What defines a Portrait and its merits.
In a number of Photographic competitions I note of late that Photographs entered and regarded by the exhibitor as a Portrait is less than what I would have defined as a such. What is the members views on the subject and tips of the art and skills to get a winner.
There has been several threads on this subject. Go to search and look up the threads. There is several pages on this subject. I think is conjecture of the observer opinion. I do do not know what all the fuss is about. Which came first the chicken or the egg?
What matters?
Genius, perhaps.
Google Jane Bown.
Cheers,
R.
MWAC
Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy
I think the question should be want do you consider a portrait and why do you believe these other images were not portraits?
When they say portrait they might mean the way it is formated. A verticle pic is a portrait.Could have nothing to do with the subject.
wanakamac wrote:
In a number of Photographic competitions I note of late that Photographs entered and regarded by the exhibitor as a Portrait is less than what I would have defined as a such. What is the members views on the subject and tips of the art and skills to get a winner.
As a portrait photographer (only desriptive as a photographer of people) I did classic chest and head shots. Many people consider this is what a portrait is. However, an executive posed standing in front of his desk, shot head to toe is also a portrait. Simply put, if the person is posed it's a portrait.
murphy2049 wrote:
wanakamac wrote:
In a number of Photographic competitions I note of late that Photographs entered and regarded by the exhibitor as a Portrait is less than what I would have defined as a such. What is the members views on the subject and tips of the art and skills to get a winner.
As a portrait photographer (only desriptive as a photographer of people) I did classic chest and head shots. Many people consider this is what a portrait is. However, an executive posed standing in front of his desk, shot head to toe is also a portrait. Simply put, if the person is posed it's a portrait.
quote=wanakamac In a number of Photographic compe... (
show quote)
Doesn't have to be a "person" does it? Can't you also have a potrait of an animal as well?
A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant. The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the person. For this reason, in photography a portrait is generally not a snapshot, but a composed image of a person in a still position. A portrait often shows a person looking directly at the painter or photographer, in order to most successfully engage the subject with the viewer
madcapmagishion wrote:
murphy2049 wrote:
wanakamac wrote:
In a number of Photographic competitions I note of late that Photographs entered and regarded by the exhibitor as a Portrait is less than what I would have defined as a such. What is the members views on the subject and tips of the art and skills to get a winner.
As a portrait photographer (only desriptive as a photographer of people) I did classic chest and head shots. Many people consider this is what a portrait is. However, an executive posed standing in front of his desk, shot head to toe is also a portrait. Simply put, if the person is posed it's a portrait.
quote=wanakamac In a number of Photographic compe... (
show quote)
Doesn't have to be a "person" does it? Can't you also have a potrait of an animal as well?
quote=murphy2049 quote=wanakamac In a number of ... (
show quote)
Would you consider these to be portraits?
Amado
Kim
Would you consider these to be portraits?[/quote]
The dog....NO
The woman.....I would use the term Portrait (loosly)
seaside7 wrote:
The dog....NO
Why not? It's an old-fashioned usage, I grant you, but still perfectly proper.
In fact, I'd argue that it's a better portrait than of the young woman, both compositionally and from the point of view of lighting.
This reminds me of the fruitless attempt, in another thread, to create or maintain a distinction between 'pictures' and 'photographs'.
Language can be wonderfully precise, but false distinctions and false pedantry do not serve to make it more precise.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks wrote:
seaside7 wrote:
The dog....NO
Why not? It's an old-fashioned usage, I grant you, but still perfectly proper.
In fact, I'd argue that it's a better portrait than of the young woman, both compositionally and from the point of view of lighting.
This reminds me of the fruitless attempt, in another thread, to create or maintain a distinction between 'pictures' and 'photographs'.
Language can be wonderfully precise, but false distinctions and false pedantry do not serve to make it more precise.
Cheers,
R.
quote=seaside7 The dog....NO /quote br br Why n... (
show quote)
By definition, A likeness of a person, especially one showing
the face, that is created by a painter or photographer.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.