Check out Black and White Photography section of our forum.
portrait photographers
Apr 2, 2018 09:16:22 #
I am NOT a professional, but i am a photographer, mostly landscape or candids. For the thousands of photos i've made, i have maybe a few shy of a hundred that are really Great. My best portraits were made outdoors or at the subjects home. They were all comfortable in their surroundings. My first great portrait was the third picture i ever made, taken with an Olympus digital point and shoot. I knew i could make more after that. Love the trial and error and be grateful you dont have to have your film developed ($) to see your results. Its the journey and the joy.
Apr 2, 2018 09:47:03 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
sploppert wrote:
what does it take to be a great portrait photographer and take great portraits?
I'm not a portrait photographer but all photography starts with artistic vision. If you don't have it, you're relegated to the dustbin of the snapshooter.
Apr 2, 2018 09:50:08 #
sploppert wrote:
what does it take to be a great portrait photographer and take great portraits?
Study the effects of LIGHT on the subject, (especially their face), and attempt to 'paint' them with light that compliments their character.
Apr 2, 2018 10:02:01 #
sploppert wrote:
what does it take to be a great portrait photographer and take great portraits?
Take lessons by looking at the work of great portrait photographers, contemporary and historic. >Alan
Apr 2, 2018 10:15:30 #
camerapapi wrote:
"what does it take to be a great portrait photographer and take great portraits?"
Lots of practice and learning from others good at it.
Lots of practice and learning from others good at it.
Apr 2, 2018 10:16:10 #
ole sarg wrote:
I would have to disagree the great portrait photographers first knew their subject!
Apr 2, 2018 10:26:08 #
Besperus
Loc: Oregon
I bought a studio in Kansas many years ago from a retired photographer. He had a painted background, a bunch of plastic bushes and trees, an RB 67 studio lights and a long reputation in the community. He was successful at what he did. Studio portraiture. I wanted to do more. I experimented using the knowledge and education I had accumulated. I was not a part of what the community had been used to from the former owner. He had shot school pictures since the late 40’s to the early 70’s. Weddings, portrait and generally any and everything, not what I wanted to do but I learned to give people what they expected...plastic trees and wagon wheels. Since I was the new guy, I never was quite as successful, money wise. But I was branching out and trying to change the style of the studio. As I became more adept at this clients came around from all over. But the local economy could not support my studio and a newer start up of a local photographer who had little or no overhead or preconditioned public expecting the “old studio” look. Economy was going south quick, in the area. So I folded my tripod and moved on.
Anyway, what did I learn about portraiture. One thing, capture the personality of your subject and 6ou will be successful and satisfied with the image. You can be a great technician but take unsatisfying images that simply record a moment in time. Most often it is only a brief moment you have with your subject/client whatever you can learn in those moments use it to your advantage. Open yourself to your subject and they will open to you. Converse, relate do whatever it takes to form a relationship.
Anyway, what did I learn about portraiture. One thing, capture the personality of your subject and 6ou will be successful and satisfied with the image. You can be a great technician but take unsatisfying images that simply record a moment in time. Most often it is only a brief moment you have with your subject/client whatever you can learn in those moments use it to your advantage. Open yourself to your subject and they will open to you. Converse, relate do whatever it takes to form a relationship.
Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.
Apr 2, 2018 10:31:03 #
mikegreenwald
Loc: Illinois
SharpShooter wrote:
S, sorry, but I disagree. Too many are looking for... (show quote)
Now it's my turn to disagree, though only partly.
Talent alone will not get the job done, but excellence can't be achieved without it.
Great equipment helps, but isn't essential. Good equipment is essential, but the bar is relatively low.
Hard work alone won' do it either, if people skills aren't developed.
Talent plus thoughtful hard work over time will create the experience needed for excellence.
And there is always room to learn more, and do a better job.
Apr 2, 2018 10:47:02 #
mikegreenwald wrote:
Now it's my turn to disagree, though only partly.
Talent alone will not get the job done, but excellence can't be achieved without it.
Great equipment helps, but isn't essential. Good equipment is essential, but the bar is relatively low.
Hard work alone won' do it either, if people skills aren't developed.
Talent plus thoughtful hard work over time will create the experience needed for excellence.
And there is always room to learn more, and do a better job.
Talent alone will not get the job done, but excellence can't be achieved without it.
Great equipment helps, but isn't essential. Good equipment is essential, but the bar is relatively low.
Hard work alone won' do it either, if people skills aren't developed.
Talent plus thoughtful hard work over time will create the experience needed for excellence.
And there is always room to learn more, and do a better job.
Nobody is born with photography talent. Talent is developed by learning from others, experimenting with the camera and lighting, breaking the so called rules when necessary, and practice and more practice over time to develop a marketable talent. Anyone can develop the presence to extract the best from your subject, but a good outgoing personality really helps to form a bond with your client.
You may not win a photography contest with "so called" experts using their preconceived rules as guidelines, but if your client likes your work and pays good money for your effort, that is what counts. Remember when every photographer was producing 8 x 10 headshots in portrait mode, Peter Hurley used the horizontal format, placed the head to the far right or left of the space (allowing room to place name and stats) in the void, cut off the top of the head (a real no-no) and got noticed for his style in a digital viewing format. Hurley became the standard for NY casting and the "who's who" of the entertainment world flocked to him at $1500-$2000 a session. Hurley wanted to be noticed and he succeeded while the "experts" scoffed at his work. Make no mistake, talent is developed over time.
Apr 2, 2018 11:03:18 #
Tomcat5133
Loc: Gladwyne PA
Interesting I believe I was reading about Douglas Kirkland the celebrity go to guy. He likes to shoot natural light.
With maybe one light to support. A rapport is always desired. And with famous people they often want out so
he has to cox their ego to get more shots. It was interesting how simple his setup was. I have read about lighting setups
in a studio that are like feature film making. The lighting is good but obviously artificial. The fame of the Mario Testino's
was skill but their own fame as photographers allowed them to push.
I worked with Peter Falk as an art director on a still shoot in a private
home setup with a backdrop for an ad campaign. When he walked in I kept my seat with coffee he sat down and their
was a wonderful poster of Che Guevara and we got into a political discussion and had fun. I knew before hand that
his Columbo character was far from the truth. He was highly educated and an intellectual. He was very respectful
and during the shoot (he has a glass eye) and would ask me what I thought of the polaroids. A gentlemen.
With maybe one light to support. A rapport is always desired. And with famous people they often want out so
he has to cox their ego to get more shots. It was interesting how simple his setup was. I have read about lighting setups
in a studio that are like feature film making. The lighting is good but obviously artificial. The fame of the Mario Testino's
was skill but their own fame as photographers allowed them to push.
I worked with Peter Falk as an art director on a still shoot in a private
home setup with a backdrop for an ad campaign. When he walked in I kept my seat with coffee he sat down and their
was a wonderful poster of Che Guevara and we got into a political discussion and had fun. I knew before hand that
his Columbo character was far from the truth. He was highly educated and an intellectual. He was very respectful
and during the shoot (he has a glass eye) and would ask me what I thought of the polaroids. A gentlemen.
Apr 2, 2018 11:03:21 #
sploppert wrote:
what does it take to be a great portrait photographer and take great portraits?
Empathy, sympathy, and telepathy
Excellent verbal, interpersonal communications skills
Reasonably good equipment (camera, lens, lighting instruments…)
Technical expertise
Practice
The ability to edit one's own work with a highly critical eye, perhaps honed by others' critiques.
Check out Digital Artistry section of our forum.
Apr 2, 2018 11:21:17 #
mas24
Loc: Southern CA
The techniques and skills really have not changed. Only the equipment. If you look at some of the Civil War era B&W portrait photos. All you can say is, wow, that's a great looking photo.
Apr 2, 2018 11:22:38 #
photoman022
Loc: Manchester CT USA
rmalarz wrote:
First, the obvious, one must be totally knowledgeable of their equipment and lighting. Then, one must 'know' the person they are photographing.
--Bob
--Bob
you said it all, I have nothing to add!
Apr 2, 2018 11:28:57 #
You can go back to school and learn about the "Rembrandt", "Norman Rockwell" and other styles of portraiture that will teach you lighting. If you master lighting and flash photography then you will be in the top 20% of most photographers today. Study great works of art for the shadows that the masters used in portraiture. Always take your flash with you where ever you go. You Tube have tons of learning videos on all subjects.
Apr 2, 2018 11:35:55 #
mas24
Loc: Southern CA
rmalarz wrote:
First, the obvious, one must be totally knowledgeable of their equipment and lighting. Then, one must 'know' the person they are photographing.
--Bob
--Bob
Totally agree. And lighting is especially important. Years ago, I knew a photographer who did indoor family portraits. He had very good lighting equipment. And made enough money to pay for all of his equipment.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.