What makes a Portrait good?

[Wayne R. Scott]

I was reading a thread discussing portrait lens and prices in the $2K to $3K range and I started to wonder what really makes for a good portrait.

What makes a good portrait? I am assuming analog capture here.

Camera body?
Lens focal length?
Lens F stop?
Lens signature?
Film format?
Film ISO?
Color film or B&W film?
Film developer for B&W film?
Paper developer for B&W?
The paper the portrait is printed on?
Camera height in relationship to the subject?
Quality of the light?
The lighting ratio?
The lighting pattern?
The background?
The way the subject is posed when their image is captured?
The expression of the subject?
The eyes of the beholder or the check book holder?
The memories invoked with the viewing of the portrait?

Should the person being photographed be captured with a razor sharp lens showing every eyelash, freckle and mole? Or should they be slightly “touched-up” to remove blemishes?

Should we portray the person as they appear to us now, as they once appeared or as they wish to appear?

Any and all thoughts are welcome.

What are some of your thoughts on what makes a photo of a person meaningful to you?

Wayne

 

[wintoid]

I have a book about Avedon's portraiture. I found it interesting that he used a huge camera of the type where you shove your head underneath a blanket to focus, but that once it was focused he would step out in front of the camera holding a cable release, and engage his subject before releasing the shutter. I would have to say a portrait means little to me unless there is a connection between photographer and subject.

That said, I generally favour portraiture using medium telephoto lenses. That answer feels kind of hollow though, somehow.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Wayne,
There was a portrait of a young lady at Tea, outdoors that was a great example of a perfect portrait. But I can't seem to find it in the gallery anymore. The expression on her face just was beautiful. It was an Avatar for a while, and I really miss it.

 

[Mackinaw]

I look at it differently. To me a good portrait is when you successfully capture the subject's personality on film.

Jim Bielecki

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

Brian,

Is this the one?


Wayne

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

I look at it differently. To me a good portrait is when you successfully capture the subject's personality on film.

Jim Bielecki

I agree with you Jim. But, How do we capture the subject's personality? Is rapport and timing the most important aspect of portrait photography?

Wayne

 

[Frank Granovski]

I've taken some good portraits with the Contax G2 / 35mm lens (flash). So maybe the camera and lens have something something to do with it? 😀

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

I've taken some good portraits with the Contax G2 / 35mm lens (flash). So maybe the camera and lens have something something to do with it? 😀

What made them good? Would they have been as good with out the (flash)?


Wayne

 

[Frank Granovski]

What made them good?

Easy to use because it's auto-everything and the 45mm lens is super-sharp and bokehful. (F5.6 and F8 are best).

Would they have been as good with out the (flash)?

Yes, if I had been shooting in more light because people here in Vancouver seem to prefer the dorkness (unless I'm shooting outside in sunshine or when it's overcast but bright enough for 200/400 asa flashless speeds). 🙂

But people shooting outdoors is better with a medium tele. A clean/un-cluttered or interesting background helps. Film doesn't matter so much. For candid shots I prefer to catch the subject/s without them knowing. When they see you and straightaway try to pose for you usually makes a below average picture...unless I'm lining people up to pose with the bride and groom. Yes, these questions are subjective.

 

[aizan]

totally subjective, as usual. what makes it good for you is something only you can articulate.

 

[Skinny McGee]

I agree with Jim... If you can capture someone at a moment when they aren't really conscious that their photo is being taken even if it is a studio... And capture just that little hint of being them (instead of posing for photos)Then I think you have it....

But do it with a rangefinder for gods sake!!! Kidding ( No I'm not ) yes I am> No

Ah,,,,,,, I can't decide

 

[Doug]

What makes a good portrait? I am assuming analog capture here.

Quality of the light?
The way the subject is posed when their image is captured?
The expression of the subject?
The memories invoked with the viewing of the portrait?

Should the person being photographed be captured with a razor sharp lens showing every eyelash, freckle and mole? Or should they be slightly “touched-up” to remove blemishes?

Should we portray the person as they appear to us now, as they once appeared or as they wish to appear?

Any and all thoughts are welcome.

What are some of your thoughts on what makes a photo of a person meaningful to you?

Ah, your last sentence clarified one important issue; for whom is the portrait intended and for what purpose? I've reduced your list of factors to some I think could be most important, though (as in another thread) craftsmanship counts too. I vote for sharp and how they appear now, as this is for you, though you could engage in a little mutual fantasy just for fun!

Engaging the subject, as mentioned, is most important; bring out some personality aspects you wish to emphasize in the portrait. The focal length of the lens is only important in framing what you want at the distance you've chosen for the perspective you wish. Aperture for the DoF desired... and so on with the technicalities. But IMHO the portrait should reveal something of the person.

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

Doug,

Thank you for your insights.

I really enjoy your portraits of people. In my opinion (for what it is worth) your style is to capture real people in their envirnoment with real expressions. I think these type of portraits are very meaningful to the subjects. Rangefinder cameras are ideal tools for this type of photography. Rangefinders normally have a focal length that is wide enough to capture the person in their envirnoment, there is no mirror "black out" so you have a very good idea of what it is that you have captured at the moment of shutter release, there is very little lag time between when your brain says "now" and when the shutter is actually opened. This allows the photographer to have a better chance of catching the wry smile or glint in the eye that makes the photo special.

Wintoid mentioned Avedon's portraiture and how once the large format camera was focussed, Avedon engaged the subject in conversation and would release the shutter during the conversation.

Craft vs art? I find that art is in craft, the letters are just a little mixed up is all.

As humans I think we tend to be lazy and take the easy way out. It is much easier to study equipment engineering and know the difference between a 90mm f4.0 and a 85mm f2.0 lens than it is to study human engineering and know what makes Joe go.

Most of the good people photographers that I know are "people" persons, meaning that they are interested in people as much as equipment.


My two favorite portraits in the whole world are of my daughter. One is when she was 16 months old and was smelling tulips in the front yard for the first time. This photo is techanically a nightmare. Almost everything is wrong with it, the lighting, the exposure, the framing, but what is right with it is the subject and the memories that it evokes in me. The other photo is when she was 20 years old, we had stopped at a rest area in New Mexico and she had her Nikon with her. Everything in this photo is right, the late afternoon sunlight lighting her profile, the gestures she was making as she swept her hair back with one hand as she cradled the Nikon in her other had, the b&w film, the fact that she had no idea I was taking the photo. This one was taken with a $20 yard sale Mamiya 1000DTL with a $5 Vivitar 135mm f2.8 lens. It could not mean more to me than if I had taken it with a $6000 set up.

I don't really know what I am trying to convey in this thread, I think that it is that we as photographers need to use our most important tools and these are our brains and our eyes. Everything else just a $$$ drain. I know I am as guilty as the next person in searching for the magic bullet.

Wayne

 

[DougK]

It's probably not technically a portrait, more of a candid shot, but somewhere on this site there is an stunning B&W photo of a young ballerina at the barre isolated in light streaming in from a window... I forget who shot it. I have no idea what was used to shoot the picture beyond it being a rangefinder and I could care less. It's a perfectly natural, unforced situation with an absolutely brilliant combination of subject, light, and "f8 and be there." I would kill to have a shot that good in my portfolio.

I'm not a great people photographer but I'll offer up an opinion. I don't particularly care for the traditional "head shot" portrait because to me it seems a bit forced. I much prefer shots of people doing what they do naturally unaware of, or at least not paying attention to, the camera. That, I think, is when you really can capture what someone is about. As for the gear, well... if it's a good shot no one will care what you used and if it's a bad shot, hopefully no one will see that photo anyway 🙂.

 

[doubs43]

Here are a couple of "portraits" that I've taken and happen to like for reasons of my own. Both were taken with direct flash which I normally don't care to use but it was all I had at the time they were taken.

Walker

 

[Doug]

Wayne, thanks for starting the thread; I agree with your viewpoint (and thanks for your comments!), and look forward to reading others' views too. There's room for a lot of different approaches to this most fascinating subject matter, as clearly something of the photographer is captured too.

I embarked on my environmental portraiture project about 3 years ago after I had done some work on my records and poked through old contact sheets. I discovered that more interesting photos were of people or about people. So I set out deliberately to work on this, and my own skills at approaching and confronting (gently) my targets with my camera. I still have a lot to learn!

FWIW, here's a shot of my friend Steve posing for the camera at the fire scene. There are good things about this one but too many flaws in the background and context. So the unposed one I posted yesterday to my gallery is more "environmental".

It's probably not technically a portrait, more of a candid shot, but somewhere on this site there is an stunning B&W photo of a young ballerina at the barre isolated in light streaming in from a window... I forget who shot it.

Could it have been JLW, Doug? I find only 6 of his pics currently in the gallery, but this one might fit your description... http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=13274&what=allfields&name=JLW

 

[sf]

now THERE's a question!

now THERE's a question!

What makes a good portrait? Well, the two most important aspects are : the subject and the end use of the portrait. Will it be a big framed shot or a snapshot in a scrapbook?

Beyond that, are only the details.

What adds up to a portrait that I can feel good about as a product for sale (meaning as the product of my photographic services for $$$) :

I am using good glass

I chose the proper aperture

I chose the proper film

I chose the proper format

The subject and I are connecting in a way that melts the divisino between the film and his or her pesonality

I have produced a shot that brings a smile to the face of the client. The product can be good according to the above, but if the end user doesn't see the value in it, well, it isn't a good portrait.

That is all for the paid-for service. THe product needs to have certain technical characteristics to be valuable to the average buyer. Of course there are special circumstances where clients will give me 100% control. But most want good 16x20 prints or 11x14 which requires, according to the average mindset, the above parameters nailed for clarity and tonality and low grain.

As far as my own work, as far as how I deem a portrait to be good or not, the same technical factors apply to some degree, but are really nowhere near as important as how the image itself speaks to me. it isn't about the 'portrait' but about how the image communicates motion and life. A good image is a living thing. Cheesy but that's how I feel about that.

Oh yeah, and about candid vs portaiture. . . well, they ought to be one in the same. Capturing the candid life of the subject in a portrait is what makes it good. A candid photo is organic -alive as I said. Even if that candid energy is sublte, it's there.

The best portraits are candid - but neither implies the other.

 

[nomade]

I think that nothing is really more important for a good portrait then the way the photographer along with the camera communicate with the subject at this instant, the feel of the moment...

Even if u r just using a plastic single use camera...

 

[JohnL]

I look at it differently. To me a good portrait is when you successfully capture the subject's personality on film.

Jim Bielecki

I'd agree with Jim, with a slight adjustment ... A portrait is good if it appears to convey something of the subject's character to the viewer, beyond a simple record of his/her physical appearance at the time.
The "something conveyed" should be intended by the photographer, if he is to deserve credit, but may not necessarily be "true".
Equipment should be selected with this in mind, but usually won't make a whole lot of difference unless the portrait commission is rather specific, such as a very large print for hanging on the wall.

 

[Toby]

I think portraiture is one form of photography that is affected by equipment, not in the technical sense so much but in the theatre and performance of the sitting.

For a portrait commission more often than not this would be my standard list of equipment for my portable studio:

Pentax 6x7
165mm lens
2 x Bowens 500 heads + stands
2 x 36" softboxes
1 x 36" lastolite reflector + stand
1 x tripod
1 x lightmeter
1 x spotmeter
background paper + stands if necessary

and here is my standard rf set up:

Bessa r + 75mm 2.5
Lastolite (maybe)

and that's it


It doesn't take a genius to realise that the subject you are photographing will react in hugely different ways. The formality of MF means the subject often takes the shoot far more seriously, they are more engaged in the process of collaboratively "making" a photograph. Images often have a touch of intensity as the sitter presents their best face to the world.
RF in contrast produces a more casual approach sitters often take things less seriously - a smaller camera often makes the layman think you in turn are 'less' professional- on a good day this can lead to a relaxed and casual intimacy between sitter and subject, often I find we talk more and the whole process is like making friends.
Both ways of working produce great images (on a good day) but are radically different, one thing is for sure the equipment you use has an effect on the psychology of the sitter as much as the technical nicities of the final print.