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

Richard Avedon, Annie Leibovitz, Arnold Newman, Irving Penn, et al. The crossover from fashion photography to portraiture. The ethics of advertising (that may be the all-time greatest oxymoron). The analysis of facial structures and body styles in high-fashion models. The Marlboro-Man I think he actually died of cancer. All very sophisticated subjects relating to portrait photography. No doubt, fashion does influence portraits. This is great stuff to analyze and apply.

For me, however, like we used to say in the army, some of this is way above my pay grade!

Of course, all of this is relevant but I still gotta stick to my guns and emphasize the BASICS come first and the psychology, philosophy, and style will follow and it is up to each photographer to explore all the depths ONCE HE OR SHE KNOWS HOW TO MANAGE THE BASICS.

If you carefully examine the work and styles of some of the aforementioned masters you will notice each has their distinctive style and approach but there are lots of commonalities. They know how to shoot "FACES", that is, the knew the classic position of the lens in relation to the position of the face to create a good likeness without distortions or distractions. They all understood and recognized body mechanics and balance so whether they directed the pose or caught the pose they were all able to interpret their subjects with grace and character in a natural way. The all knew where to place the lights or find the light and how the light would render the face and body. They all knew how to relate to their subjects and draw them out. And... they were all good technicians as well as artists- the all know who to take full control of there cameras.

Whether you photograph a young woman with a snake or with her sports car or with her mother or whether you use flash, tungsten lights, LEDs, the Sun or a candle there are certain foundations that make for great portraits. You may use a dark background, so-called "bokeh, or a room full of clutter is all beside the point. If the basics are there you will have an effective image.

What is missing in many cases, are the basics. The apply to traditional, contemporary, and modern portraiture- even abstract interpretation. If you know the "rules' you will better understand how and when to break them.

Nowadays some photographers are just too hung up on equipment. Half the features on today's camera are totally unnecessary for great portraiture, in fact, many of them get in the way and end up as a barrier between the photographer and his or her subjects. Some folks think portraiture is the "Minute Waltz" of photography- slow moving precise work in a studio or garden setting. In reality, it is "Jungle Drums", Jazz and Rock'n'Roll and requires the speed and reflexes of a sports photographer or photojournalist in a war zone. The human expression can be fleeting. Y'all would be surprised how fast you may have to move your lights around a subject.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

One important 'thing' is to see the sense of the time that fashion changed the styling of portraiture and photography in general. I strongly recommend a period film released in 1966, shot in 1963 to 64, the film is Blow Up, here is a link to that film:
https://ffilms.org/blow-up-1966/

Google is NOT your friend, it takes time to go over the many aspects of something like portraiture, or any subject in photography. There are many things that fall outside the mechanics of photographic equipment. To understand these issues is to better advance the way you make a photograph and how your subject will respond to you.

Photography is never learned by reading books or the internet or watching videos, it is learned by doing. You have to do the activity to learn from the experience. Ask the weird questions and then try out the results of that thinking. What would be different in the results from a twin lens reflex camera instead of a SLR camera. Simple issues become important and different between both cameras, try it out and see the differences.

Bipod

I said the portraiture that you invoked Duchamp to defend is utilitarian and made-for-hire.
It goes without saying is is also photorealism--since it's a straight photograph.

Duchamp was (at various times) a Cubist, Dadaist, and conceptual artist. He felt about
photorealism the way I feel about Driver's License photos. :-)

Try Edward Hopper instead.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

You use Edward Hopper if you wish. As to the notion of 'a straight photograph', there is the work "Paris Air" with Duchamp's portrait as his trans gendered alter persona Rrose Sélavy. The portrait is done by Man Ray (both a portraitist and fashion artist of that period (between the two World Wars)).

"Rrose Sélavy first appeared in the annals of art in 1920 as Rose Sélavy, which sounds like: "Rose, c'est la vie." In 1921, she acquired the extra "r" when she added her signature to L'Oeil Cacodylate, a painting by Francis Paraiba. But Rrose Sélavy - "eros, that's life" - is most often identified as the author of works by Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968). The pun that is Rrose Sélavy is an expression of everything Duchamp's art is about; eros, that's it, that's all there is."*

*https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2001/oct/27/art.surrealismatthevanda

So, back to you.

Bipod

This doesn't make any sense. Man Ray doesn't look like Zeltsman's work either.
Not even his photographic portrait of "Rose Sélavy" -- typical dramatic lighting,
not Zeltsman's method.

The issue is Zeltsman's portraiture. You quoted Marcel Duchamp in defense of it.
Here is Marcel Duchamp's "Portrait of Two Chess Players":
http://www.galleryintell.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/duchamp_chesplayer_1911.jpg
Here is "Sad Young Man on a Train":
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NGgB9K7toro/U3qTQVMqFZI/AAAAAAAABPA/Tl-d4wpaxHs/s1600/sad+young+man+on+a+train+duchamp.JPG
Do you think these look like one of Zeltsman's photo portraits? Do they represent
the same aesthetic?

Edward Hopper's work does come close to Zeltsman at times:
"Self Portrait"
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/hopper/hopper.self-portrait.jpg

Note the "plain outdoor light".

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

I went to see "Blow Up" when it was first released and went back to see it several times afterward. Funny you mention it. That film turned many of my younger friends ON to photography. I tried to insist that such a small a small section of a 35mm negative, in reality, would not reveal such detailed information but my words went unheeded!

Sadly, there an not too many feature or biographical films based on some the iconic photograhers. There was one "In the Public EYE" very loosely based on Weegee, but Weegee's estate kinda disclaimed it as beig too romanticized. Charles Bronson starred in an early TV series as a Photojournalist- "Man With a Camera". Photography has so many interesting and wonderfully flawed characters-innovators, artists, hermits, crusaders, misfits, heroes, successes and failure- the stuff of Hollywood. Imagine- W. Eugene Smith, Adams, Winogrand, Eisenstadt, HCB, all the famous war photographers, Edward Green's encounter with Marilyn Monroe- there's a story.

I went to the link to see about Man Ray and the site was desecrated by an ad, in bold wht type on a RED background , touting a discount on contact lenses. Interesting information nonetheless.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Fun with Zeltsman, BUT the op was asking about techniques for basic or introductory portraiture. My replied that a certain basic approach to begin would be to look at the information about the foundational basic portraiture of William Mortenson. His 'basic light' is the foundation for a beginner to learn the most rudimentary information about the basics in portraiture.

Now Zeltsman may be a super hero for doing portraiture, and that is just fine. If you want to understand the origins of his suggestions then I would suggest Alfred Chaney Johnson, photographer (Google is getting so weird!).

Johnson explained that he studied in depth many of the Renaissance masters, especially painters but as well other disciplines. His use of composition directly draws from a painterly tradition. The placement of hands and his insistence of posing the entire hand, writ and fingers copies the use in the over all composition of his work is telling and critical as a literal homage of individual such as Michelangelo, Titan, Leonardo and many others. It is not that Johnson copied the master's work, but that he applied the ideas to his own careful crafted portraiture.

That is all fine and grand but it does nothing to address the OP original request for a suggestion for some guidance into the basics or foundations of portraiture. I pointed to Mortensons Basic Light because it is or can be the most basic approach to a beginning to do portraiture in photography.

This discussion pointing to Zeltsman, a sophisticate commercial portrait photographer, is in my mind nothing to do with basic/introduction to the subject of portraiture. It great for someone who has experience in commercial portrait photography and wants to move from basics into a more advanced type of commercial portraiture.

Bipod

Yeah, Antonioni's Blow-Up is a great flick--and with a real fashion model:
Veruschka (Countess Vera von Lehndorff-Steinort). The scene in the park with the
sound of the wind is terrific. (Another reference to air is when Thomas buys the
propellar in the curio shop.) Too bad Antonioni didn't ask his DP (Carlo Di Palma)
about the limits to blowing up 35 mm.

Of course, there are people on UHH who believe they can make 30" x 24" landscape
prints from FT format. Well you can...if quality doesn't matter (or if you don't mind
resorting to pixel-shifting multiple-exposure--and pray that nothing moves).

Anybody remember One Hour Photo (2002, dir. Mark Romanek)? I usually
hate movies with Robin Williams, but in this one his weirdness works and he manages
to refrain from chewing up the scenery and spouting one-liners. Good psychological
thriller. The family is not really fleshed out and the ending has some improbable action,
but worth watching.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

The film Blow Up is so kick ass! It captures the feeling of that time in the 60's. Any one interested in the evolution of photography should watch the film, even more than one time.

Another incredible film right after Blow Up was Z. Shot entirely at 20 frames a second with a Nikon F body, it is my feeling just as important as Warhol's film Empire. These are seminal works that help to define modern film making, and modern photography.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

[quote=Bipod]Yeah, Antonioni's Blow-Up is a great flick--and with a real fashion model:
Veruschka (Countess Vera von Lehndorff-Steinort). The scene in the park with the
sound of the wind is terrific. (Another reference to air is when Thomas buys the
propellar in the curio shop.)[quote]

Dude! STOP! People on here will say your thinking entirely too much! I mean air and symbolism! Next you will digress and tell us Picasso glued the sand on his late Cubist paintings to reference grain in films! Oppp, sorry, never mind!

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

Interesting! So how would you advise the OP or anyone else who wants to learn the basics or essence of photographic portraiture. Of course you can't learn it all from a book, or one teacher or one school of thought. I don't think there is one BASIC portrait lighting, only because there is not only one basic face or personality. You can learn about facial structures and delve into personalities and learn the technicalities of light but how do you help someone put all of those elements together.You can advise them to study the great master painters but first they need to know how to operate a camera and mange lights.

Bipod

Thanks--I'll look into Alfred Chaney Johnston the next time I need to photograph
a naked showgirl.

As for Zeltsman, sure, all work-for-hire portrait photography is limited somewhat by
the customer's expections and the occasion. But most of Zeltsman's advice seems pretty
good to me. His diffuse-lighting-in-the-round may look dated, IMHO. But his advice
on posing, etc. is very pertinent.

It would be nice to if every OP question had a simple answer. On a knitting forum,
it probably does. But portraiture is a visual representation of a human being--an art
form that has been developing for centuries: Velasquez, Vermeer, De La Tour, Rembrandt,
Van Dyck, Reynolds, Courbet,Renoir, Eakins, Picasso, Warhol, etc.

Photograph is late to the table, but even so we've had Edward S. Curtis, Dorothea Lange,
Diane Arbus, Philippe Halsman, Yousuf Karsh, Steve McCurry, and Annie Liebovitz.
Unfortunately, most of these masters didn't write a "how-to" manual like Zeltsman did.

Without knowing who the sitter is or why a portrait is being made, it's difficult to know
who the OP should try to emulate. At least the book I mentioned is mainstream.

As for "basic lighting" I suggested the technically simplest approach: one light, add
additional lights (or reflectors) only as necessary to fix obvious defects (e.g. dark shadows on face).
But really, portraiture cannot be made easy or simple, with many different approaches and
few hard-and-fast rules.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

The original request was for a beginner to begin doing portraiture, with an eye to how and what to do with portable flash. First I must take it that they have some knowledge of working with basic camera skills and that they can work the camera with flash equipment. If not then the question is not about the flash and camera gear, they are asking the wrong questions. So I make the general and basic position that they are aware of what they are looking into.

So, In suggested they try Mortenson's Basic Light. What you get from his Basic Light is that the light needs to originate close to the lens axis and that one needs to illuminate the background to have a balanced consistent lighting approach. The next step as Mortenson's explains in his book is to then move the light at the lens outward, essentially an arch to keep the exposure the same (he was doing this before light meters were readily available).

At this point there is no discussion about using more lights to fill in the strong shadows, just to look at the strong dynamic of the head.

Then he states that the photographer use a reflector from the single front light to fill in and so soften the strong shadows created by the single light. Later he tells how a second light of lesser strength be used instead of the reflector to fill in the shadows, but taking care to not over power the shadows being filled in.

From this point one can begin to add lights and/or reflectors to change the basic light. Things like butter fly lighting and such. But it all starts from the place he calls the basic light.

All the fun things like beauty dishes, soft boxes, umbrellas, brolly can not help if you don't have the basics down, and for Mortenson the basics was the Basic Light set up. When one thinks about this one can see that people who are starting out need some basic idea, something from which to depart from AFTER you have the basics down.

gmango85

Great insight. You nailed it.

Bipod

I guess built-in flash is the "basic light" of today. Can't get any closer to the lens axis
than that!

Ansel Adams had a special name for William Mortenson: he called him "the Anti-Christ".
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/photographer-who-ansel-adams-called-anti-christ-180953525/

Here's why:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/ee_uploads/news/4298/06william-mortensen--belphegor.jpg
https://www.imaging-resource.com/ee_uploads/news/4298/02william-mortensen--machiavelli.jpg
http://www.artfixdaily.com/images/pr/Feb25_fay_wray972x790.jpg

Going by the linked portrait by William Mortenson, you'd think that film actress
Margaret Livingston looked like a beached whale wrapped in a fishing net:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Margaret_Livingston.jpg
Actually, she looked like this:
http://www.foundagrave.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/6f15380bf74665b25f62d331ed488ac1-e1457029622930.jpg

According to The Smithsonian "William Mortensen’s grotesque, retouched photos of celebrities
were a far cry from the realism favored by the photography elite." Amen.

There's even a book called American Grotesque: The Life and work of William Mortenson
"American Grotesque is a lavish retrospective of grotesque, occult, and erotic images by the
forgotten Hollywood photographer William Mortensen (1897–1965), an innovative pictorialist
visionary whom Ansel Adams called the "Antichrist" and to whom Anton LaVey dedicated
The Satanic Bible.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/491596115568111964/

Whatever William Mortenson says to do, do the opposite. You can't go wrong.