On Portraiture
February 6, 2008
Cait
This is a photo I did last year with a first-time amateur model. I used an older Nikon D-70 digital SLR and a cheap 50mm lens — you can buy an newer but equivalent set-up at your local Walmart for not much more than $500. And the thing is, I can’t find anything “wrong” with this picture. Of course it helps that she’s a beautiful girl, but that aside, from a technical and equipment point-of-view, it is perfect. I’ve made 11x14 inkjet prints that looks great… really, nothing more is wanted. A $5000 camera wouldn’t make a better picture.
This is ironic because for years I’ve been messing about with elaborate vintage lenses and exotic old film cameras… trying to get “short focus” portraits with limited depth of field and pleasing out of focus background texture (“bokeh”). But now I can no longer see the point… I mean it’s pretty, well-crafted, the sort of thing you’d want to give to your family as a gift. But it’s also getting to be commonplace, expected, and well within the capabilities of thousands (millions?) of moderately skilled photographers…. It’s no longer that special, it’s mainstream, amateurs can do it with off-the-shelf gear and a few minutes of practice.
I think some of my newer portraits are different…. I’ve been going wider with my lens, stopping down more, going for sharpness and detail, lighting things a bit harsher. But it’s so easy to be seduced into making these obvious pretty images… I’ll probably still do them — they are commercially popular — but I’m looking for something more….
And anxiously awaiting my California film to be processed!
That’s the other thing — using film, especially 35mm film — really slows things down. It hardly makes sense for any sort of normal commercial project — the 20 rolls and 60 sheets I shot last week would probably add up to a $2000 tab on a billable job. But even with the lab rushing things through, I couldn’t turn around proof sheets in less than 2-3 days. Add a couple of days for editing and suddenly it’s taking a week and 40 hours of editing, scanning, and retouching. Compared to maybe 10 hours overnight with a similar digital “take”. So the client would really have to love my style to justify the time and expense of using film. I’m hoping that is the case, but I’m also trying to figure out how to adapt whatever style I seem to have to a faster, all-digital workflow. But I’m skeptical… a digital SLR just doesn’t handle the same way, people don’t respond to the little toy digital the same way they do to the film cameras — or so I think to myself. Hmmm….
Reader Comments (add yours)
1. cafeselavy — Feb 7 2008 04:05 PM
"but I’m looking for something more…."
The Curse!
I have a camera fetish, but I am learning how to make it work. Well, I should leave decision to others, but it feels as if I am. When you are at your best, I can (at least it seems I can) feel what you were feeling when you pulled the trigger. Or what the model was feeling or what she felt you were feeling. . . . But knowing which camera to use at that moment and having it makes it easier. Or so it seems. C'est la vie.
2. Butch — Feb 7 2008 08:04 PM
I'm feeling EXACTLY the same. You know this.
I asked myself "Why are you making this photograph in the first place?" Usually the answer is "for fun" Sooo How do I bring THAT out? I'm going lomo or polaroid or some other way that seems "fun" I'm making photos for art's sake, so anything goes. If you are making a commercial photograph, it's different, you shoot on spec or whatnot, but I got into this because it WAS fun, and now I'm trying to chase that!
3. John — Feb 7 2008 10:08 PM
Great looking model, clear crisp focus plane, lovely soft background. No life. Almost a plastic effect in and around her eyes. Actually the focus looks too flat lacking dimension. Could be the lighting. I like your more dramatic works. But then I play with mud all day.
4. Meagan — Feb 18 2008 07:35 PM
I agree.