Bill Pierce
Well-known
With Hasselblad and Fuji adding new cameras to the digital medium format line up a number of articles have appeared on the web proclaiming the advantage of the format for architecture, landscape and portrait photography. PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPHY? Are they out of their minds. Pictures of peoples faces are not necessarily an area where pin-point, detail revealing sharpness is treasured. Even the vaunted Leitz designers produced the Thambar, a soft focus portrait lens that could be made even softer by the use of a filter that blocked light from passing through the center portion of the lens that produced its sharpest contribution to the image. Hasselblad used the properly named “Softar” attachments. Folks shot large format film just so the negatives could be retouched, and even prints got retouched with etching knives and airbrush. And then, thank goodness, digital, the retoucher’s dream, came along.
Our perception of a person is not of an immobile face with each pore and wrinkle lensed by the highest possible modulation transfer function. Between Gaussian Blur and a cloning tool, landscapes of peoples’ faces can be turned into portraits. In addition to photojournalism (people paying you to witness important events and spend time with interesting people), I’ve always enjoyed portraiture (putting people at ease and sometimes getting paid for it). I have a friend who photographs a lot of celebrities, models and performers. He tells me whenever possible (which is almost always) he says to the subject, “You are one of the few people whose portrait I have not had to retouch.” Of course, he retouches everything. That’s the trick. I’ve come to believe that in a good portrait, the retouching can not show. And with digital it’s gotten so easy to do a subtle, essentially invisible, job I sometimes find myself retouching quick outdoor snapshots of my friends. Two friends recently said that no one takes as good a picture of them as I do. WRONG. No one else retouches the snapshots of them. We are such strange creatures. I rather like it.
Your thoughts.
Our perception of a person is not of an immobile face with each pore and wrinkle lensed by the highest possible modulation transfer function. Between Gaussian Blur and a cloning tool, landscapes of peoples’ faces can be turned into portraits. In addition to photojournalism (people paying you to witness important events and spend time with interesting people), I’ve always enjoyed portraiture (putting people at ease and sometimes getting paid for it). I have a friend who photographs a lot of celebrities, models and performers. He tells me whenever possible (which is almost always) he says to the subject, “You are one of the few people whose portrait I have not had to retouch.” Of course, he retouches everything. That’s the trick. I’ve come to believe that in a good portrait, the retouching can not show. And with digital it’s gotten so easy to do a subtle, essentially invisible, job I sometimes find myself retouching quick outdoor snapshots of my friends. Two friends recently said that no one takes as good a picture of them as I do. WRONG. No one else retouches the snapshots of them. We are such strange creatures. I rather like it.
Your thoughts.
PKR
Veteran
Hi Bill;
You've likely seen this..
https://youtu.be/9j656_RiO0k
Lots of portraits are very detailed these days.
https://martinschoeller.com/WORK/Close-Up/7
People are using Phase One backs on Hasselblads that deliver 45-100 mp files for portrait work. I once saw huge prints of Avedon's portraits done on 8x10 and they were very complementary to the subject. Much of the current digital stuff has me wondering. A 100mp file of a face?
You've likely seen this..
https://youtu.be/9j656_RiO0k
Lots of portraits are very detailed these days.
https://martinschoeller.com/WORK/Close-Up/7
People are using Phase One backs on Hasselblads that deliver 45-100 mp files for portrait work. I once saw huge prints of Avedon's portraits done on 8x10 and they were very complementary to the subject. Much of the current digital stuff has me wondering. A 100mp file of a face?
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Agreed, there are a lot of reasons to use Phase One backs on Hasselblads. (1) They are available. (2) They impress clients. (3) They are very good in controlled situations with few changes in camera position, i.e. studio shots. But, they are no more a necessity for portraiture than the more recently introduced cameras. Oddly, one often needed necessity is can you get a shallow enough depth of field, and the 60mm, f/1.2 Fuji can do that on an APS-C sensor.
And, as you say, many portraits, from Avedon to folks working today, are detailed and absolutely look like conventional, unmanipulated images. The key here is “look like.” That’s the point, to convince the viewer that this is how the person looks even when you use every tool from controlling the lighting to Photoshop. This is the change from Bruno of Hollywood or, perhaps, more important, George Hurrell, a brilliant photographer who more than any other set the standards for the old Hollywood portrait, to today's work.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Put so nicely.
Absolutely. With digital post it is so fast and easy, (and easy to hide). My mother-in-law said to me last year, "You must have really good cameras, because you take the best pictures of our family."
Best,
-Tim
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Portrait photography always has been a market segment where photographers could only demand payment if used expensive and inaccessible tools to create a flattering result - the average passport portrait photographer even used large format until digital took over. The contradiction can be reconciled on the bill, so nobody cares...
Scrambler
Well-known
Say what?
I own an old passport camera - it uses medium format Polaroid - but it takes 4 identical photos each about the size of a 35mm negative.
There is no use for any larger passport photo size - it wouldn't fit in a passport.