The 'Posing' Issue

I had a test shooting (testing my equipment) with a novice model recently, which made me rethink about the whole "posing" issue in "studio" photography.

Using the dictionary definition as a starting point, posing seems to have more than one meaning...

• model assumes a posture as for artistic purposes
• pretend to be someone you are not
• behave affectedly or unnaturally in order to impress others

My experience is that if you ask people to practice "posing" or trying to push them into certain standard "poses", one can be almost 100% sure to end up with a highly unnatural posture with the average person.

The best posing I got in front of my lenses in the studio were not from photo models, but from people with "stage" experience (singers, musicians actors). These folks seem to be aware that a good "pose" isn't about getting the angles of certain joints right, but about expressing certain emotions, ideas etc. with the help of the body (in this sense, posing is about "body language").

(Unfortunatly,) not all my models are stage performers. My wisdom so far to get "good" poses is working with accessoiries: give them certain objects to play with, talk them into some kind of "movie", and one will eventually "trigger" an interesting posture.

This is the type of "posing" I am interested in, I am not interested in mechanical posing scheme which seem to be so popular in commercial portrait photography (the "femal pose", the "male pose", "tilt head", "bend it if it is bendable"). For commercial purposes, "standardized" poses make sense, because commercial portrait studios also work with "standardized" lighting setups. Working with standardized poses under standardized lighting conditions will result in predicable and reproducable results. I call this "assembly line" photography, hardly ever look better than a "passport picuture".

The partner of the model was also present. He's a dancing enthusiast and it was very interesting to discuss the posing issue with him. It looks like there ais more than point of contact between dancing / dancing pedagogy and posing for studio photography. I am planning to do some further research in this direction.

These are just some loose thoughts. How do you tackle the posing issue in your photography?

As you have probably noticed, I am not really interesting in answers like "I bought book XYZ wich contains the most popular 6000 standard poses for photographers and I like the 486 that I already tried very much"... ;-)

Just remember to get your perspective right... ;-)

Since you did not comment our last answers to your questions in "This seems to be a common misconception..." thread, does it mean that you got it?

"OK guys, thanks for explanation" would be nice. I've done it once after some heated argumentation about DR where I was wrong after all. It's not nice just to disappear.

I am a novice photographer in this area, but I did a fair share of reading. Here's what I think: the purpose of posing is to be able to obtain a picture of someone in a FLATTERING way. Some people have a natural talent for this, others need some hints. There is nothing unnatural about this. People just look better in certain poses.

My second thouht: eventhough a certain pose might be uncomfortable and unnatural..on a photo a 3D subject is rendered on a 2D medium. Certain things that might feel unnattural for the model and even look unnatural "live" render very nicely and may look natural on a photo.

Just my two cents.

Lennaert

Little Hero said:

the purpose of posing is to be able
to obtain a picture of someone in a FLATTERING way.

Click to expand...

I have a different approach here. For me, the goal of posing is to express a certain emotion that I, as the photographer, want to express in the final picture. This "emotion" expressed through a pose is not necessarily "flattering" to the model. But I guess this depends a bit on the purpose of the shooting: In commercial portraitre, the goal is usually to achieve a "flattering" picture of the person, because that's what the customer expects. but "Portraiture" in a more refined sense for me is about expressing key characteristics of the the personaliy in a picture - which do not necessarily have to be "flattering". A different story is "fashion" (for example) photography, in which the "model" (=representative form by definition) serves as the medium to bring accross the idea of the designer and/or photographer.

Just bouncing thoughts.

Little Hero said:

My second thouht: eventhough a certain pose might be uncomfortable
and unnatural..on a photo a 3D subject is rendered on a 2D medium.

Click to expand...

That sounds so simple and most people probably take this for granted, but I agree that this is an important thing to keep in mind.

astefot said:

astefot said:

the purpose of posing is to be able
to obtain a picture of someone in a FLATTERING way.

Click to expand...

I have a different approach here. For me, the goal of posing is to
express a certain emotion that I, as the photographer, want to
express in the final picture.

Click to expand...

Ok I can see your point. In photo journalisme (or candids little or no posing is done at all. But when you are shooting a model...and call for an emotion / expression..still I think the image that sells better is the one that has a more flattering look (and is posed in my opinion).

astefot said:

Just bouncing thoughts.

Click to expand...

That is always a good thing and I am doing the same right now

Regards,

Lennaert

I think you have hit on something that the best portrait photogs intuitively understand. Everyone starts out using "good posing practices" and while these portraits are fine, they tend to look common. When you see a portrait that really speaks to you, it is when the photographer has captured and emotion that can't be conveyed simply by putting someone in a certain position. Tim Walden talks about taking photographs that "speak". Easier said than done I think. Good topic though.

--
Chris Young
http://www.chrisyoungphotography.com

Little Hero said:

But when you are shooting a model...and
call for an emotion / expression..still I think the image that
sells better is the one that has a more flattering look (and is
posed in my opinion).

Click to expand...

If the goal is to flatter, yes of course - but the goal isn't always about "flattering". Some simple example: If you are shooting an illustration for an article about the anorexia common among fashion models, the picture printed will probably not be the one "flattering" the model shown. Pictures serve as illustrations to document the "beautiful", but also the "ugly". Another expample: Let's assume Time Magazine hires your services and asks you to shoot a portrait of Saddam Hussein. I can assure you that they would probably not show much interest for shots shooting Mr. Husseni shaved, nicely decorated with a hairlight, head tilted slightly and showing off that incredible boring "cheese" smile...

Chris Young said:

I think you have hit on something that the best portrait photogs
intuitively understand. Everyone starts out using "good posing
practices" and while these portraits are fine, they tend to look
common. When you see a portrait that really speaks to you, it is
when the photographer has captured and emotion that can't be
conveyed simply by putting someone in a certain position. Tim
Walden talks about taking photographs that "speak". Easier said
than done I think. Good topic though.

Click to expand...

What you are saying is very true for portrait photography. but I am trying to approach the "posing" issue in a more general sense: Personally, I am not really interested in taking "portaits", but I have certain "images" in my mind which are expressing certain notions / emotions that I would like to capture in actual photographic pictures. In this type of photography, the photographer has a similar function as a "movie director", who wants to create the scene in the script on the actual set. The "portrait photographer" in the sense of Tim Walden is the type of director that manages to materalize "true" emations & moments. For other types of pictures, a different type of directing is needed. The discussion I am trying to provoke here is about the nature of (and techniques/approaches for) the "directing" role of the photographer in a general sense.

If you have certain emotions or feelings in mind that you would like to come across, than either you have to be just lucky and wait for the emotion to happen (like crying for instance). You could be waiting for a very long time..Or..you could help the model and hit him or her on the head real hard ;-) LOL
Or...you should hire an actor that will cry for you on demand...

On a serious note..I do think we both agree that this does not have to do too much with traditional posing.

By the way..calling for an expression is in my opinion part of (traditional) posing....and this off course has to do with emotions. And yes..I believe that the photographer plays a significant part in this.

Regards,

Lennaert

Little Hero said:

If you have certain emotions or feelings in mind that you would
like to come across, than either you have to be just lucky and wait
for the emotion to happen (like crying for instance). You could be
waiting for a very long time..Or..you could help the model and hit
him or her on the head real hard ;-) LOL

Click to expand...

I guess I didn't express myself properly (English isn't my first language). I don't want to "express emotions and feelings", but I have a clear idea what the picutres I want to take are supposed to look like, including model poses & expressions. I like to think about picutres in terms of a "film still" (are you familar with Cindy Sherman?)

Little Hero said:

And yes..I believe that the photographer plays a
significant part in this.

Click to expand...

I have already mentioned the way I get my results, so how do you do it / which techniques are you using?

Photography has very little to do with taking photographs, especially of people. It's all about having a vision and capturing it.

Part of my developing technique is to insist upon a meeting before a shoot (I'm new to this so I am picking it apart piece by piece, whereas someone like Monte Zucker can do all of this on the fly).

I do this for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is to "scope out" the subject physically, mentally, chemically, reflectively. A big part of it is figuring out if the person can take direction from me. When I say that I don't mean me barking orders, the reality is something much, much more subtle. This is where a background in Jazz performance comes in really handy. It's all about body language and settling into the "pocket".

I have to say that most people can smell a salesman (liar) a mile away (and many people actually want to be sold, BTW). I happen to not be into the money part right now and am REALLY into making the person look good and capturing the beauty that is in each an every one of us. I simply try to convey this and get us on the same page in terms of strategy.

This approach requires a lot of intelligence, learning and work from the subject and I am very honest about that. Subsequently, I'll probably never make much money at this, LOL! Once I can get to the space I described above, asking someone to **** their head or put weight on the rear leg becomes trivial.
I guess like you alluded to you become a coreographer, in dance parlance.
Kent

What happens if you walk up to someone in a suit and say, "I want to take your picture.". 99% percent of the time they will stand flat footed, square to the camera, suit coat open, back and shoulders slumping and hands clasped in front of the crotch in the fig-leaf position.

Ever watch the movie "Broadcast News" in which the dumb but photogenic anchor teaches the brilliant but clueless wannabe anchor how to sit and look good in front of a camera. The advice? Sit bolt upright, shoulders back, chin up, lean forward, and sit on the tails off your jacket to keep it from riding up. I tell people the same thing when I photograph them for the same reason; it makes them look better in the photo.

Both examples illustrate that what we accept as "natural" in the constantly moving world around us often looks terrible when frozen for posterity in a a 4:3 ratio frame.

It's up to the photographer to apply the principles of visual dynamics, composition, and a good solid understanding of how body language conveys emotion to present the subject in the desired way in the photo. Ironically, its sometimes necessary for the subject to feel uncomfortable to look relaxed and natural to the camera, as in the Broadcast News example.

Posing is not rocket science. Just a thoughtful application of the body language signals we react to every moment of our lives. Like anything else its possible to develop rules of thumb which reflect how the majority of the population will react to a certain posture, such as a characteristically femine pose where the head is turned and tipped to the higher shoulder nearest to the camera.

I was fortunate to learn posing from a master photographer who was able to convey the process of posing in a series of logical steps.

Like building a house, a pose starts with the foundation, the feet and is built upward. If the person is standing flat footed, everything else in the body -- hips, shoulders, eye line -- will also be flat and static.

But simply place one foot slightly ahead of the other and shift the weight to the rear foot and amazing things occur automatically:

-- the torso now faces the camera obliquely, giving it a slimmer appearance while at the same time revealing three dimensional shape as a result of the near-far perspective which creates that illusion in the mind's eye when looking at a flat photo.

-- The legs get aligned together as viewed from camera position, eliminating any distracting gap and the front leg has an eye pleasing angled look. Front foot points at the camera, minimizing its apparent size and rear foot is hidden behind the front minimizing its appearance

-- The hips and shoulders tilt at an eye pleasing angle. Primax recent posted an excellent and inforative essay on the dynamics of body language in posing, focusing on shoulder and hip angles: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=14459429

-- The head, when turned relative to the shoulder line telegraphs masculinitity or femininity. How the viewer of the photo reacts is largely due to cultural conditioning based on direct observation and images in the media. A head squared off with the shoulder line is percieved by most as masculine because that's how we see strong men posed in movies and advertisements. A head turned and tip the the high shoulder will be perceived as feminine because that's how we see attractive models vamp at the end of the runway.

Those conventions apply regardless of gender of the subject. Put a woman in a masculine pose and the photo will convey one message about her. Put the same woman in the same outfit in a very feminine pose and a different message is conveyed.

Put a cowboy into a obviously feminine pose and the view will do a double take because it doesn't fit the brain's memory map of what a cowboy should look like. Now maybe that is EXACTLY the reaction the photographer want's the viewer to have. But if the photograher does not understand what it takes to pose a cowboy to look like one, they probably will not know how to break than convention to get the intended effect.

Conventions or rules do not apply in all cases, but you need to know the rules -- how most people expect to see a situation depicted -- to know how to creatively break them.

Artistic types rail against rules, but to the extent they are able to pull off effective visual statements that break conventions it is largely due to realization of exactly what those conventions are and just doing the opposite to be different. In a 3 year-old that's considered petulance but in a 30 year-old with a camera its the epitoome of artistic vision.

Me? I just put one foot in front of the other and shift my weight to the back hip and hope for the best.

CG

And I thought I was the only one who figured I'd never make any money at photography!

Well, I definitely not a posing expert, but here's my experience:

As Kent wrote, the meeting beforehand is good. I do that and also ask the person to bring photos they like from magazines-- photos that they think they might want to try to recreate. This helps give a sense of how the person sees themselves and what a session will be like.

It's amazing how someone animated on the street can be frozen still by a camera. This even happens to young children-- they'll be playing and you whip out the camera and suddenly the play stops and they freeze.

There is definitely an element of acting when it comes to poses. I try my best to make the model feel comfortable and get them to express some feelings ("what do you like about the clothes you are wearing? Where would you wear them? How do they make you feel?") Granted, this doesn't always work.

Also, some advice I read in a book (groan... I know that's not what you wanted... but it's good advice) is to make them say a word while posing. Say you're looking for a sexy pose-- have them mouth or say the word "hot" or "sexy" etc. This works for eloquent and all kinds of other poses. It just helps set the mood. Anyway, I think that's why location portraits can be easier than studio shots... you can get people talking about their surroundings and acting more natural.

Just my two-cents.

--
Pete Springer
http://www.dogwooddigital.net

Kent Johnson said:

Part of my developing technique is to insist upon a meeting before
a shoot (I'm new to this so I am picking it apart piece by piece,
whereas someone like Monte Zucker can do all of this on the fly).

Click to expand...

People go to Monte because they are attracted to his style of portraiture, so he doesn't need to reinvent the wheel with every subject to try to come up with some new unique look. That's why in the majority of his shots you'll see short-lit oblique facial views. The reason is that combination is the most flattering way to depict 99% of the faces in the world.

I have not seen him for many years, but when I worked for him he used and taught the ground-up method of posing I outlined in my other message in this thread. While some might see this as contraining, Monte had a more practical view which I share. The 1-2-3 formula quick gets the set-up of the supporting composition of the body out of the way in no-brainer fashion so the photographer is able to devote 100% of their and the subject's attention to the more important part of the photograph between the chin and hairline.

CG

I think the difference here is that you are trying to convey a concept or vision or message with your photography as opposed to taking an interesting or flattering "portrait".

Your approach to obtaining the result you envision will require your exclusive thought process to be applied to each individual project. Formulas rarely apply to this sort or individual artistic endeavor.

Just my thoughts on what I think I percieve as your intent.
--
Rodger
http://www.pbase.com/rodger_cooley/root

astefot said:

These are just some loose thoughts. How do you tackle the posing
issue in your photography?

Click to expand...

I let the subjects pose themselves by verbally and visually prompting them. A simple, 'Hey! Can you do something like this?' brings the subject to a transitional stage. They have to transition from doing nothing to trying to imitate me. During this transition (or lack thereof) I often find the unique looks that canned poses lack. Simple hand and body gestures can get people into positions that in general just can't be hard posed.

There are always 2 things I strive to hear from a client and observor. One is, "Wow, I didn't know I could look like that!" and the second is, "How did you get them to look like that?"
Regards,
VG

Much of what we call "rules" are merely the listing of things that have been found to work. One may not always know why, which is why many people chafe at having to "obey" them.

Most of us have heard a bit about "body language," and some psychologists have explored it intensely, even discovering that there is male and female body language that is remarkably consistent even across cultures. For instance, in most cultures of the world, a feminine pose (standing or sitting) occupies as little space as possible, while a characteristically male pose (standing or sitting) occupies as much space as possible.

Turn them around, and you get a picture that creates a double-take. A male in a space-conserving pose will look pensive, awkward, and unassertive. A woman in a space-consuming pose looks bold and sexually aggressive. Both are okay....if that's what you want.

Actors train to know the rules of body language, and more importantly, learn how they apply to the viewpoint of an audience. Most people have learned them instinctively, but don't often resort to them in the unfamiliar setting of a photo studio (not enough "practice" in that particular environment).

As Chuck said, you can break the "rules," but you need to know what you're breaking and why.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

astefot said:

My experience is that if you ask people to practice "posing" or
trying to push them into certain standard "poses", one can be
almost 100% sure to end up with a highly unnatural posture with the
average person.

Click to expand...

first let me say from my experience that not every photographer can photograph every model. there is a certain element of personal connection between the subject and the photographer. I shoot several hundred models a year. I have 3-4 failures. models I can not pose. can not relate too, models I can not photograph.

astefot said:

The best posing I got in front of my lenses in the studio were not
from photo models, but from people with "stage" experience
(singers, musicians actors). These folks seem to be aware that a
good "pose" isn't about getting the angles of certain joints right,
but about expressing certain emotions, ideas etc. with the help of
the body (in this sense, posing is about "body language").

Click to expand...

posing to me is about documenting the relationship between myself and the model through the lens. yes dancers and actors can display relationships however 'common' people can too if they are made to feel comfortable, safe and trusted.

astefot said:

The partner of the model was also present. He's a dancing
enthusiast and it was very interesting to discuss the posing issue
with him. It looks like there ais more than point of contact
between dancing / dancing pedagogy and posing for studio
photography. I am planning to do some further research in this
direction.

Click to expand...

I have more trouble with the 'partners' present, than alone. in my experience the models won't relax with the partners there. all relationships are based upon a dominate/sub dominate theme. as a photographer/artist I must understand that dynamic and replace that 'relationship' with a situation that I manufacture so that I may capture the 'mood/pose/look/feeling' I determine

regards, jfs

john_smith said:

I have more trouble with the 'partners' present, than alone. in
my experience the models won't relax with the partners there.

Click to expand...

I also have made that experience. Sometimes, its not really "not relaxed", but just "different". I once took pictures with somebody that called me again one year later; she said that she had split up with her partner and that she would like to do a reshoot because now she is "free" to get the pictures she really is interested in (we're not talking about naughty pictures here or anything).

I usually do not recommend bringing aliong a partner, but rather a friend or a sibling.

Chuck Gardner said:

Those conventions apply regardless of gender of the subject.

Click to expand...

So if given a job from a news magazine, this is how you would take a picture of Saddam Hussein??!

Chuck Gardner said:

Artistic types rail against rules, but to the extent they are able
to pull off effective visual statements that break conventions it
is largely due to realization of exactly what those conventions are
and just doing the opposite to be different. In a 3 year-old
that's considered petulance but in a 30 year-old with a camera its
the epitoome of artistic vision.

Click to expand...

I fully agree that you can only "break the rules" if you know them very well, and that "breaking the rules" will only be "successful" (in the sense of getting attention, more spectators, more cash) is you not only understand the rules themselves, but also what the MEAN for a certain audience.