Portrait of Parents

greenspun.com : LUSENET : People Photography : One Thread

Please critique this portrait of my parents.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=75568&size=lg

-- William Marderness (wmarderness@hotmail.com), August 29, 2000

Answers

It seems a little flat. Both the light and the print. If your neg is really dense, you might try platinum or palladium printing. Your format is perfect for it, speaking of which, why is the image square?... t

p.s. you might want to read the submission procedures at the bottom of the "ask a question" page. Linking the file directly would let us see the image while we write a response.

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), August 29, 2000.


I wanted a natural-looking portrait, but one that made them look their best by smoothing out their complexions. To do this, I lowered contrast in several ways. I developed the negative N-1 in D-25 (a super-fine grain developer with low acutance) and shot in flat lighting. I used two filters: a Harrision & Harrison Diffuser #2 (gives a bit of flare) and a blue-green filter B+W 470, both of which lower contrast.

At first I thought the picture looked a bit muddy, but after thinking about what higher contrast would do, I think the contrast is just right. The picture has a full range of tones: my father's belt is pure black, and my father's undershirt is white. My father's button- up shirt is very light, but not pure white, so it holds detail. If I increased the contrast, my father's shirt would loose detail.

The negative is not dense, but normal. The photo is square because I cut off an inch from both sides. The original is horizontal, and I felt that the space to the sides of them was wasted. It was taken with a Wisner 8x10 Traditional and contact printed on Segull G-2 paper.

What I like least about the picture is their expressions. They look like they are just standing there. I wanted it to look natural, so I did not try to make them smile or anything. Is there a portrait photographer whose work I could study to learn about posing people?

I don't know how to make the picture appear here directly. Please help.

-- William Marderness (wmarderness@hotmail.com), August 30, 2000.


Hello William: I applaud you for doing portraits with a demanding tool such as the 8x10.

Yes. Print seems a bit flat. Could be the scan perhaps? Anyway, you want to look at Yousuf Karsh and Arnold Newman's retrospective volumes to see the possibilities with the view camera.

-- VNC (chettur@nhip.org), August 30, 2000.


Richard Avedon, Irving Penn and Larry Fink should cover most of the bases, and Disfarmer if you can find the book. Here is how to post an image... t

-- tom meyer (
twm@mindspring.com), August 30, 2000.

It seems odd to me to make a portrait with an 8x10 neg, and then diffuse the image.

Your concerns about tonal range and contrast are what inspired me to recommend platinum printing. You don't seem to be afraid of technical issues and you'd probably really love the look of platinum. Paper choices can lend a soft look (watercolor papers are widely used) wihout sacrificing the wonderful detail of the big contact print. Reproductions of these prints in offset don't tell the whole story, try to see some in person and you'll see what I mean... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), August 30, 2000.



My first large-format portraits did not use diffusion. What a mistake! The pictures revealed pores and hair on people's faces that were not evident in real life. It was like looking at their skin under a microscope. Now, I feel that all large-format portraits need some diffusion, unless the goal is to emphasize the texture of the subject's skin. I am not aiming for maximum sharpness by using large format, but smooth gradation, which the larger number of grains allow. It is like using a 1200 dpi printer instead of 300 dpi..

-- William Marderness (wmarderness@hotmail.com), August 30, 2000.

I'm only 35mm and MF, but from an aesthetic PoV, I'd rather see a little make-up (if necessary), than diffusion. But that's just 'me', and what you're doing works for you, so take that "fwiw"...

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), August 30, 2000.

This may be correctly exposed and printed, but it's not a very good picture from any other standpoint. While I expect that looking at this picture reminds you of a number of nice things about them, they look like a very dour and unpleasant couple to those who don't know them (no matter how much diffusion you used), and I doubt that was your intent.

Even a naturalistic portrait requires some thought about composition, clothing, makeup, hair, setting, and props. (And so, as matter of fact, does good street photography - though you can't control most of the variables.)

As for contrast, while you may not need more in the negative, you definitely need more in the elements of the picture. (It's not by accident that many striking portraits are done against dark backgrounds and with subjects wearing dark clothes. It helps draw attention to their faces.)

And I've learned by doing fashion that few people look good with no expression on their face. (The few that do make a lot of money because of it.) Don't forget, the wrinkles on your parent's faces came from emotion.

First decide what you want us to feel about your parents from looking at their picture - and then figure out the best way to communicate that technically.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), August 30, 2000.


I'd also suggest trying sidelighting from a window - or on a porch. It's usually the most flattering because it sculpts the subjects features so well.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), August 31, 2000.

What happened? There's no photograph at the URL, just a message that it's disabled. I've been having all sorts of internet problems for the last few days, so I missed this when it was posted.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), September 01, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ