imp by mike Loc: Minnesota/Wisconsin/North Carolina

For those who said that natural light is OK ...
Yes I could have ripped out that one plant (for those who are distracted by it), but I'm going with the rule of tying the foreground with the background.

So, portrait or not?

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

8 new threads in a day....You seem to be on some sort of mission. What are you trying to say exactly?

tramsey Loc: Texas

I think it is terrific. I would call it a portrait and not a snapshot. The only thing I would say is that there is a distracting glare in her glasses; but then who am I to criticize a pro like you?

pete-m Loc: Casper, WY

The plant is distracting, but only because you mentioned it.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

A portrait. There are some little things I would do to polish it off: Clone out those bright things in the upper right, crop just a LITTLE bit off the top, and at least see if you can mitigate the reflection in the glasses.

For future reference, have the subject sit up really straight and have them bend from the waist just a bit and do not have both feet together. If one of her legs were out a bit (the rear leg, I think) that would have given it a more natural look.

imp by mike Loc: Minnesota/Wisconsin/North Carolina

If you go back to the beginning, it started as a private discussion between myself and another Hogger as to what is a portrait & what is a snapshot? He suggested finding out what others thought, since we don't agree.

At this point, I think that several Hoggers should form a committee & tell Wikipedia that they're wrong! 😈

imp by mike Loc: Minnesota/Wisconsin/North Carolina

Those are trees.
I never have figured out how to get rid of eyeglass reflections w/o taking a second shot minus the glasses & cloning them together.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Yep. It is one of the toughest retouching issues. I would send this out to Retouchup.com.

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

Alright. Why are you concerned with what Wikipedia says a portrait is? I read their opening paragraph defining a portrait. It's a pretty generic description. It seems that there are some good working photographers here offering some decent advice. Is rather take advice from working photographers than from Wikipedia. That's just me though.

imp by mike Loc: Minnesota/Wisconsin/North Carolina

What's wrong with generic? At least it's a definition. So far here, others say what it isn't (which goes against Wikipedia), & also throw out low-key lighting as portrait lighting. Getty Images would be surprised that an entire section of theirs is being misrepresented as portraits because they use low-key lighting. Our fellow Hoggers say those are only "snapshots"!
That's why I'm trying to stir up the discussion.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

I am not sure I understand your point. You seem to be implying you believe just because it is what one would call low-key that THAT makes it a portrait. It most assuredly does not. The images of the ladies were just dark snapshots. What am I missing?

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

There is nothing wrong with generic. But it's just a starting off point. It seems like you are really NOT trying to figure out what a portrait is, but what a snapshot is.

Honestly I don't listen to 95% of the other "Hoggers" here. They are truly not very good. I definitely WOULD listen to CaptainC's advice. Consider yourself fortunate to have have his advice available. I know I do.

imp by mike Loc: Minnesota/Wisconsin/North Carolina

To take a portion of Wikipedia ...
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.
A snapshot is popularly defined as a photographthat is "shot" spontaneously and quickly, most often without artistic or journalistic intent. Snapshots are commonly considered to be technically "imperfect" or amateurish—out of focus or poorly framed or composed.

I don't limit the type of light used with portraits nor the backgrounds/surroundings within. There are are personal portraits, official portraits business portraits, high level studio portraits, etc...
There are fellow Hoggers that would put most of them into the "snapshot" category.
I'm a street photographer & you can't fit their requirements into a camera bag, but I still believe that I do portraits (as do the people that I photograph).
As with the young ladies, the lighting is hard & the background may be negligible; yet their faces are in focus, there are no bad shadowing details, & the poses are pleasing.
So what don't you like about the photos?

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Well...there ARE bad shadows, the lighting is on-camera flash, amateurish, flat, and harsh and the cropping is too tight on several to give a sense of any "street" environment. Just because things are in focus does not mean much - we ASSUME things will be in focus. I'm sorry but I feel the images of the ladies fit exactly into that Wikipedia definition of "snapshot." The images of the men and the young girl on the rock are much better.

Here are some links to good street portraits. Note how well they are lit - no harsh flash and enough background to give a sense of place. It is clear the photographer paid attention to the direction of light:
https://photographylife.com/introduction-to-street-portrait-photography
http://www.zunlee.com/streetportraits#23
http://photophique.com/glasgow-street-portrait-photography/

greg vescuso Loc: Ozark,Mo.

This is all starting to make sense to me know, the wife and I were doing some baby shots of my newest grandson the other night,one light off camera and after we had a few good ones she said just put the flash on the camera and get some normal baby pictures.
Normal pictures you either have the flash in the hot shoe because you don't have enough light " indoors" or you just shoot the shot of the person without any consideration of how the natural light plays on the persons face. That in my option is a snapshot.
A portrait whether it is captured by a master forming the light to the subjects face with natural light or with studio strobe or a apprentice learning light is a portrait. Why are Rembrants such important portraits, because of the use of light in his paintings.
Is it possible to make a portrait without any consideration of how the light falls on a person face most definitely yes we all have taken that snap shot and it was a beautiful portrait, but if we look at how the light fell on the persons face in review we will see it was portrait lighting even if it was on accident.