this quote in the gallery - "This isn't reality. This is photography." - Dan Burkholder

I see portraits as being a depiction of an individual that shows the viewer something about the individual. To me, that can include their spirit, not just their physical appearance. And not all women want to look like girly girls with the smooth face of a makeup ad. I saw her eyes, not anything bad.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I posted this quote in the gallery - "This isn't reality. This is photography." - Dan Burkholder

Yes, that original level of abstraction common to all photographs rendered by any technology...

The very first thought that occurred as I viewed the portrait was tough as nails. If the young lady truly is, then the photographer has succeeded in depicting Truth. And if she isn't, then given her apparent satisfaction he has likewise succeeded in depicting Beauty.

Ken

 

[Maris]

When I attempt a portrait instead of just a face-picture I try for a sympathetic caricature of that person. Everyone has their tics, mannerisms, an arch of an eyebrow, a tilt of the head, a curl of the mouth, and so on. These features are consciously (or unconsciously) recognised by acquaintences of the portrait subject. I try to incorporate these "individualisms" simultaneously into one picture. Hopefully viewers of the portrait will say "character revealed", "truly captured", or suchlike.

The portrait sitter is the sternest critic so I prepare a joke for them. The first portrait I show is flipped left to right. This is the face they see all the time, the face that looks back to them from the bathroom mirror, but its not the face anybody else sees. The joke tends to defuse grumbles like "all my pictures are awful", "I break cameras", etc. I guess there is psychology involved in getting a good portrait and psychology too in getting that portrait accepted.

 

[Bill Burk]

He took portraits of artists which ...

My favorite Edward Weston picture is one of William Edmondson, Sculptor. I could probably list them quickly, pictures of artists always seem to speak to me.

Now maybe everyone is an artist in some aspect of their life. So I think it might be that what I respond to is any picture of someone which reveals what that person loves. Perhaps with artists shown with them in their studio, working with their chosen medium, it's plain to see.

For portraits of other kinds of people, getting their spirit across might be harder work for the photographer.

 

[gone]

Boy, I just can't agree w/ any of your thoughts in this post. They're elitist. The idea that a photographer is "in the profession" somehow means anything is nonsense. It means nothing. A hack is a hack, a good photographer is a good photographer. And it means nothing where the money comes from. If someone sells out, they sell out. Prostituting yourself for a client's wishes is just that. Vincent Van Gogh sold almost nothing during his career. So that means he was an amateur because he wasn't bringing in a check? Get a grip. A good shot is a good shot. THAT'S the criteria. Always was, always will be. Genres, who cares? This is an image thing, get it? Words mean nothing, philosophies are a dime a dozen, and talk is cheap. Let's see the image, that's all that counts. Portrait, documentary, journalistic....just silly babble.

It reminds me of college professors who want you to break down a writers work and interpret it. It means what it means, and if someone wants to somehow codify or judge it by some arbitrary standard or criteria other than it works or it doesn't, they are hopelessly lost. It worked for the writer, so there you go. But that's college. There is a small sea animal, who's name I cannot remember, that has a rudimentary brain and uses it to find a rock to live its life on, then it eats its brain because it doesn't need it anymore. Similar to tenure.