Portrait Photographers - who is your favourite?

Ed Sutton said:
I deliberately said 'formal' portraiture, as I think photography can do 'informal' portraiture well. This is merely an ill-formed opinion which I can't easily express, but what I think photography does is capture fleeting fractions of personality, because of the speed with which the image is produced. You get the superficial appearance of a person. A painted portrait might take minutes, hours, days, weeks to make. The painter isn't in one fixed position like a camera's lens is. What is painted might not be strictly accurate in visual terms (features may be exaggerated or reduced) but can still be accurate in terms of revealing the person. There's more goes into making a painted portrait and so more comes out.

Photography is very good at showing factual information, less so at getting under the surface of things.

For candid/informal portraiture photography is superb, but I'm not sure it gets deep into a personality in the way that painting can. Then again, what is a portrait?
Click to expand...
I have seen thousands of great portraits that belie this. In fact I believe I've shot a few.
 
Like I said, it's just an opinion. If anyone wants an argument about it they're in the wrong room... :D
 
Ed Sutton said:
Like I said, it's just an opinion. If anyone wants an argument about it they're in the wrong room... :D
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not looking for an argument. You make an interesting point. It's made me wonder if, given that I too have seen images that do formal portraiture very well, there is a level of skill, and I don't mean technical skill, required to elevate a photographic portrait from the superficial to the sublime.
 
I'm interested in the definition of a portrait as distinct from a picture of someone. It has to be more than a likeness. But arriving at a definition without venturing into the realms of pretentious, woolly, waffle is difficult!
 
simon ess said:
An interesting point of view, and one worth considering.

If I believed it, I would immediately stop trying to learn photography portraiture before I really get going.

I instinctively don't believe it.
Click to expand...

It was expressed just as forcibly (and just as cogently) in the 19th century. You might consult the history books to see how the debate went.

Would it be fair to say that a painter needs a certain degree of competence with paint and brushes (to say nothing of artistry) to paint a good portrait? And if so, why should we expect it to be any different for a photographer? Unless we think that photographers merely record whatever is put in front of them.
 
Last edited:
Brett Harkness is a wizard with lighting.....
 
StephenM said:
It was expressed just as forcibly (and just as cogently) in the 19th century. You might consult the history books to see how the debate went.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I will. It's an interesting topic that's got me thinking.

Would it be fair to say that a painter needs a certain degree of competence with paint and brushes (to say nothing of artistry) to paint a good portrait? And if so, why should we expect it to be any different for a photographer? Unless we think that photographers merely record whatever is put in front of them.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. That is exactly my thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top