SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

One of my first formal digital portraits.
So I pose the question, do all formal portraits have to be like a stodgy documentary shot, or can they actually be a little playful as well?
If you have something formal but playful, go ahead and post it! Lets see it!?
SS

(Download)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

It looks like a lot of fun.

CO

I don't think they have to be stodgy. This is great. The double catchlights are the only thing that would bother me. That's really subjective though. I know that people have different views on catchlights.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

I actually have a term for them. I call them "personality portraits," and always try to add a few with every sitting. I have even worked in a few with corporate headshots.

Even if they aren't purchased, I enjoy doing them, and I think if done at the beginning, it really helps loosen up the subject.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Of, course formal portraiture can be “fun”- why not?!

Perhaps “formal” is not the best word, I prefer “fine portraiture”. I suppose it's a matter of semantics. When we say “formal, what does that mean? Does the subject wear formal attire? Are we talking about institutional portraits that hang in the halls of government or in corporate boardrooms? Does the portrait need to have an affectedness of formality? I think that an “official” portrait of a chief or police, a judge or a military person in uniform should not express a feeling of “fun, but it needn't be stodgy or stilted. Today's trends in executive and business portraiture are moving toward more
approachable expressions.

By the same token, a casual or “fun” portrait needn't be a sloppy portraits lacking in good aesthetics and precise technique. An outstanding portrait should be an artistic interpretation of the subject's character, station in life and the image should contain a theme or a story-telling statement about the person in the image.

CATCH-LIGHTS- The rendition of the subject's eyes are one of the most important aspects of a photographic portrait both from a standpoint of expression and technical quality. I can write a thesis on the eyes alone. There is an old adage about “the eyes are the windows to the soul” perhaps a bit poetic and philosophical but true. Even if a person is not displaying and ear to ear grin, they can “smile with their eyes”. The disposition of the eyes can express the subject's personality and mood. We have all heard the expressions “piercing eyes, wandering eyes, a twinkle in his or her eye, sparkling eyes, curious eyes and sensuous eyes. When folks are angry with us they give us “the evil eye”! When we are board or frustrated with each other we roll our eyes upward. When we are suspicious of someone, we LOOK at them “sideways”. When we are sincere we “look people IN the eye”!

So...how, from a technical viewpoint, do we effectively render the eyes . In creating a traditional portrait lighting we need to make certain that the eyes are adequately illuminated. Whether we are working with “studio” or photographer controlled light sources or utilizing natural light we need to employ techniques that accentuate the eyes. As a rule of thumb, if the main light source it TOO HIGH relative to the subjects facial position it is likely that the eyes will be under illuminated. We need to not only light the eyes but the entire orbital area of the subject's face- the eye sockets as well as the eyes. If the subject has deep set eyes, it man be necessary to lower the light a bit more to accommodate that kind of facial structure.

The CATCH LIGHTS are the specular reflections of the light source in the subjects eyes. Theses reflections are one of the important indicators or landmarks by which the general lighting of the face is assessed. If the main light source is too high, the eye socked can remain in shadow and there might be an absence of catch-lights. As the main light is lowered or the subject's head position is adjusted to accommodate the natural light, catch-light may begin to appear, however, there can be the appearance theses reflection while there is still not enough illumination to properly render shadow detail in the eyes and bring out all the color, luster and sparkle. This is something that needs to be closely observed.

The position of the catch-lights in the eyes are also indicators of the correctness of the lighting as to the desired lighting pattern and the unity of lighting. As a starting rule of thumb, in many classic lightnings, the catch lights should appear in the 11 o'clock or 1 o'clock position in the pupils. Multiple catch-lights are usually not particularly desirable in that they indicate more than one main light source or lighting direction- this can be a sign of a disunity of lighting. Even if the lighting is essentially correct, traditionally, secondary catch lights are carefully removed in retouching or editing. The catch lights should also be compatible with the actual light source. Broader light sources will yield larger and softer catch lights than more concentrated lights. Some retouchers will reduce the size of the catch-lights to make them seem sharper but that effect can seem incompatible with very soft lighting. Very large umbrellas or soft boxes can create catch lights that are too big and tend to diminish the color saturation and delineation of the eyes. Catch lights in the dead center of the eyes tend to create a kinda manic stare. Ring lights case doughnut shaped catch lights which are not aesthetically pleasing and beauty-lights can be problematic in this respect as well. Catch lights from very symmetrical lighting setups or lights or reflectors placed lower than the subject's eye level can create 4 or more catch lights. I have seen this in many cosmetic ads, fashion shots and so-called glamour portraits with almost totally shadow-less lighting. I find that many catch lights somewhat distracting but it seems to be a trend in certain circles.

Many theatrical portraits , portraying sinister or mysterious characters are purposely lighted and posed to obscure the eyes in shadow.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

My theory on catch lights is not exactly on par with what most photographers say is "correct."

First, yes, you NEED to have some sort of catch light in the eyes. Your average person has absolutely no idea what it is, and can't even tell you why one portrait that has catch lights, is better than one that doesn't, but they will almost always choose the one with the catch lights.

As for having just one, I think a lot depends on the actual lighting. When using clamshell lights, it would almost look weird not to have 2 catch lights. I've actually added catch lights in post when I blew an otherwise decent shot, but rarely do I remove a second catch light unless it's distracting somehow. I think in the example above, it actually draws my eyes to her eyes, and it just works for me. I've seen others where you can make out the exact shape, and even the "ribs" of the umbrella, that was completely distracting, covered part of the pupil, and was just completely distracting (at least to me) IN that case, I might have fixed or removed that catch light, and put in something a little less attention grabbing.)

Of course, I'm not the expert that some here are, it's my opinion and it works for me. I love the example photo, and would have been proud had I been the one who had created it.

papa Loc: Rio Dell, CA

If they're not fun, then who's doing it wrong??? I feel that fun is the element that brings out the best for the shoot.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Papa, yes we're supposed to be having fun when we shoot, AND the subject we assume has fun too!
I'd like to see a few people post a few portraits where we CAN SEE that there was fun going on, where it's obvious that all had a good time, not because we have an expressionless victim and we have to be TOLD that it was fun!!!
The kind of portraits where a customer says, "that photographer takes fun shots, I'd like to shoot with him/her.
A portrait can be ungodly good, but that in no way conveys fun! Just saying!!! 📷🤡📷
SS