One of my first studio portraits: Stephen

My exploration of studio portraiture:

Wow! I can think of a lot rules you are breaking, but it is still a great portrait.
--
Less is more

Thanks! Could you tell me about those rules I neglected?

Alex Efimoff said:

Thanks! Could you tell me about those rules I neglected?

Click to expand...

Only reluctantly as I really like this portrait, but here goes:

1. You cut off the top of his hair. You can cut the top of the head, but cutting only strands of hair is not very harmonic
2. Clothing: stripe pattern, check pattern and a knitted sweater creates a distracting chaos in the bottom of the picture
3. Framing: The head is closer to the frame in the right side where his head is tilting towards, and there's a lot of room to the left, where nothing seems to be happening. Usually, one would let the open space be located in the direction the subject looks or "moves" (tilts).
4. The light is a little flat with no hairlight or kicker to accentuate the edges and contrast to the background. "If you want to create interesting light, you must create interesting shadows".

One rule you did obey: "If you want to create interesting portraits, you must photograph interesting people", and Stephen Fry is indeed looking interesting in this picture. So much so, that the sum - and I will attribute that to your intelligent rulebreaking - is much more interesting, than if Stephen had looked the same and you had done the usual portrait routine.

Nice job, wish it was mine.
--
Less is more

Great pic, well done, captures the character of the subject nicely.

This is an exceptional capture of a strong character face ! B&W is well chosen, fits the face !
Great teamwork !

see more of my work on http://www.klaweide.de ( some NSFW )

how the hell did you get him to pose for you? [jealous]

Klaus dk said:

Alex Efimoff said:

Thanks! Could you tell me about those rules I neglected?

Click to expand...

Only reluctantly as I really like this portrait, but here goes:

1. You cut off the top of his hair. You can cut the top of the head, but cutting only strands of hair is not very harmonic
2. Clothing: stripe pattern, check pattern and a knitted sweater creates a distracting chaos in the bottom of the picture
3. Framing: The head is closer to the frame in the right side where his head is tilting towards, and there's a lot of room to the left, where nothing seems to be happening. Usually, one would let the open space be located in the direction the subject looks or "moves" (tilts).
4. The light is a little flat with no hairlight or kicker to accentuate the edges and contrast to the background. "If you want to create interesting light, you must create interesting shadows".

One rule you did obey: "If you want to create interesting portraits, you must photograph interesting people", and Stephen Fry is indeed looking interesting in this picture. So much so, that the sum - and I will attribute that to your intelligent rulebreaking - is much more interesting, than if Stephen had looked the same and you had done the usual portrait routine.

Nice job, wish it was mine.
--
Less is more

Click to expand...

Hey Klaus,
thanks for the feedback!

1. I would disagree on this point, I don't think hair is a very important element this in this shot. But, it's my subjective vision on the portrait of course, you might be very right about it.

2. I had no chance to work on Stephen's clothing I couldn't even ask him to wear something specific.

3. Strongly disagree with you, this shift gives a dynamic element to the shot without it the portrait would be more static and frozen.

4. I didn't want light and shadows to distract one's attention from Stephen's personality, but yes the result if a bit flat, I agree.

Ronan_M said:

how the hell did you get him to pose for you? [jealous]

Click to expand...

I asked him to pose for one of my projects and he was quite keen to help me with it

Alex Efimoff said:

Klaus dk said:

Alex Efimoff said:

Thanks! Could you tell me about those rules I neglected?

Click to expand...

Only reluctantly as I really like this portrait, but here goes:

1. You cut off the top of his hair. You can cut the top of the head, but cutting only strands of hair is not very harmonic
2. Clothing: stripe pattern, check pattern and a knitted sweater creates a distracting chaos in the bottom of the picture
3. Framing: The head is closer to the frame in the right side where his head is tilting towards, and there's a lot of room to the left, where nothing seems to be happening. Usually, one would let the open space be located in the direction the subject looks or "moves" (tilts).
4. The light is a little flat with no hairlight or kicker to accentuate the edges and contrast to the background. "If you want to create interesting light, you must create interesting shadows".

One rule you did obey: "If you want to create interesting portraits, you must photograph interesting people", and Stephen Fry is indeed looking interesting in this picture. So much so, that the sum - and I will attribute that to your intelligent rulebreaking - is much more interesting, than if Stephen had looked the same and you had done the usual portrait routine.

Nice job, wish it was mine.
--
Less is more

Click to expand...

Hey Klaus,
thanks for the feedback!

Click to expand...

Your'e welcome, it is a learning experience to comment on the work of others, so I consider it a win/win experience.

Alex Efimoff said:

1. I would disagree on this point, I don't think hair is a very important element this in this shot. But, it's my subjective vision on the portrait of course, you might be very right about it.

Click to expand...

My point is, that one should either crop a little tighter to make it clear that the hair is insignificant, or let the full body of hair be visible. In my opinion, hair is very important in a portrait, but it is for the photographer to decide how much of it should be visible.

Alex Efimoff said:

2. I had no chance to work on Stephen's clothing I couldn't even ask him to wear something specific.

Click to expand...

I think the clothing reflects his expression and underlines the picture's informal mood, so it is a rule broken with good results.

Alex Efimoff said:

3. Strongly disagree with you, this shift gives a dynamic element to the shot without it the portrait would be more static and frozen.

Click to expand...

You do not disagree with me , you disagree with the rule (admittedly formulated by me). I think you achieved just what you wanted for exactly the reason you give.

Alex Efimoff said:

4. I didn't want light and shadows to distract one's attention from Stephen's personality, but yes the result if a bit flat, I agree.

Click to expand...

And Stephen gave you a lot of personality there, so if you had tried to add some by being artsy, it would have been over the top. I am learning here too, so I stopped to think of how one could have made the light more interesting without contesting the sitter. Your own answer to that question will probably be as good as mine, but if this is your first, I respect your playing it a bit on the safe side.

Is the crop straight out of camera or did you crop extra in PP?

BTW I think it was a very fine gesture of him to sit for you and I am as envious as Ronan_M.

--
Less is more

Yes it is a great picture, but I feel it may have been enhanced a bit, with a little more contrast. But that's a matter of liking.

It's very well done and Mr. Fry is a very interesting person. So no criticism to this particular picture, but.....

Now I am probably sticking my head out, but why is a good portrait of a celebrity so much better than a portrait of John Doe which can be right out excellent in most cases, done by Mr. Who?

What makes a good portrait? Is it significant that the portrait is of a well known figure? And is it even more significant when a celebrity photographer has done it?

We have to admit to ourselves that even well known photographers do mediocre work at times as we all do at times, but still it seems that they are being cheered doing so. Are we afraid of questioning the work or are we just afraid of sticking our heads out?
idl

Ivar Dahl Larsen said:

Now I am probably sticking my head out, but why is a good portrait of a celebrity so much better than a portrait of John Doe which can be right out excellent in most cases, done by Mr. Who?

Click to expand...

I think it very much depends on why the celebrity is a celebrity. In this case the sitter is an actor who clearly has decided that he will help this photographer by letting him use his face. But not only the face, also an expressive attitude. Actors can look interesting on command, this is something an actor learns (I assume) and Stephen Fry clearly has that quality.

In this case the photographer is not so well know, and had he been overly ambitious, he might have done all sorts of tricks with light and framing and what have you, which would end up competing with the sitter. But he didn't, his lighting is subtle, close to flat, his framing is close but not dramatic - all his choices are so close to being invisible, that Stephen Fry is allowed to play prince charming and literaly fill the frame with that. Even if it is all accidental and not by choice, it still works for me and I do not want to be any wiser.

Had the celebrity been an introvert scientist or writer, the photographer should have chosen differently to convey the interest the sitter commands.

Ivar Dahl Larsen said:

What makes a good portrait? Is it significant that the portrait is of a well known figure?

Click to expand...

To some people it is necessary to feel they know the person being portrayed - either as a personal friend, a familiy member or as a celebrity. My personal take is different. To me, a good portrait makes me feel I know the person. But good portraits come in many flavours. Often my sitters wants a profile picture for LinkedIn or a portrait to be given to their parents as a gift. Psychologically, such portraits should not be very complicated, but I still try my best to make a technically decent piece of work.

Ivar Dahl Larsen said:

And is it even more significant when a celebrity photographer has done it?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, even the best can have an off day where the results are less than brilliant. But famous photographers are famous for a reason. If you do not deliver, you will not maintain status and fame for very long. And even if you do, you might not be reckognised as you deserve, because there are so many good photographers out there.

Ivar Dahl Larsen said:

We have to admit to ourselves that even well known photographers do mediocre work at times as we all do at times, but still it seems that they are being cheered doing so. Are we afraid of questioning the work or are we just afraid of sticking our heads out?

Click to expand...

As it is sometimes very difficult to pinpoint what we like about a picture, we are probably prone to believe, that if a picture is taken by a highly regarded photographer, it may be that others can see what we don't, and we therefore choose to keep quiet about our doubts. Surely, The Emperors New Clothes are at play here, but I have experienced that some pictures need to be seen several times or studied meticulously, before they will reveal their real qualities. So usually, if I do not like a picture, I will give it the benefit of doubt, especially if I know the photographer to be good.

Thank you for the thought provoking questions. Even if you do not care to read my answer, I had a good time contemplating it.

--
Less is more

To Claus.

I appreciate your full answer, very well said and much to the point albeit I still am of the opinion that; " as long as there is a celebrity portraited and furthermore a celebrity photographer envolved in the process, it stirrs up more interest than a marvelous portrait done by "nobody" in general." And not always fair. Much so up here in the cold north.
--
idl

Ivar Dahl Larsen said:

To Claus.

I appreciate your full answer, very well said and much to the point albeit I still am of the opinion that; " as long as there is a celebrity portraited and furthermore a celebrity photographer envolved in the process, it stirrs up more interest than a marvelous portrait done by "nobody" in general." And not always fair. Much so up here in the cold north.
--
idl

Click to expand...

Maybe we just have to agree, that we do not always get what we deserve. That applies to sex, money, reckognition, you name it. Just look how you spelled my name, did I deserve that?
--
Less is more

To Klaus.

Sorry mate, I sincerely apologise of misspelling your name. I should have paid more attention. I guess you are right generally speaking regarding what's fair in life albeit highly subjective. Take care and all the best.
--
idl

--
Less is more

Like it!

Disagree on the lack of hair light. The light on the BG is enough. The sooner you get away from the "rules" the better. Although constructive critisism is good. Don't let your style get shaped by them. By far the most important thing about a portrait is that it elicits emotion. And this portrait does!

Brad King said:

Brad King wrote:

Disagree on the lack of hair light. The light on the BG is enough. The sooner you get away from the "rules" the better. Although constructive critisism is good. Don't let your style get shaped by them. By far the most important thing about a portrait is that it elicits emotion. And this portrait does!

Click to expand...

I am sorry that you think we disagree, beacuse we don't. After all it was I who said "Wow!" in the first place.

OTOH if you don't know the rules and why you break them, you miss the foundation of creativity. IMHO, of course.