Wayne,
I find it interesting that you bring this up now, as I am embarking on the study of portraiture by reading the past. I have purchased a number of 'how to' portraiture books on eBoy that were published in the 1930's and 1940's. I find myself drawn to the 'style' of formal B&W and early color portraits that were done during that time. As you know, I am not good with portraits, so I am working on it because I want to become good.
Here are some thoughts in answer to your questions:
The portrait is generally a commissioned work. Thus, the question of what makes a portrait meaningful to me is less important that what makes it meaningful to the client, who presumably is paying for it.
This also answers the questions about how a subject should be portrayed. If I am a client wishing a portrait taken, I would certainly prefer that my wishes be honoured. If this is not to be the case, because the portrait photographer has a 'signature style' or chooses to do their own thing, then that's fine, but as a client, I should know that in advance and choose it - or not choose it, as personal preference dictates. Clients, I believe, should not be told they'll take what's given.
Is 'the customer always right' in the sense that the portrait should please them? In most cases, yes, I believe that. If they wish a double-chin or a blemish to not appear on their portrait, even if it is a distinguishing feature, then that's what they should get - they're paying for it. However, I recognize that there are famous portrait photographers who have a particular style and that is how they do portraits. People come to them because they wish that style to be applied to them, and in that case, they understand that they get what they get - but they have willingly agreed to that. I would say that most portrait photographers haven't the clout or name recognition or fame (whatever you call it) to demand that they be given the freedom to do as they please with a customer's portrait and get away with it. However, I suppose one has to make a name for oneself somehow, if that is what one desires to do.
The formal portrait, done in a studio, is one of the few types of photography where the photographer is in control (or should be) of everything but the shape of the client's head (even makeup often coming under the purview of the photographer at times). With that type of control, it is really more down to the ability of the photographer than what nature happens to provide in the way of lighting, setting, angles, and so on. Of course, outdoor portraiture is different, more control is given up in exchange for what Mother Nature can provide in the way of making more of the photograph.
As to lighting equipment, although there are certainly ways to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a state-of-the-art studio, excellent portraits that can hardly be criticized even by today's standards were taken with cameras, lenses, and lights that today we would relegate to obsolete trash. This means that if that 'obsolete' equipment were to be employed today in the same fashion it was then, the results in the hands of an expert should be the same - excellent portraiture. Most of the 'rules' of portrait photography have not changed since the advent of fast film. Arrangement of lighting, posing, and accent (focal point, sharpness, backgrounds, etc) go in and out of style, of course, but the basics are still as they were done by portrait photographers of long ago. A hairlight is still a hairlight, in other words, even if the type of light bulb used has changed many times over the years.
As it pertains to camera equipment, it seems to me that what it really comes down to are lens, focal length, and format, presuming well-functioning equipment that can be properly controlled by the photographer. I don't think I'd fret over an inexpensive lens on an 8x10 view camera - it would hardly matter if it were not uber-sharp. On a 35mm camera, I'd probably choose sharp over soft - but only because now we can 'fix' a photo by making it less soft in the computer later - we cannot restore sharpness that was never recorded. I love to obsess over lenses as a hobby, but in practice, I think it only matters in the grossest details, not the finest. I doubt that anyone viewing a portrait could tell the difference between the same portrait shot with a modern Nikon or modern Canon lens - even a (gasp) modern Leica. Coated vs uncoated - I'm not as certain, perhaps some could tell.
The trick, of course, is to choose what's appropriate. Not all portraits are 'head shots', so a medium length lens is not always right. Some clients might not feel comfortable with a camera stuck right in front of their face, so a longer focal length might help them relax with the camera held back a bit. Porportion can be modified, hopefully under the photographer's control, by focal length as well. The type of lens can also have an impact, subtle though it may be. Petzval lenses or doppel-anastigmats as opposed to modern Gaussian or older Tessar styles can alter how the focus complements - or does not compliment - the subject's face. I believe that one can actually subconsciously evoke an era that will resonate with viewers of a certain age by selecting lighting (least subtle), film type (less subtle) and lens type (more subtle) - even if one chooses to go with modern clothing and backgrounds. But that's just a guess - I hope to pursue it to find out for sure.
With all that said - there is still an awful lot of room for personal style and preference by the photographer. And there should be, else the portrait photographer would be a mechanic and not an engineer. It cannot all be reduced to a series of lighting ratios and formulas and lens types and film - or a monkey could do it.
And we see that at Walmart and Kmart portrait studios all over the USA. Each has a studio, and they have two main lights and a camera and a computer program and an operator. I hesitate to say 'photographer' although I am sure that is technically what they are called. And I do not disparage them, a job is a job these days, and it may well lead them to greater things. But I doubt that they have a great deal of creative input into the product they churn out - speed is without doubt the name of the game here. Posing is probably about the only area where they can bring that most important of photographer's qualities to bear - imagination and creativity.
But I examine my friends and families' Walmart and Kmart photos and I sometimes see an excellent photo that captures something unique and special about the subject. More often, I see a well-exposed and technically correctly lit photograph of nothing in particular. And often enough to depress me, I see technical flaws which should never have been seen by a client's eyes - collars turned up, ties askew, background edges showing, dirty backgrounds and foregrounds, dirty faces, unkempt hair, eyes closed, even out-of-focus faces from time to time. But I also note that my friends and family are, as a general rule, happy enough with this product - there is no point criticizing the photos, they like them.
But what makes a portrait of a person meaningful to me, as the viewer? If I can detect something of his or her character in the photograph, if I feel that I am indeed seeing some portion of the real person, then it is meaningful to me.
Both Karsh and Mortensen had very, very, different styles, although both were master portraitists. Both, however, knew that everyone wears masks. A master photographer shows enough of the mask that it pleases the subject, and enough of the person underneath that it pleases the viewer. Forget the Golden Mean, that's a ratio that is hard to quantify, and it seperates the good from the great in the way of portrait photography.
A portrait photographer is that artist, inserted between a subject and a camera, who turns the image of a face into the image of a person.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
