A good friend of mine stopped by today for a portrait. I have altered his name plate to protect his privacy .
This is part of my series attempting to revive simple, classic portraits of soldiers that respect the uniform and maintain decorum, but also permit the soldier's personality to come through. Other images here: http://bainesphoto.com/index.php?/color/military/
Tech: 5D3, 70-20 f/4IS @ f/8. Subject 10' from gray backdrop. Lit with an Einstein 640 w/ a 64" soft silver PLM and white front diffuser. No fill other than slight ambient bounce in a mostly whitish room.
Very nice Portrait.
I'm certain this is one light setup, you may want to add hair light/shoulder light and background light to separate background and the subject .
Perhaps adding multiple lights would get in the way of how Evan wanted to work and interact with his subjects.
IMO this portrait does not require additional lights. The subject is very present in the photo and is in no danger of blending in to the background.
The angle of his face and head are not what a "traditional" portrait would call for which makes him much more approachable as a subject and also interesting.
The portrait is superbly executed and any remarks about what should have been done and should not have been done are over the top nitpicky.
We should be talking more about why he chose to light the subject and post the subject the way he did.
hardlyboring wrote:
Perhaps adding multiple lights would get in the way of how Evan wanted to work and interact with his subjects.
IMO this portrait does not require additional lights. The subject is very present in the photo and is in no danger of blending in to the background.
The angle of his face and head are not what a "traditional" portrait would call for which makes him much more approachable as a subject and also interesting.
The portrait is superbly executed and any remarks about what should have been done and should not have been done are over the top nitpicky.
We should be talking more about why he chose to light the subject and post the subject the way he did. ...Show more →
The subject, as mentioned, is a good friend. He is, however, known among many in our group for being a bit intimidating, and he does have a very strong personality and rigorous standards. As is apparent in the image, he is an Army Ranger (the combat scroll is the reason for the left-turn as opposed to the more common right-turn that would highlight his personal awards) combat veteran.
Point being, I had two challenges in this shot: render the subject approachable, but still maintain a sense of gravitas. I wanted to show him in a "friendly" light, but did not want the whole portrait to be light, bright, and airy. Thus, I set up some dynamic tension between light and expression in this shot by choosing a fairly low key scheme that relied upon subtle manipulation of two darkish tones for separation on the shadow side. The shot was also made at a slightly longer than usual focal length and SLIGHTLY upward (disguised by his slight lean-in here), which ensures that while the expression is approachable, this isn't a fully "intimate" portrait and there is some reserve.
The noted head tilt was an impromptu reaction on the part of the subject of which I took advantage as I attempted to manipulate conversation in such a way as to provoke a genuine smile rather than ask him for it, and I agree that it is a crucial factor in the approachability.
As with the other portraits, my goal is to simplify and attempt to ensure that every photographic choice supports my goals for communicating the subject.
hardlyboring wrote:
The portrait is superbly executed and any remarks about what should have been done and should not have been done are over the top nitpicky.
Doug, in Evan's OP, he encouraged comments and feedback, so I don't think alternative suggestions of lighting are over the top. If Evan wanted to limit any critique, then that probably should be defined in the OP. We all have different styles, so many of us would look at any photographer's portrait -- no matter how talented, experienced or successful the photographer is -- and think that the shot should be done differently given our own personal tastes/style.
We could anonymously post an Annie Leibovitz portrait and we could each want to do the shot differently, based on our own styles. As a dance photographer, I really dislike her dance photography, but she's shot Mikhail Baryshnikov and you've never heard of the dancers I've photographed.
My point is that I don't think we should discourage comments of any type no matter who the OP is, unless the OP has requested that there not be C&C.
I have posted my image for open comments on a critique forum. Y'all are welcome to say whatever is allowed in the terms of service, and I find all kinds of feedback useful.
I think its a good portrait. Some of the sitter seems to be coming through.
As usual it really depends on the intent. If this is intended to be a real formal type portrait then the head for a masculine pose should tilt towards the low shoulder or back. Creating a kind of C shape. A tilt to the high shoulder would create an S which is considered by some as a feminine . But again it all goes down to intent.
I personally like the simple lighting. It forces me to see the person and not the technique used to create the image. I say good as is.....
Happy VD to all the veterans out there and to all that are now serving. Thanks so much....
Excellent portrait. Personally, I love the lighting technique as it serves to highlight his masculinity. Had this been a female, I might have suggested additional lighting, but not here. Well done!
friscoron wrote:
Doug, in Evan's OP, he encouraged comments and feedback, so I don't think alternative suggestions of lighting are over the top. If Evan wanted to limit any critique, then that probably should be defined in the OP. We all have different styles, so many of us would look at any photographer's portrait -- no matter how talented, experienced or successful the photographer is -- and think that the shot should be done differently given our own personal tastes/style.
We could anonymously post an Annie Leibovitz portrait and we could each want to do the shot differently, based on our own styles. As a dance photographer, I really dislike her dance photography, but she's shot Mikhail Baryshnikov and you've never heard of the dancers I've photographed.
My point is that I don't think we should discourage comments of any type no matter who the OP is, unless the OP has requested that there not be C&C. ...Show more →
I suppose in order to give proper critique some sort of artist statement is needed. Other wise opinions can just be thrown around without knowing what we are actually having an opinion about. Evan said something in his OP that hinted at what he was getting at but was somewhat vague. In talking with Evan his intentions went much deeper with this shot and I do not think are completely understood by anyone but himself.
I am not saying we should not give open critique but I think once the WHY is ascertained then we can go about giving remarks.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I think its a good portrait. Some of the sitter seems to be coming through.
As usual it really depends on the intent. If this is intended to be a real formal type portrait then the head for a masculine pose should tilt towards the low shoulder or back. Creating a kind of C shape. A tilt to the high shoulder would create an S which is considered by some as a feminine . But again it all goes down to intent.
I personally like the simple lighting. It forces me to see the person and not the technique used to create the image. I say good as is.....
Happy VD to all the veterans out there and to all that are now serving. Thanks so much....
This is particularly useful feedback. I give a lot of thought to concepts of masculinity, strength, and other such adjectives when doing these portraits, but also set them in balance against open-ness, approachability, a sense of humor, etc...
I'm sure with your military experience you know exactly the kind of "I'm a stone cold killer" look that many service members like to give in DA photos, and I'm deliberately playing against that. The first portrait definitely softens with the head tilt, but not IMO to the extent of undermining the subject's masculinity. That said, its a delicate balance, and surely there is room for subjective interpretation there!!! This subtle understanding of how posing influences our perception of subjects is a great part of what is lost in today's portraiture.
The intent overall can be summed up by: "a military portrait that the subject's grandchildren will cherish, as it shows true personality in addition to the uniform."
hardlyboring wrote:
I suppose in order to give proper critique some sort of artist statement is needed. Other wise opinions can just be thrown around without knowing what we are actually having an opinion about. Evan said something in his OP that hinted at what he was getting at but was somewhat vague. In talking with Evan his intentions went much deeper with this shot and I do not think are completely understood by anyone but himself.
I am not saying we should not give open critique but I think once the WHY is ascertained then we can go about giving remarks....Show more →
I don't disagree with you at all here, Doug. While Evan may have been vague, we often have little or nothing to go by when someone posts a photo, even asking for a critique.
I personally prefer the portraits of photographers like Newman or Bresson to some of the over posed portraits of say Zucker and many of the PPA type portraits. I tend to think that great portraits are the ones that capture a little piece of the sitter. But having said that intent and what the image will be used for is so important. A portrait that needs credibility in many advertising situations might be different than say a portrait that needs to make someone look better than they actually look. So intent is very important because the two approaches are different as are the end results..
A couple of quotes by Newman and Bresson.
"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman
'It seems dangerous to be a portrait artist who does commissions for clients because everyone wants to be flattered, so they pose in such a way that there’s nothing left of truth." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
I think that your portrait, even more so after hearing your intent, is very successful. As I said earlier, I think that you captured something of who he is.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I personally prefer the portraits of photographers like Newman or Bresson to some of the over posed portraits of say Zucker and many of the PPA type portraits. I tend to think that great portraits are the ones that capture a little piece of the sitter. But having said that intent and what the image will be used for is so important. A portrait that needs credibility in many advertising situations might be different than say a portrait that needs to make someone look better than they actually look. So intent is very important because the two approaches are different as are the end results..
A couple of quotes by Newman and Bresson.
"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman
'It seems dangerous to be a portrait artist who does commissions for clients because everyone wants to be flattered, so they pose in such a way that there’s nothing left of truth." - Henri Cartier-Bresson
I think that your portrait, even more so after hearing your intent, is very successful. As I said earlier, I think that you captured something of who he is. ...Show more →
In my view, what guys like Zucker did was to create a series of rules based upon classic portraiture (going back into painted portraits)... a very rigid system that nonetheless contained a great deal of truth. Part of what I'm doing with this type of portrait is attempting to explore some of the "why" in the things the classic portrait artists did, and trying to understand how the underlying principles may be utilized, adapted, or even deliberately subverted in the pursuit of a photograph that fits my perception of the subject. All techniques are just communication tools, really.
I admire the spontenaity and raw honesty of the portraitists you've mentioned, along with even more austere examples such as Arbus and Avedon. However, I find that for my own work my goal is to retain some of that honesty and spontenaity, but also to find the best in the sitter. Obviously these are high aspirations and ones in which I continually fall short, but this is what I am working on.
So what I'm really looking for here is what WORKED in classic portraiture, WHY did it work, and how may I utilize those rules in support of a portrait that balances accuracy, a sense of life, and kindness to the subject.
A great photographer once told me once that in a great photograph and that could be said for portraiture to is, everything in the frame is helping the visual statement or if all of those elements aren't helping then they are hurting it.
This is why intent is so important. What is working and appropriate for A might fail miserably for B.
If you are try to create a more Monte type portrait then things like head tilt and when to use a short, broad, butterfly light and also color pallet or tone also becomes so important. And theres nothing wrong with that. Many times that approach is important and many times it's not.
Personally, I prefer by far, the portraits of Newman, Bresson, Avedons personal work (American West), Weston.
OPPS.. forgot to say that I think in these portraits you have a bit of a cross between the two and it works in my opinion.
airfrogusmc wrote:
A great photographer once told me once that in a great photograph and that could be said for portraiture to is, everything in the frame is helping the visual statement or if all of those elements aren't helping then they are hurting it.
This is why intent is so important. What is working and appropriate for A might fail miserably for B.
If you are try to create a more Monte type portrait then things like head tilt and when to use a short, broad, butterfly light and also color pallet or tone also becomes so important. And theres nothing wrong with that. Many times that approach is important and many times it's not.
Personally, I prefer by far, the portraits of Newman, Bresson, Avedons personal work (American West), Weston.
OPPS.. forgot to say that I think in these portraits you have a bit of a cross between the two and it works in my opinion. ...Show more →
Thank you! That is exactly what I am trying for. A sort of a hybrid.
And thank you for the conversation as well!
Getting at Friscoron and Doug's discussion... one thing I have resolved to do in my critique is to err on the side of assuming a photographer's choices are deliberate. It changes how you approach a critique when you discuss choices a photographer made vs. the implication that something was missed or incorrect out of ignorance. I know that I can get awfully professorial when I critique, and its something I need to work on. So I think that one can balance what Doug is saying and what Friscoron is saying by suggesting that critique works best when one approaches the feedback from the standpoint of "you chose to do this, but I think this might have worked better and here is why." That is how *I* plan on handling this issue when I give critique, at least. YMMV
I like this shot as well. I have no useful crit other than the shadow on his left eye (viewers right side) is a little troublesome. It is not wrong it just seems a little dark/weird to me. First thing my eye was drawn to.
. 
