Planning on doing a classic pose in studio but I never know what people expect, tho. I mean why does this challenge falls under advanced editing? That's hardly "classic portait photography".
Planning on doing a classic pose in studio but I never know what people expect, tho. I mean why does this challenge falls under advanced editing? That's hardly "classic portait photography".
Sure it is! Portrait photographers are notorious for retouching their images to enhance their models' best features and mask their less-than-perfect ones. Are you confusing "advanced" with "expert"?
Planning on doing a classic pose in studio but I never know what people expect, tho. I mean why does this challenge falls under advanced editing? That's hardly "classic portait photography".
Sure it is! Portrait photographers are notorious for retouching their images to enhance their models' best features and mask their less-than-perfect ones. Are you confusing "advanced" with "expert"?
R.
See, that gets me confused between classic portrait photography and commercial photography. When I'm thinking classic portraiture I'm thinking basic three light setup with minimum expression, or perhaps natural lighting, the kind you see sitting on top of the fireplaces. What I'm not thinking about is the cover of vogue magazine. I thought the goal was to capture "likeness" rather than "perfection".
I thought the goal was to capture "likeness" rather than "perfection".
Portraiture is an incredibly broad term which basically means a picture of a person. It can range from actor's headshots (which demands the image be as "like" the person as possible) to narrative portraiture, which arguably tries to capture the "essence" of a person, their personality, etc. Formal portraiture is one of many portrait style choices, and there is nothing wrong with it. Many of the top scoring portraits have been, in fact, in the more formal style. But a portrait can be comprised of just the head (headshots) to full body. They can be natural light or studio. They can be indoor or outdoor. They can be serious or funny. Etc., etc. It's a very generous genre.
I thought the goal was to capture "likeness" rather than "perfection".
Portraiture is an incredibly broad term which basically means a picture of a person. It can range from actor's headshots (which demands the image be as "like" the person as possible) to narrative portraiture, which arguably tries to capture the "essence" of a person, their personality, etc. Formal portraiture is one of many portrait style choices, and there is nothing wrong with it. Many of the top scoring portraits have been, in fact, in the more formal style. But a portrait can be comprised of just the head (headshots) to full body. They can be natural light or studio. They can be indoor or outdoor. They can be serious or funny. Etc., etc. It's a very generous genre.
So what's the difference between classic portrait and say glamour, pin-up, fashion, fetish, expressive? Are all these just sub-categories of portraiture?
I thought the goal was to capture "likeness" rather than "perfection".
Portraiture is an incredibly broad term which basically means a picture of a person. It can range from actor's headshots (which demands the image be as "like" the person as possible) to narrative portraiture, which arguably tries to capture the "essence" of a person, their personality, etc. Formal portraiture is one of many portrait style choices, and there is nothing wrong with it. Many of the top scoring portraits have been, in fact, in the more formal style. But a portrait can be comprised of just the head (headshots) to full body. They can be natural light or studio. They can be indoor or outdoor. They can be serious or funny. Etc., etc. It's a very generous genre.
I thought the goal was to capture "likeness" rather than "perfection".
Portraiture is an incredibly broad term which basically means a picture of a person. It can range from actor's headshots (which demands the image be as "like" the person as possible) to narrative portraiture, which arguably tries to capture the "essence" of a person, their personality, etc. Formal portraiture is one of many portrait style choices, and there is nothing wrong with it. Many of the top scoring portraits have been, in fact, in the more formal style. But a portrait can be comprised of just the head (headshots) to full body. They can be natural light or studio. They can be indoor or outdoor. They can be serious or funny. Etc., etc. It's a very generous genre.
+1
I still can't believe sometimes that these discussions take place. Quite amusing to say the least.
I still can't believe sometimes that these discussions take place. Quite amusing to say the least.
The problem that has developed is that challenges are being narrowed down way too much by narrow minded people. The emphasis has switched from a photography contest to a competition to see who can vote down any image because it does not meet their definition of the challenge. It's wrecking the site. It's not fun anymore. Good photography is often panned for very petty reasons.
It would be good to see a liberal interpretation of challenges. I mean, give photography a chance.
I still can't believe sometimes that these discussions take place. Quite amusing to say the least.
The problem that has developed is that challenges are being narrowed down way too much by narrow minded people. The emphasis has switched from a photography contest to a competition to see who can vote down any image because it does not meet their definition of the challenge. It's wrecking the site. It's not fun anymore. Good photography is often panned for very petty reasons.
It would be good to see a liberal interpretation of challenges. I mean, give photography a chance.
Agreed. A couple challenges do have very strict rules but for the majority of them they are open to many viewpoints but many voters still nitpick.
I still can't believe sometimes that these discussions take place. Quite amusing to say the least.
The problem that has developed is that challenges are being narrowed down way too much by narrow minded people. The emphasis has switched from a photography contest to a competition to see who can vote down any image because it does not meet their definition of the challenge. It's wrecking the site. It's not fun anymore. Good photography is often panned for very petty reasons.
It would be good to see a liberal interpretation of challenges. I mean, give photography a chance.
I would agree with most challenges except this one called for "a classic photographic form that typically captures the face of a person", which isn't very broad. If members agree that broad is alright, then I see nothing wrong with it, since that is what keeps photography and art moving forward.
'typically' doesn't make the atypical illegitimate does it? And given the number of 'typical' images there will be, the atypical will be very attractive to many (both to shoot and to view). Wanting your image to be distinctive would seem laudable to me - in any and all challenges.
I for one hope there will be much variety when I view/vote.
So what's the difference between classic portrait and say glamour, pin-up, fashion, fetish, expressive? Are all these just sub-categories of portraiture?
'typically' doesn't make the atypical illegitimate does it? And given the number of 'typical' images there will be, the atypical will be very attractive to many (both to shoot and to view). Wanting your image to be distinctive would seem laudable to me - in any and all challenges.
I for one hope there will be much variety when I view/vote.
I'm in and have to agree with you Paul, hope there's a bit of variety in this challenge. I've gone for something radically different.
