Portrait

[Javier]

[Shadowman]

Nice effort, needs just a bit more contrast of the eyes, crop is a bit severe also, nice overall exposure.

[royent]

I'm afraid that I'm not keen on looking up a models nostrils. Sorry
Roy

[Manfred M]

Another nice image and once again the focus is off a bit (again it looks a bit like front focus).

This one is not quite as strong as your last image. The low point of view is generally used to accentuate the subject's neck, but by wearing a turtleneck sweater the neck is hidden. The issue with the low shooting position is what Roy has already pointed out and it does give a view up the nose of the subject; it's not a significant flaw here because of the way the light falls, but is definitely something to watch while posing the subject.

The crop is awkward; we usually try to avoid cropping through a joint and you have cut through her elbow.

[William W]

I havn't seen any other of your work, but I will.

I see communication between the Subject and Viewer - and that is commendable.

On another recent thread I strongly advocated that Photographers NOT adhere to "absolutes" - but on the other hand there are significant and important guidelines for Portraiture and whilst those guidelines constantly need to be challenged and sometimes dismissed, IMO there should always be the answer to WHY (did you do that)?

With that as a preface the image poses several questions that need to be asked of you:

Why did you choose the low Camera Viewpoint? - The results include: "up the nose view"; partial closure of the expressive eyes; exaggerated compression of the ears that are supporting relatively large earrings; an impression of 'superiority' battling with 'mystery'.

Why did you choose to crop at Joints?

Considering the Pose, why does the choice of Clothing hide the Neck, moreover why does the R.Hand pose hide the Neck?

WW

[William W]

Addendum, following on from Manfred's comments:

I've researched a few of your other images - there is a pattern of technical error (well it might not be an 'error' but it is consistent): your using very large apertures and you are NOT nailing the focus on the eyes.

There must a reason for this. If you want to change that you'd do well to describe you FOCUSING TECHNIQUE. Maybe you're using Centre Point Focus just as the Framing is - which means you're nailing focus in front of the eyes simply because that is where the centre of the frame is ???

If this is so, then consider Focus: Focus Lock; Recompose as an alternative technique.

WW

[Manfred M]

On another recent thread I strongly advocated that Photographers NOT adhere to "absolutes" - but on the other hand there are significant and important guidelines for Portraiture and whilst those guidelines constantly need to be challenged and sometimes dismissed, IMO there should always be the answer to WHY (did you do that)?

Bill - why I agree with "breaking the rules". My main issue with your advice is that many photographers:

(a) Do not understand what the rules are, what role they play in creating a strong image and how they accomplish this; and

(b) Don't understand why, when or how to break them successfully.


I find quite often when those "absolutes" are broken many photographers end up with an inferior image and they don't realize this. When people are unsuccessful when they do break the rules, I'll often suggest that they are not as easy to break as some people might think. On the other hand, if you look at the works of the masters (past and present), they often break the rules with great success because of their understanding in how to craft a strong image.

This goes for all photographic genres, not just portraiture.

[TonyW]

Fortunately, I am ignorant of all these rules so I can enjoy this image unreservedly.

[William W]

. . . My main issue with your advice . . . many photographers:
(a) Do not understand what the rules are, what role they play in creating a strong image and how they accomplish this; and
(b) Don't understand why, when or how to break them successfully.

Agree. Many car drivers are poor car drivers and don't seek to be better: so it is with all aspects of life.

I am not being pedantic, and I am certainly not offended by your wording - I do know what you mean: but I think this is an important point and I am sincerely passionate about it - and this is an opportunity to underscore a basic principle.

There should be no "issue" with "my advice".

It is the responsibility of the (adult) recipient of any advice to clarify the meaning and understanding of that advice and to assess the suitability of that advice to his/her situation.

It's not the advisor's task to spoon-feed.

Many of the conversations here at CiC interrogate and debate these so called rules - and there is a tonne of talent here able to discuss when and how to break them.

There are many other sources of education, also.

WW

[rpcrowe]

I know what I like and know what I am not so fond of. I don't look at an image to see how many rules it conforms to or breaks. It just happens that the images that I like the best often do conform to a vague set of rules. Of course, I have my own personal prejudices to add to the equation also...

[Manfred M]

I know what I like and know what I am not so fond of. I don't look at an image to see how many rules it conforms to or breaks. It just happens that the images that I like the best often do conform to a vague set of rules. Of course, I have my own personal prejudices to add to the equation also...

In my there are very few "perfect" images out there i.e. a perfect "10". As photographers we need to recognize what makes a high quality images, based on how the photographer has chosen to assemble this image. This means all of the technical decisions that were made, how the various pieces were assembled into the image and understanding the things the photographer has done that makes his or her image so engaging.

If the image is less than perfect, we also need to understand why that is and what the photographer has done that gave him or her a less than perfect image. This has absolutely nothing to do with the "rules" we cite in portraiture, but they do have a role in explaining why the image is not as strong as it could be.

What the "portraiture rules" we often write about, for instance not cutting at a joint, getting the eyes sharp and in focus, not having the subject's nose cutting across the cheekbone, etc. all do is to point out some of the common distracting elements that have a negative impact on the image. Sometimes these flaws direct our eyes to places (including moving out of the frame) where the photographer would prefer that they not go.

Every decision that the photographer makes in creating the image comes with a set of trade-offs and if making the trade-off results in a stronger and more compelling image, it is something the photographer should be doing, "rules" be damned. The important part is the photographer recognizes what he or she is doing and to do so in a meaningful way. Strong portraits rarely happen by accident.

[DanK]

My orientation to this may be simplistic, but for what it is worth: "rules" (better to call them "guidelines", or some such) exist for a reason: because it often helps to follow them, albeit sometimes approximately. However, they are not always the best choice, and when they aren't, it's sensible not to follow them.

One example that I have posted before is the superb impressionist exhibit at the Clark Art Institute, which I visit from time to time. I sometimes look to see which of the paintings of the masters follow compositional "rules". The answer, in that substantial sample, is that they often broke the rules or followed them only very approximately.

When as a youngster I told my mother, who had been a professional musician at one point, that I had become very interested in improvisation in jazz, her response was: "you need to know the rules well to know how to do well breaking them," or something like that. I think that I once also posted the story that Wynton Marsalis told about playing a piece with his father, the pianist Ellis Marsalis: when Wynton asked what key his father would use, he answered: "No key. You need to be able to play the changes (standard chord sequences) regardless of the key in which I start." In other words: you need to know the rules (the changes) very well so that you can use them or break them in improvising.

As an example, I think of the rule of thirds as a starting point for creating pleasing balance when un-centering an image. To create a pleasing balance, some of the impressionists I referred to ended up with ratios other than 1:2 (the rule of thirds: one length to one side, twice that to the other), seemingly in response to other compositional elements.