Photos Grandfather [update 15/09/2011]

So a portrait can only be head and shoulders? Oh my... you have some learning to do Where are you getting these "rules" from? Who says a portrait has to be a head and shoulders shot?

A portrait is merely a likeness of a person... not just their head and shoulders. So.. if it's a full body shot, what is it by your definition if not a portrait?

How can it have higher contrast just by removing the colour? The contrast will be the same, as the dynamic range captured will be the same. All your doing is removing the colour. Also.. who says that's what you want? Who exactly is making these rules up?

Your very limited in your knowledge if you seriously think a good portrait can only be a black and white head and shoulders photograph. You have instantly dismissed the majority of fabulous portraits taken in the past 150 years. Well done. Got any more limiting, narrow minded opinions on Photography?

It's been a while since I've seen so much nonsense written with such self-assured, but misplaced authority.

This thread rules

 

I think the improved first shot is awesome! I'd love to be able to take photos like that! One day lol
I really like the composition of the second but it looks a little... I don't know maybe 'washed out' to me (with my limited photography knowledge). Maybe not enough contrast or something? Regardless great shots!

 

Every graphics-design teacher will tell you the rules I'm speaking of.

And if you don't know about higher contrast in black and white images, then you might know less then what you think you know.

 

Graphic design teacher? Hmm... pity this is a discussion on Photography then isn't it?

Removing colour from a colour image does NOT increase it's contrast. FACT!


I speak with 25 years experience as a professional photographer, and college lecturer, and I'm also the curriculum leader for BA (Hons) and FdA Programs at the UK's most respected university/College.

With what authority do you speak?

The one truth in Photography, is that there is no truth. Rules are meant to be broken. Confining photography to "rules" merely stifles people's creativity and produces imagery that is essentially all the same. I shudder to think of the range and depth of your portfolio... it must be awesome with all these rules dictating what you can and can not do

 

You see... that's the difference between artists (consider yourself one) and graphic-designers (I'm working as one for 15 years).

Artists are free to do what they want, with just a very basic input given, whereas graphic-designers are hired to do a job as requested and are bound to general design-stigmas.

The truth is somewhere in the middle as allways

EDIT: Oh... and I'm not speaking of just removing colour from a colour-image, allthough it slightly increases contrast allready, but I'm speaking of taking a photo in black and white with high ISO.
The human eye can distinguish better between grey-scales then between colours when talking about contrast. The image is more crisp and clear, as the human eye has tons more black/white receptors then for colour.

 

Then as a graphic designer, what qualifies you to comment in a photo critique thread with comments such as "A portrait MUST be black and white and MUST be head and shoulders only"?

Stick to Graphic Design.... leave the photography critique to photographers.

On a digital camera, it is impossible to "take" a picture in black and white. All capture is done in colour. Chroma data is just removed, leaving luminance only.

Explain why a high ISO increases contrast please? All perceived wisdom, both in analogue and digital capture would suggest the opposite. Higher ISO = lower contrast as the advent of noise in extremes of the histogram/response curve will inherently reduce contrast.

Just where are you getting this information from?

 

Technical data and studies.

But I don't think that this discussion will lead anywhere, as you've made up your mind and come to a result that suits you most allready.... I'm outta here

 

Another one runs away screaming from the terrible reality of FACTS!





A pity really.... because...

I was looking forward to seeing the technical data and studies that show contrast increases with ISO.

The only situation that would increase contrast with ISO was the now long defunct method of push processing... but somehow I doubt that's what you were referring to. Even that was not an increase in contrast due to ISO, but instead due to extended development.

In every situation I can think of, increasing ISO will decrease contrast, not increase it.

 

I've got better things to do with my life then discussing something to death on a forum...

Anyways...

...take a ISO 400 b/w film and increase shutter-speed and then take a photo of the same scene with a ISO 100 b/w film to see what I'm speaking of in regards to contrast.
The ISO 100 will get very dark alltogether if you don't work in a studio with bright lights, whereas the ISO 400 will have very sharp contrasts even if you take a photo outsides.

Ans don't start with digital photography and it's CMOS/CCD.... not before you're talking about 35mm sensors (36x24mm), which is used in cameras that are capable of taking real black/white pictures without only desaturating them in the process.

We're not at the same side of the fence in this question, and the fence is actually a brickwall, as we're taking a totally different approch on the topic.

 

You're not making yourself very clear. Are you suggesting taking a shot with the SAME shutter speed and aperture on both 100 and 400 ISO film? If so, the ISO 100 film will be darker because it's under exposed!!!

If you are not meaning that, and you have adjusted the exposure to an equivalent EV value to account for the increased speed of emulsion, then no, you are wrong. Assuming both emulsions are correctly exposed and developed, the ISO100 film will always have more contrast than the ISO400 emulsion (measured). Only when you examine really fast emulsions do you see an increase in contrast, but this is more an artefact of development and clumping of larger halide crystals than an inherent connection between speed and contrast.

Basically, fast films introduce grain, or noise. This noise in the extremities of the response curve lowers contrast.... lightens shadows (due to lighter noise in the darker areas) and darkens highlights (dark noise patterns or grain in the lighter areas).

The increase in contrast you refer to is a perceived increase in contrast rather than a real (measured) one. It LOOKS more contrasty due to it being gritty. While clipping subtle highlight tones and shadow detail may look PUNCHIER... it doesn't necessarily mean it's has more contrast.

So much also depends of development.


All of this is academic, as practically no one uses film any more commercially, and probably no one in this thread at all.

It still begs the question: Why does more contrast result in a better portrait? Also... Why does a black and white portrait look better than a colour one? And.. graphic designer or not... why does a portrait have to be head and shoulders only?


[edit]

Anyway... non of this is really helping the OP.

My comments regarding colour were because I can't help but think the sepia toned version posted was falling into a cliché: It's an old dude, so let's make it nostalgic with B&W.. or more specifically, sepia toned. It's a portrait of him now... so I think it may have more relevance, and bite if it was in colour. I'd just like to see the original file in colour to make a comparison.

 

A portrait looks better in a real black/white image, as the perceived better contrast highlights more details of the picture generally, which is all you wan't in a portrait. It looks more crisp too.

Why a portrait has to be a head/shoulder-shot? Well... a portrait is usually the type of picture you're taking for a passport or something you add in your CV and those happen to be head/shoulder-shots in general.

And oh... I'm still using my analog SLR-camera instead of buying a new digital one, as a new digital SLR would cost me a fortune, if I wanted to have all the parts I've got for my old one. A PK mount isn't the most usual one around, so I can't use it with most modern cameras.

 

No.. that's what YOU want. Please don't presume to know what I want.

What? A portrait is a shot for a passport or CV? So... this famous PORTRAIT taken by Cecil Beaton in 1946 is not a portrait?




How about this Lebovitz one of the queen?



None of these were taken for a passport or CV.

If you think a portrait is something you take for a passport... you're in the wrong forum.

Please not, that despite being chosen at random, neither of these are black and white either.. not even the one taken 70 years ago.

 

As long as there is a person (or animal) in the frame it can be considered a portrait--which is broken down into several different types. You have tight portraits (just the head/face), head and shoulders (self explanatory), 3/4 portraits (above the knees), full body portraits (again, self explanatory) and environmental portraits (captures the scene and subject). That said, no, portraits don't always look better in B&W or sepia--that's just silly.

 

God, stuff like this makes me want to drink.....more. You just know you'll never have everything at the same time, at the right time to get a shot like this.

And to the ney sayers: look here.

 

Pookey as a Professor, we described situations like this as bibliographic references, you have your but where are his "techinical books", I´m not say the other part is right or even wrong I just want a prove that his theory is written and published by the commom means.

Like this:

http://www.americanethnography.com/article.php?id=69

Everyone as the right to write or say anything, however without proves they are worthless.

The forum is about learning and most of the improvements we see today is because someone said it was impossible or start some kind of discussion exactly like this.

Thanks to you all because learning a lot in this discussions.

 

I'm all for entering a debate about what is, or is not good photography, but to say that a portrait is only a black and white head and shoulders photo, for a passport... that kind of thinking needs quashing immediately.

I would even argue that a portrait doesn't need a person in it at all! I had a student photograph the objects on old people's mantelpieces and called them portraits. She put up a good argument too.

Things need to challenged with new ideas.

 

<stop>

Now, this is the story all about how
My life got flipped-turned upside down
And I'd like to take a minute
Just sit right there
I'll tell you how I became the prince of the Portrait Lair

A landscape photographer born and raised
In the countryside was where I spent most of my days
Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool
And all shootin' some sunsets outside of school
When a couple of guys
Who were up to no good
Started takin' portraits in my neighbourhood
They started talkin' about grayscale and my mom got scared
She said 'You're movin’ with your auntie and uncle to the Portrait Lair'

I whistled for a cab and when it came near
The license plate said Lecia and it had high ISO in the mirror
If anything I can say is that this cab was rare
But I thought 'Man forget it' – 'Yo home to the Portrait Lair'

I pulled up to the house about seven or eight
And I yelled to the cabbie 'Yo homes smell ya later'
I looked to my kingdom
I was finally there
To sit on my throne as the Prince of the Portrait Lair

</carry on>

 

I couldn't agree more, and kudos to her for taking a different approach to the assignment. A portrait is simply a representation of someone or something. I can be a head-and-shoulders picture, it can be a full-body shot, or it can be a picture of the things that cover their mantle. In my opinion as long as the photo tells something about the person, it is a portrait.

 

I Was sceptical, but like I said, she put up a good argument. I could get a better understanding of the person from the images without her in it than I could from the actual "portraits". I'm not suggesting we redefine the word Portrait in our dictionaries, but things definitely need challenging.

Also.. regarding portraits being head and shoulders only... what about family portraits? They're not head and shoulders... although they're usually crap.

While I hate Venture portraits with a passion, the reason they became so successful is because they challenged the pre-conceived idea of what is a family portrait.

Family portrait 1889




Family portrait 2000



Not really a great deal of difference. Basically, high street commercial portraiture was the same old crap for 150 years... then all of a sudden.....




Don't get me wrong... I dislike Venture images usually, despite having professional connections with them for many years, however... they were brave enough to do something different, and as a result the face of commercial high street portraiture is changed forever.

If attitudes like "All portraits should be black and white, head and shoulders"... then the world would be full of just that. Can you imagine anything more boring?

 

No need to change anything; it's already there.