File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I took these portraits as part of a project I'm working on. Opinions? Critiques?

(I face final critique on Friday, any help is appreciated.)
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:12 18:53:36Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width842Image Height509
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I should also mention that they were taken with fiji 400 speed color film, then negative-scanned.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:12 18:55:47Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width475Image Height775
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Last one of her.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:12 18:47:32Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width475Image Height761
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
And, one more. Different person.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:12 19:07:16Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width842Image Height517
>> Anonymous
In the last two the brightness of the light is distracting and she's far to underexposed. They're kind of boring, and the last two are too similar.
>> DB
     File :-(, x)
The op needs to be cut almost half way through, the left side is way too distracting. Like this:

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:12 18:53:36Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width842Image Height509
>> Anonymous
>>112092
Whoops, not the last two, but the 2nd and 3rd.
>> DB
Also, none of these shots are portrait shots. I don't mean to be a dick, but if your project is strictly portrait shots they need to look a certain way.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112097
>>112093
It's true. All photography must adhere to strict, rigid formulae or it isn't real photography. Any deviation from the Unbreakable Commandments of Portraiture makes the picture no longer a portrait.

>>112086
>>112089
These two are great

>>112087
The straight-on look doesn't really flatter Gloria that much in that lighting. She looks a bit like Edward Scissorhands there in the background. I assume you were going for a shot that includes her room to sort of show off her personality through it, which I can understand, but there's something about it that just doesn't gel. Not sure I can really be specific about that.

>>112090
I'd prefer a tighter crop on Grandma in there. Most of the frame is kind of wasted. You've apparently got a grandmother who owns a parrot, there's gotta be some great pictures you can take with that.

If nothing else, for God's sake get that woman an eyepatch.
>> DB
>>112101

I meant that if the op's teacher wanted strict portrait shot they need to look a certain way or he would probably be graded down. But you knew that, because your a genius, on 4chan, good job.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112107
I think this photography teacher of yours has completely destroyed your mind. What about these makes them not portraits?
>> DB
>>112112

I've had multiple photography teachers, but generally a portrait shot is when the subject of the shot is the person and nothing else.

>>112086
This is a portrait shot, but imho it should be cropped.

>>112087
This one is not, unless you crop the hell out of it.

Portrait shots usually show the entire body to the top of the head or anywhere in between where the subject is "In portrait".

If you had a teacher, I wouldn't have to tell you this.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112115
so my landscape shots with other things in them that arnt landscape are not landscape?

OH SHIT MAN YOU RUINED EVERYTHING.
>> DB
>>112117
I said generally, but i'm glad to see that there are people on 4chan with an education.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112123
I do engineering, arts education = i would like fries with that thankyou.

Studying photography is almost always an utter waste of time, do fine art or art history.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112115
Please go up to one of your photography teachers--any of them--and explain that belief to them. Bring along your camera so you can take a picture of it when they facepalm and question their desire to teach.

You're not talking about portraits. You're talking about headshots. Headshots are, granted, a subset of portraits, but they're not the be all and end all. The best portraits out there aren't just a head-and-shoulders, narrow-DoF shot of the person's face. They put the person in a setting. You get a feel for the person's personality, not just the size of their nose.

http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show_nt1.asp?d=5&i=70003&L1=41004&L2=70003&a
mp;a=46309
By your definition, Annie Leibovitz is not a portrait photographer because there are things besides just the person in her shots.
>> DB
>>112125

You have no proof of that so your argument holds no merit.
i would like fries with that thankyou.

Nice grammar, also if your going to shoot an insult, make it clever and not easily transposable.

>>112126

"You're not talking about portraits. You're talking about headshots. Headshots are, granted, a subset of portraits, but they're not the be all and end all. The best portraits out there aren't just a head-and-shoulders, narrow-DoF shot of the person's face. They put the person in a setting. You get a feel for the person's personality, not just the size of their nose."

That is idiotic, a portrait can put a person in a setting, but the subject is alway the person never the setting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait

Lastly:"
http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show_nt1.asp?d=5&i=70003&L1=41004&L2=70003&a
mp;a
mp;a=46309" Goes nowhere so your argument holds no merit as well.
>> Anonymous
hahaha borders
faggotry
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112130
Here, shorter URL so 4chan won't keep eating it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6614187.stm

Do a google for "annie leibovitz queen" and you can see the other official portraits she took. Note that there's a lot in the frame other than Liz herself.

Here's another good example of a portrait that's not just the person's face (which also happens to be my favorite photograph ever):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dali_Atomicus2.jpg

And Margaret Bourke-White's portrait of Ghandi:
http://www.gallerym.com/work.cfm?ID=91

Gjon Mili's portrait of Picasso:
http://michaelwshelton.com/picasso/picassogjonmili.jpg

I could go on. Take these to your photography teachers, tell them they're not portraits.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112130
showing i do an engineering degree is meaningless, why dont you show us what a godly photographer you are, it would help your side a lot.

As you seem to have totally changed tack after seeing ac, i will leave you alone.
>> DB
>>112143

"Take these to your photography teachers, tell them they're not portraits"

Seeing as how their not, will do.

>>112144

I'm not a good photographer, I never said I was. I have knowledge, not experience.

You change tact to fit the scenario, it's called adapting.
>> Anonymous
do they include classes on pretension as part of a photography major, or is that an elective?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112159
Ok, i dont really care if you cant take good photos. A portrait is a photo of a person yes? I think this is a very stupid argument, a headshot is more clearly defined but a portrait is not.
>> DB
>>112161

Pretension is a minor, you take it when you hate 99% of the population. Also that was an excellent insult, genuinely :), crackerjack shot.
>> DB
>>112167

I completely agree with the post.

I just wanted to help critique the op's photos and help with his project but someone disagreed and I was simply defending my point.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112171
All i do is argue, anyway I think you should be able to critique a photo taken in a different style without just telling them to change their style to yours.

You think portraits should be clean and simple, some people prefer some background to the person in the portrait. Different things for different people.
>> Anonymous
Regardless of what anyone says about what the fuck a portrait is or isn't-

That border gays up an otherwise decent photo. Black with a white line is terrible.

The first one is over exposed- You should be able to fix that to an extent. The middle two are kind of muddled.

I haven't decided if I agree the top one should be cropped. I am leaning towards cropping it.

I like the last one though. Especially the parrot.
>> Anonymous
>>112168

It wasn't an insult, it was your one chance of experiencing an epiphany. Probably the most important one in your life. One that would make you realise what a clueless douchebag you are.

You, like most students, take a few classes and suddenly believe that you are a pro when the fact is that even after you graduate you will be on the bottom rung of the ladder. So far your attitude and ideas will get you laughed out of any company, club or photographic social circle. Especially so when combined with your laughable social skills.

The fact that you seem to display the most simplistic and basic of understandings of the meaning of "portrait" makes me wonder if you simply sleep through these lectures or if you've maybe even accidentally enrolled in clown college instead. Does your teacher pour whitewash down his pants during his lectures? Does he have big floppy shoes and a red nose? This sort of thing could be an important clue. We are here to help you.
>> DB
>>112172

OMG, I've had portrait assignments before and if they don't look a certain way the teacher will grade you down, that's all I meant, jesus...

>>112176

Wow, you get all your info from Southpark, good job.

You know nothing about me, so you have no idea what my social skills are except when defending my point on a message board, so your argument bears no merit.

Also, how do you know what the "basic of understandings of the meaning of "portrait" are?(nice sentence, three of's in six words)

You just attacking me with no way to validate your argument.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112184
I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU.

>OMG, I've had portrait assignments before and if they don't look a certain way the teacher will grade you down, that's all I meant, jesus...

That is why i dont study photography.
>> Anonymous
>>112184

i see you are doing a degree in english too...no end to your talents and qualifications...doing engineering too are you? lol

internet, lol

..where nobody nerds like you are filled with rage that everyone sees you for what you are. you are a moron.
>> DB
>>112185

I know what you meant Butterfly, your alright :)
>> DB
>>112190

Oh you make me so mad! You attack me at all my angles! AND im a moron! Not only is that clever! IT'S ORIGINAL! AAAARRRRRGGGGGG!!! My head asplodes!? *Anonymous gained 12000 exp, and the respect of his peers*
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112184
>OMG, I've had portrait assignments before and if they don't look a certain way the teacher will grade you down, that's all I meant, jesus...
This is a better argument against your claim that learning from photography classes is more useful than learning from books than I ever could have made. Thanks.
>> DB
>>112201

That's funny, it was literally the third post I made: "I meant that if the op's teacher wanted strict portrait shot they need to look a certain way or he would probably be graded down. But you knew that, because your a genius, on 4chan, good job."
-The post:">>112107"

So your entire argument for the past two hours falls to it's knees like you mom always does at 2:00.
>> Anonymous
>>112205

Not only is that clever! IT'S ORIGINAL!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112205
Okay, either I'm being trolled or you're completely ineducable. Either way, I'm going to stop.
>> DB
>>112207

Well, I didn't actually mean it, i'm pretty sure his mom doesn't go down on dudes at 2:00. It was a stupid joke.

"your a moron" is not a joke, it is shite.
>> DB
>>112208

YOU ATTACKED ME! How am I trolling you? and thank you, I'm glad your not going to attack me anymore.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112210
You dont seem to be doing very well. You stated quite clearly that you and your teachers think that a portrait is only a head shot.

ac and I belive you are utterly wrong, while a headshot can be a portrait it is not the only type.

You both fail, neither troll well enough today.
>> DB
>>112212

These are portraits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait.

Huh, I guess my photography teachers whom are professionals and have been in the business for thirty years may not know what a portrait shot is and that 2 guys on a message board would.
>> Anonymous
>>112210

What are you? 15 or 16 years old? Pathetic.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112221
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Thomas_Dilward_-_Brady-Handy.jpg

As photographic techniques developed, an intrepid group of photographers took their talents out of the studio and onto battlefields, across oceans and into remote wilderness. William Shew's Daguerreotype Saloon, Roger Fenton's Photographic Van and Mathew Brady's What-is-it? wagon set the standards for making portraits and other photographs in the field.

go away.
>> Anonymous
>>112221

Wikipedia - the refuge of the terminally lazy and retarded. When your arguments and knowledge dries up just Wikipedia it!

Find something that isn't written and edited by any two random guys on a wiki and maybe your link will have more sway against..two random guys on a board!
>> DB
>>112212

Not only that, you guys haven't made a dime in photography, and you admit you've never taken a class in photography. HOW could you not know you are wrong? You have no evidence to back your statement up, no real experience, nothing! This is absurd! I cannot comprehend this. It's ridiculous.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112225
ugh ascuse me? I make money from doing portraits, which had quite a lot more in frame than just head+shoulders.

BAIBAI
>> Anonymous
>>112225

I do wedding photography and so far you have been full of shit. The two tripfags are right and seem to be the only ones with experience to know what they are talking about.
>> Anonymous
wow, this thread rules
>> DB
>>112227

I didn't say head+shoulders=portait. "Portrait shots usually show the entire body to the top of the head or anywhere in between where the subject is "In portrait"."
-The post(>>112115)

BAIBAI BABY LAYBE FLAYBE RAIBEIS
>> DB
>>112229

Sure you do.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
     File :-(, x)
>>112231
so now you are disagreeing with yourself?

THIS THEAD IS NOW OFFICIALLY AWESOME
>> DB
>>112230

Agreed
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
facepalm.jpg
>> Vincent
>>112225
4chan /p/ users have really changed since even 2 years ago. Theres quite a few talented and semi pro photographers here now.
Hell even I make money! Not much since I dislike shooting weddings.

Back on Topic, you are a douchebag.
>> DB
>>112234

I never said portrait was head+shoulders, see I cite myself, now let's see you cite where I said "portrait=head+shoulders".

"THIS THEREAD IS NOW OFFICIALLY AWESOME" Agreed!

Actually I'm playing FF6 right now and every time I go into battle I post, makes it even more awesome.
>> DB
>>112239

Let's get back to the real topic....you're a douche bag. HA that was BUM RUSH, even Sabin hates you.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112115
>Portrait shots usually show the entire body to the top of the head or anywhere in between where the subject is "In portrait".

fine you said body w/e thats not what im arguing, you think a portrait should ONLY be that, we think you are wrong because you can have background in a portrait to make a point.

Now you have stopped arguing you admit defeat.
>> Anonymous
>You know nothing about me, so you have no idea what my social skills are except when defending my point on a
>message board, so your argument bears no merit.

I think by this point we have a pretty good idea.
>> DB
>>112248

Nope, "generally a portrait shot is when the subject of the shot is the person and nothing else."
-The post:(>>112115)

Again, if you would have read the posts I had done 2 hours ago, you would have saw the word "generally" and that the "subject" is the person in the shot and not the background.

Why don't you admit your incompetence Butterfly, or even better cite examples as I do.

>>112249

?Thanks very much????
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112221
I think I've figured it out. You mentioned that you don't really have much photography experience:
>I'm not a good photographer, I never said I was. I have knowledge, not experience.
You were probably giving them shots of people with messy backgrounds that didn't add to the composition, which they rightly told you weren't good portraits. If they were telling you you needed to focus more on just the person, it was probably to try to guide you towards better portraiture technique, not to tell you that portraits can't include anything other than the person. I doubt you'll find any photographer who'll claim that shots like those in the links I sent you aren't portraits.

You lack experience, and you have a lot less knowledge than you think you do.

(I thought you were a troll mostly because of your repeated mocking of other people's grammar while lacking the ability to distinguish "your" vs. "you're" and "their" vs. "they're", combined with your... interesting debating style--"Your link didn't work, therefore your argument has no merit" is a nice little bit of non sequitur--but now I've decided that you're probably just dumb)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112259
You think i do this to prove myself right? ohohoh...

If you agree with ac now (which is what you sound like you do) why on earth did you have this argument? Have you finaly lost, or did you do it just to argue with us?
>> DB
You know playing FF6 again, you see where alot of tentacle rape artists draw their inspiration from.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112225
>you guys haven't made a dime in photography, and you admit you've never taken a class in photography. HOW could you not know you are wrong?
Another fallacy. Your implicit assumption there is that the only way to learn about photography is by taking classes or be a pro photographer. A lot (probably most) of the world's most famous photographers never took any photography classes.

I have an entire bookcase full of books on photography that I've read. Probably about 50/50 photographic technique and books of photos. So I've looked at a lot of pictures, and I've read a lot on photography. You can appeal to the authority of three or four photography teachers, I can appeal to the authority of all of the authors of the books I've read, along with the photographers whose pictures I've examined for inspiration. Additionally, I frequent a bunch of photography websites (4chan being one of them, but certainly not the only one). And most importantly, I take a shit-ton of pictures.

Also, in 2007, I made $230 from my photography. It's not enough that I consider myself a professional photographer, but I have in fact made 2300 dimes.
>> DB
>>112263
"You lack experience, and you have a lot less knowledge than you think you do."

It's easy to talk down to people, more difficult to defend your convictions.

"Another fallacy. Your implicit assumption there is that the only way to learn about photography is by taking classes or be a pro photographer. A lot (probably most) of the world's most famous photographers never took any photography classes."

No sources there baby, just pulling stuff out of your arse.

>>112267

Why don't you try fighting the topic at hand and lastly.

CITE SOMETHING, YOUR ATTACKS ARE NOT VAILD WITHOUT PROOF.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112274
>CITE SOMETHING, YOUR ATTACKS ARE NOT VAILD WITHOUT PROOF.

you could do this as well, since you havent.

infact everything you said about arguing/debating could easily and truthfuly said right back at you.

instead of arguing about how ac and i argue, why dont you defend your argument.

you'll only loose if you keep going this way. some might say you have lost already.
>> DB
"you'll only loose if you keep going this way. some might say you have lost already."

Easy to talk down to people, more difficult to

defend your convictions.

I have cited every argument you have tried to throw at me.
>>112205
>>112231
>>112259

But you have nothing. This is too easy. Far to easy. Not once have you beaten my argument.

Rosebud.

Aeris.

Kefka.

Choose.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112283
See here we can see the typical troll reusing a basic argument to provoke others, this method is often used to great effect. However when dealing with high level trolls, the effect is not just weakend but utterly reversed.

BC YOU CANT WIN, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST. EASY TO SOUND COCKY WHEN YOU GOT NO PRIDE.


SAVE IT FOR RACE WARS.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112274
>No sources there baby, just pulling stuff out of your arse.
Pot, Kettle, Black.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/filmmore/ps_child.html
Ansel Adams: No formal photography education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Capa
Robert Capa: No formal photography education

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Eisenstaedt
Eisenstaedt: Taught himself photography while selling buttons and belts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Evans
Walker Evans: Studied literature in college. Didn't get into photography until after he dropped out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Feininger
Feininger: Studied architecture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippe_Halsman
Philippe Halsman: Studied electrical engineering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mapplethorpe
Mapplethorpe: Didn't start taking photographs until after college

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Nachtwey
Nachtwey: Self taught

Etc.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112292
>SAVE IT FOR RACE WARS

dont spend the energy (although im sure anon could do with looking at those sites) DB doesnt need to be argued with.
>> beethy
FYI.. I'm with ac and butterfly on this one.
>> Anonymous
>>112087
>>112089
Just a suggestion, but I think these could both be improved by removing the other faces (the posters) from the images, as they serve only as a distraction.
Also: it might be a good idea to find a less busy background, or cover the walls so there aren't big gaps of just paint while 75% of the other space is filled.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
i don't see why this turned into a giant shitstorm. actually, if this wasn't 4chan, i couldn't see why this turned into a giant shitstorm.

the OP is turning these photos in for a class. DB (quite correctly, I might add) pointed out that these photos do not fit precisely into the guidelines of a portrait for a photography class. REGARDLESS of shit sux or not, or if everyone thinks that a photo education sux or not, or whether you make any money or not with your photography, DB was pretty fucking accurate. photo assignments typically have very rigid rules as to how something should look, and portraits are especially given to rules (3/4 view, 3/4 length, so on and so forth). and then all this shit? ridiculous.

bad 4chan. go take some photos and stop arguing about total bullshit.
>> elf_man !!DdAnyoDMfCe
>>112292
Yay for lit majors.
>> Anonymous
ITT: Shitstorm over the definition of a Portrait.

This forum never ceases to amaze me. At least /b/ fights about women or countries.
>> Anonymous
>>112115
OP here. You are completely wrong.

These are "environmental portraits" which are portraits that include an intricate and often cluttered background to tell a story about the subject's character.

A portrait doesn't have to be a generic, boring school year book picture. I just practically quoted my photography professor, who is renowned in photography and probably knows a lot more about it than you.

>>112101

To you, thank you for the valuable critiques.
>> Anonymous
>>113292

OP here again, continuing after reading through the thread a bit: those who say I should find a less distracting background; I could see where you were coming from, but I failed to specify: these are supposed to be "environmental portraits" (see above description). So my bad.

For the photo-noobs who try to argue with me, or my photo teacher, I offer this link from the WASHINGTON POST: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901061.html

Portraits CAN AND DO include entire settings, backgrounds, etc. If you say you took photo classes and disagree with this, I suggest you get your money back and find a better education.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>113294
>>113292

I do believe OP just owned all of you 'rigid portrait requirement' fags. GG, better luck next time.

And yes I have to agree; we covered environmental portraiture as an entire unit in fine art photo last semester.
>> Anonymous
Wikipedia's shorter definition of an environmental portrait:

An environmental portrait is a portrait executed in the subject's usual environment, such as in their home or workplace, and typically illuminates the subject's life and surroundings. The term is most frequently used of a genre of photography.

Thread over.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
     File :-(, x)
>>112143
What I got when I googled "annie leibovitz queen" AC,
PURE FUCKING GENIUS.
The rest of the thread tl;dr.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>113294
Fuckin' A.
>> Anonymous
I can't believe a thread went on this fucking long arguing about what a portrait is. I thought better of you, /p/.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>113836
>I thought better of you, /p/.
Why?

What the hell /p/ have *you* been browsing? 'Cause if you have expectations like that, you seriously need to lurk the fuck moar.
>> NGT
At the most basic level, a portrait just means the camera is sideways :). nice flameware lol