w/nw Environmental Portraits

robert blu said:
Hi Mike, I understand you and your “confusion ” and fully agree with your words.

For me to understand what a good environmental portrait is we should look at Vince’s photos posted in this thread. And of course there are some other good examples.

In my opinion, which perhaps could be wrong, it is not enough to take a photo of somebody in a place to make a good environmental portrait. It could be a good photo yes but not an an environmental portrait!

Thanks for your input

robert
Click to expand...

Mike and Robert -

I've had similar thoughts about many of the photos in this thread. Many of them fit my definition of street photography.

My understanding of environmental portraiture has always been that the background provides context, telling us something about the subject. Most typical examples would be an artist or photographer in their studio, a cook in their kitchen, a shop owner in their shop, etc.

- Murray
 
CMur12 said:
Mike and Robert -

I've had similar thoughts about many of the photos in this thread. Many of them fit my definition of street photography.

My understanding of environmental portraiture has always been that the background provides context, telling us something about the subject. Most typical examples would be an artist or photographer in their studio, a cook in their kitchen, a shop owner in their shop, etc.

- Murray
Click to expand...

How do thread contributions get moderated? Is more in-thread critique needed?

Environmental portraits are one of my favourite areas of photography. I love especially some of the works by famous photographers, of famous people, particularly artists.

Here are a couple of my photos.

One I would assert is an environmental portrait: willing subject, background provides meaningful context to the subject and tells a story about that person.

The other is not an environmental portrait. An unwilling / unknowing subject. The background is irrelevant to the subject other than providing situational context.

Happy to receive feedback or thoughts.

Not an environmental portrait:


Woman in cafe by Hugh B, on Flickr


Environmental portrait:


Gallery Proprietor by Hugh B, on Flickr
 
largedrink, I find your definition of EP too narrow.
It seems that "your" EPs are restricted to the professional context of a person.
But there are many other situations which are telling about a person, e.g., leasure activities, or, why not, eating in the public.
It is not necessary that the photographed victim is willing, although this is often the case with portrait photography.
Most important is that the glimpse into a person´s life is telling a little, or even a bigger, story about both, the person and her/his environment.
And it doesn´t even matter if the story is true or not. Eye of the beholder...
 
Harry the K said:
largedrink, I find your definition of EP too narrow.
It seems that "your" EPs are restricted to the professional context of a person.
But there are many other situations which are telling about a person, e.g., leasure activities, or, why not, eating in the public.
It is not necessary that the photographed victim is willing, although this is often the case with portrait photography.
Most important is that the glimpse into a person´s life is telling a little, or even a bigger, story about both, the person and her/his environment.
And it doesn´t even matter if the story is true or not. Eye of the beholder...
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to write a definition, just suggest some parameters that I think may be important.

The portraits I posted here just happen to be in professional contexts because that's what I like photographing, and it's easy to meet people in that context - in shops and so on. That doesn't mean the environmental portrait is limited to that context.

There's a difference between a location portrait and an environmental portrait. I went on a portrait photography course a few years ago that emphasised the different styles. I googled and found a nice article comparing location portraits to environmental portraits here:

https://www.lightstalking.com/difference-environmental-portrait-portraiture/

One key point made there is a portrait, any portrait, is understood to be not a simple snapshot.

Another is the environmental portrait has a context (venue) that contributes to the identity of the person being portrayed.

Your example "eating in public" therefore may be a location portrait, but wouldn't be an environmental portrait, unless eating in public was somehow a part of that person's identity.

I think if you rule out snapshots, then having a willing or aware subject seems important. I think many good or classic environmental portraits show an intent from the photographer as well as a relationship to the subject.

Another quote from the article:
"These kinds of work often require some time on the photographer’s part to get to know the people they are portraying in order to capture them in the most natural way possible. "
 
largedrink,
thank you for explaining what experts consider as EP, I didn´t know that.
Maybe this is a conflict "art vs. interpretation of art", if we want to count photography as a form of art.
The interpreters, the experts, are trying to establish rules, while the artist is free in her/his concept.
The rule of excluding snapshots has nothing to do with the quality of a photograph, but only with the attitude that a snapshot is inferior to a result coming from "serious work" (our ethics of work!). In reality, far from ruling, a snapshot may not be identified as such, while serious work in your sense may look like a snap, and both can be good EPs.
 
Hm, largedrink, I'm not sure about the elimination of snapshots from consideration as environmental portraits. Maybe it depends on one's definition of "snapshot."

Is a snapshot defined by the casual nature of its capture or by the basic equipment we usually associate with it - or both?

I could imagine taking a photo of a teenage boy in his cluttered bedroom with a Kodak Brownie camera and an attached bulb flash. I would consider it an environmental portrait, though not a formal portrait.

I believe in casual portraits and formal portraits, as both intend to portray the subject. The author of the linked article seems only to acknowledge formal portraits as "portraits."

- Murray
 
CMur12 said:
Hm, largedrink, I'm not sure about the elimination of snapshots from consideration as environmental portraits. Maybe it depends on one's definition of "snapshot."

Is a snapshot defined by the casual nature of its capture or by the basic equipment we usually associate with it - or both?

- Murray
Click to expand...

In my opinion Murray, a snapshot is simply a less considered, less disciplined way of capturing an image. That doesn't mean it can't be a great photograph. The linked article defined a portrait as a more considered photograph:

"It is understood then, that a portrait is not a simple snapshot since it has a strong idealized element within it achieved through the pose..."

This discussion has been useful I hope, as a way to recalibrate this thread. Looking forward to seeing more great photo contributions here and elsewhere, always so inspiring.
 
I am not sure if this has been posted before. Taken around 1990 and scanned only last year, this depicts a native canoe maker in the Louisiade Archipelago / Milne Bay Province of New Guinea. The area was famous for its canoes, these folk being part of the Kula Ring, which comprised a group of islands which participated in joint trade of purely ceremonial objects as a means of sharing culture and building cultural linkages..

Eye of the Wind - Marshall Bennett Islands - New Guinea_10 by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom