When I take pictures which include bright, sunlit ground I sometimes go for a "high key" effect, trying to unite the composition with white or light colors, and deliberately flattening people out til they're just color shapes. The picture above is pretty extreme version of that (I didn't take it) but I thought I'd include it here because it makes the point so well. 
A lot of times you get that effect by tilting the camera up and getting more bright sky. Here's (above) a picture emphasizing the ground...
...and here's (above) a slightly different one which includes the sky. The composition isn't nearly as appealing as the previous one but it makes my point about using the sky to add another bright element. I wish I could use my own pictures to illustrate this but they're all of my family and they get mad whenever I attempt to post pictures of them. 
I like the way old black and white films use white. Somebody always gets the white shirt even if they're cowboys on the range. It helps the composition.
Or a white blouse.
On another subject, I hate commercial portrait photography. Mall-type photographers are always trying to use Rembrandt lighting and it looks terrible. The guy above is just too stark and three-dimensional. You can see every pore. Rembrandt pictures work best when the camera's at a distance and can flatten the subject out. Mall pictures are always taken in cramped spaces where the photographer's only a few feet away. Besides, not every face is appropriate for that kind of treatment.
I don't like this picture (above), but it's a slight improvement on the previous one. It's flatter at least, and the color isn't as jarring.Maybe I'm giving the wrong impression by mentioning flat so often. I only use flattening long lenses for special pictures. Flat pictures with out-of-focus backgrounds killed the old Life Magazine. Maybe I'll do a blog on that one of these days.
Wouldn't it be great if mall photographers could do pictures like this (above)?
Or this (above)?
Wouldn't it be great if mall photographers could do pictures like this (above)?
Or this (above)?
18 comments:
Rondo Hatten had the coolest head for portraiture. Probably made a mean drivers license picture, too.
I'd love to have a nice dramatic picture instead of a cheesy one!
Recent Commenters: I deleted four comments because I hit "delete" instead of "Publish"! They were really detailed, thought-out letters too! I deserve death! I am SOOOOO sorry!
Interesting theory you have about white being used as a unifying color in photography. That would probably be tougher to make work in painting.
The last two photos are really great! Not saying that the other photos aren't nice too, but I can understand what you meant by "flattened" and turned into color blocks, even in the monochromatic examples. The lighting gives the subject style and the desired dramatic effect the photographer was going for!
It's interesting how even the character with the white blouse helps frame the composition. That's fanatastic!
You can't blame the mall photographer. They're just doing their job. I'm sure many of them have a great eye, but they realize non-creative portraiture pays the bills.
Hey Eddie,
If you like the last 2 photos you should check out my friend Mara's flickr page. She's a modern digital photographer that re-creates that old black and white style!
Check out the ones titled Black magic ritual & You will be sorry!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/axe_medusa/
All I know about photography is that my camera loves your face, Eddie.
freckled: Holy Mackeral!!! Your friend is great! Why can't mall photographers do that?
Hey, Eddie! I thought you were going to be blogging less! You've blogged four times this week! That's a lot! Please don't burn out! You're liable to end up going berserk and using exclamation points too much! Like me!
I despise mall photography, too, although frankly I've NEVER seen a professional portrait photographer use jarring shadows like your examples. "Art photographers" (ones who have gallery showings and the like) do portraits like that, but guys at the mall? It always seemed to me like that stuff was glorified yearbook photos, flat images with ugly backdrops and very even, soft lighting. I think it's supposed to glamorize the subject by making blemishes less visible and allowing a clear view of the subject's winning smile.
That kind of stuff is cheesy and dull, but for most people I'm sure it's fine. If you're even slightly overweight, though, photography like that transforms you into some kind of hideous blob person. I'd take the dramatic shadow stuff any day over that.
I've been thinking a lot about photography lately because I've bought a nice digital camera and am learning both its advantages and disadvantages. I took it to a concert in Tokyo last week and got some crazy snaps but I'm really jazzed about composition and lighting.
So excellent post!
I definitely agree with the Rembrandt lighting thing, too. I mean, does some fast food manager or a stereo salesman really need stark, moody lighting in his portrait? Where will a photo of this nature hang... in a mausoleum?
What about the female equivalent, the glamour shot? Which is essentially a gaudy portrait that's been overlit to eliminate all shadows that might reveal imperfections and then severely blurred to remove any telling details that might remain.
I'd never thought about the placement of white shirts in those old movies. Gives a nice feel of negative space. I'm assuming the person wearing said shirt isn't the main character in the shot in most cases.
Great Theory Eddie. Reminds me of Frank Tashlins use of RED or Bright BLUE shirts on actors to focus the eye one things when cutting. Great stuff.
There is a related theory involving using monochromes in set decor and costumes in color film, so that the skin tones will pop.
I love the second picture.
I'm with you on your opinion about the two "mall photos". They seem to be very pretentious to me, like they're trying to be "artsy", but they just miss the mark.
If a photographer is trying to be "artsy" with their subject, in my opinion the photographer needs to take the subject's features into consideration before choosing the "effect". For example, in the picture with the bald guy with the dramatic shading, the subject's facial features aren't exotic or strong enough to pull off that lighting.
P.S. - I'm so glad that you're posting again! I'm enjoying your posts while I'm at home recovering from surgery.
I don't dig those mall photos either. Everything is heavily photoshopped-airbrused too. Yeulk!
I've been talking about photography so much lately because my best friend is a less experienced enthusiast that's trying to get practice to see if she could go pro, artistically or commercially. It's a relief to hear about artistic decisions rather than all the technical questions I've been answering.
lately I've been in such a technical milieu that's I've been abandoning my tendency to go for blown out compositions in favor of wall-balanced, detail-infused versions of the shots that could have either way. Today i actually did do a couple of blow outs that by chance looked looked cool when my aperture was too big.
ANyway. i agree the sky can be a very useful compositional element. It can change a realist photo into a 1960s style abex dance between color and shape. It can also help place they subject off center, obvious focal point by blowing out the top 2/3 of the picture.
It is so true that white wardrobe can make a black and white photograph much more interesting. I just did a painting (latest entry on my blog) that illustrates this perfectly, I think. I attempted to emulate a black and white photograph with a cartoon/animation sensibility and found it important to have that harsh contrast of white and black. Check out the full painting on my blog:
http://www.moremojo.blogspot.com
-Jose
Post a Comment