Poses for Not-so-pretty people?

[Mitch]

Just saw a post for the 50 1.4 Vs 50 1.8 issue. It was a gallery of shots of a very good looking girl. The pics were all great. The girl was in a variety of poses, mostly casual. I have a theory, if you have a great looking subject, it's pretty hard not to get a good photo so long as you maintain OK exposure and framing. I have wondered for a long time, can you take great shots of a not-so-good-looking subject? To me, that would be a real test of the photographer's skill and the camera and the lens. Any examples out there?

[roanjohn]

I usually take thier photos with thier back turned. :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's all about lighting and accenuating thier ass-ets.

Ro1

[Adam Hicks]

I would image you'd want to do things to flatten or accentuate their face by using different focal lengths to start with. If someone had a huge nose, you wouldn't want to use your 28mm lens to get their face snapshots!

[Bruce Hamilton]

It's all about lighting and accenuating thier ass-ets.


You mean their ass-es, right? :lol: :lol:

[topeju]

I have wondered for a long time, can you take great shots of a not-so-good-looking subject?

Does anyone know of any good books on the subject of techniques for posing, and selecting lighting and focal lengths for photographing not-quite-so photogenic people? Which books would you recommend?

[Cadwell]

can you take great shots of a not-so-good-looking subject?

Never underestimate the effectiveness of paper bags.... ;)

[ron chappel]

I find portrait a facinating subject -especially the challenge of getting nice shots of less than georgeous poeple or non photogenic people.

Sorry i can't give any advise though-still learning myself

[ohenry]

Most of us not-so-good looking people stay on the other side of the camera :lol:

[Volatile]

I have no idea how to do it, but I can say what I like when I see it...

Typically you see this in old people from poor villages, the 80-year-old fisherman whose face is beyond weathered. The pose is just them looking straight into the camera. Here's the trick, somehow the picture says "look at me, I'm old, I'm ugly, and I'm not ashamed, I'm just me."

Those very matter-of-fact shots are what I like best for "ugly" people, or to put it another way, people with a lot of "character" in their face.

my $.02

[Belmondo]

I agree. What some people call 'ugly,' others consider 'character.' I'm thinking of some of the powerful B&W images that came out of the depression era. Those were not beautiful people ---quite to the contrary--- but they still are haunting images, even today.

[Kabz]

make them look down

[karusel]

Most of us not-so-good looking people stay on the other side of the camera :lol:

That's it, close the thread, nothing more to say. :lol:

[polloloco81]

Just saw a post for the 50 1.4 Vs 50 1.8 issue. It was a gallery of shots of a very good looking girl. The pics were all great. The girl was in a variety of poses, mostly casual. I have a theory, if you have a great looking subject, it's pretty hard not to get a good photo so long as you maintain OK exposure and framing. I have wondered for a long time, can you take great shots of a not-so-good-looking subject? To me, that would be a real test of the photographer's skill and the camera and the lens. Any examples out there?

Honestly, I see a lot of problems with the question you asked, so I'm going to disect it if you don't mind. First, like some have already stated, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I do agree with you that some folks just aren't photogenic :) And in regard to your question, it really depends on what kind of photography you are doing. Glamour photography has a subjectivity that requires beautiful people, otherwise it would defeat the purpose. But portrait photography as an artistic style requires the photographer to have an objectivity when it comes to his subject matter. Take examples of Dorothea Lange Shomei Tomatsu, Eugene Richards, and Anne Lebowitz (sp?). Their photographs are timeless yet their subjects rarely are 'beautiful'.

I definitely agree with you that it's a real test of the photographer to bring out the beauty of his/her subject, whether it's visually obvious or hidden. But that applies to all styles of photography, not just portrait. I don't think any quick answer to what constitutes a good pose or a bad pose will be the sollution, but it all comes from experience.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/lange/dor001.jpg
http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/lange/dor94.jpg

http://astro.temple.edu/~duff77/richardspics/images/c_needle.jpg

[slejhamer]

Does anyone know of any good books on the subject of techniques for posing, and selecting lighting and focal lengths for photographing not-quite-so photogenic people?


Google for "corrective posing" or "corrective lighting" and you'll find a few book recommendations and a few web sites offering tips.

P.S. It's a good thing Lebowitz didn't shoot weddings ... :roll:

[Belmondo]

I agree. What some people call 'ugly,' others consider 'character.' I'm thinking of some of the powerful B&W images that came out of the depression era. Those were not beautiful people ---quite to the contrary--- but they still are haunting images, even today.

as in #s 1 & 2 in polloloco81's post above.

[Mitch]

Thanks for the many responses, Especially to Kabz, Adam, Volatile, Belmondo and particularly to Polloloco81 and Slejhamer. I was getting worried at first because many of the initial answers were flip and substantive responses sparse. I think the topic is a very difficult one.

I think that the not so photogenic people (I should have used that term from the beginning) are photographed successfully by truly professional and experienced photographers only. (OK, we all get lucky sometimes, too). But, here's the rub, the 3rd world country photos and photos of the Depression era use the photos to tell a story, they are documentary in nature. So, a "good" photo would be striking in its depiction of the subjects' condition. However, that type of photo would not have at its intent to make the subject look "good", pretty, handsome, or aesthetically pleasing.

The question I have is, how does one take aesthetically pleasing pictures of non-photogenic people? How do you take portrait photos to make them look their best? Polloloco81 provided some photographer referrals and Slejhamer provided referrals to Corrective Lighting and Corrective Posing. I am going to research them and report back to you all on my summarized findings.

I'm still open for more comments on this thread. Remember, almost anyone can take decent photos of great looking subjects, the harder challenges are with imperfection.

[topeju]

Google for "corrective posing" or "corrective lighting" and you'll find a few book recommendations and a few web sites offering tips.

A-ha! That's the magic word! I'd been browsing books on posing in general, and didn't find anything in the tables of content of the books I found.

The first several results on "corrective posing" point to "Corrective Lighting and Posing: Techniques for Portrait Photographers" by Jeff Smith. "The Portrait Photographers Guide to Posing" by Bill Hurter also seems to contain a chapter on corrective posing.

Searching for "corrective lighting" mostly returned similar items. I'm rather surprised there seem to be so few books on the subject. Does anyone have or has anyone read either of the two books I mentioned? Could you provide any critique on the books?

[Lisard]

I have a friend who is an exceptionally beautiful woman. We grew up together and i have witnessed years of her trying to get some nice pictures done. She waisted so much money on pro photographers and studio shots in Russia. I wasn't into photography at this time and have been always amused how terrible she looked at ALL photos. People kept telling her she needs to find a 'right photographer". Years passed by. Recently she visited me here in US and I tried to take some of photos of her. We have been friend for over a decade and I can't imagine a person who would know her better and with whom she would feel more comfortable. ALL PICTURES TURNED OUT HORRIBLE!!!!! I can't understand what it is but she looks SO different on photos. I tried different lighting, enviroment, outfits. She just doesn't look herself in front of the camera. I even trued to get her drunk so she can be more relaxed. Nothing worked. I gave up.
Moral: Even pretty people can look awful on photos. Now I am convinced.

[slejhamer]

The first several results on "corrective posing" point to "Corrective Lighting and Posing: Techniques for Portrait Photographers" by Jeff Smith. "The Portrait Photographers Guide to Posing" by Bill Hurter also seems to contain a chapter on corrective posing.

Searching for "corrective lighting" mostly returned similar items. I'm rather surprised there seem to be so few books on the subject. Does anyone have or has anyone read either of the two books I mentioned? Could you provide any critique on the books?

Hurter's books are generally very good, but the corrective lighting chapter in that one is somewhat thin. I haven't read Smith's but it seems to be the primary reference.

I suggest you (and Mitch) join the forum at Zuga.net and search for "corrective" threads. http://zuga.net/forums.php Many pros (primarily wedding and portrait photogs) post there and are fairly generous in their posts. Just beware of all the crass commercialism at the site, and make sure your pop-up blocker is turned on.

almost anyone can take decent photos of great looking subjects, the harder challenges are with imperfection.

I disagree with the first part of your theory. :wink:

[Volatile]

Other ideas:

If there is a particular feature to be avoided, avoid it. Dark clothes to hide excessive weight. Soft focus to help hide acne. Post process skin imperfections with the band-aid tool, de-saturate the yellow out of teeth. There's got to be a million things you can do.

Who are you planning to take a picture of, and what qualities does he or she have that are not-so-photogenic?

[Mark Kemp]

There were quite a few professional photographers a year or two ago doing 'makeover portraits'. Basically anyone who fancied it (mainly women) went to a beauty salon and got the full treatment and then the photographer took their picture as a package deal. These pictures were usually a bit soft focus and often from above to reduce any err 'more prominent' features plus all the post processing etc that has already been mentioned. The results were usually pretty good and the clients seemed to like it. Some people were buying them as presents for mates etc. I don't know if its still as popular, but it used to be a good money spinner for anyone who learned the tricks and could strike a deal with a local salon.

Of course there is one other way to deal with the less photogenic (including other photgraphers) use a 17mm lens and have them stand at least 200 metres away :D

[Barb42]

http://www.stnphotography.com/tips.html

http://www.stnphotography.com/tips.html#people

Try these links. Apparently, some of your responders do not understand the importance of making the average client look their best. For heaven's sake, even top models have imperfections that are cleared up, during or after shooting, by the photographer. :roll: You don't think those women actually LOOK like that, do you??

In the end, its about the bottom line. People who look good in the photo return for future sessions and sign you up to do other more important jobs. Good luck!

[polloloco81]

http://www.stnphotography.com/tips.html

http://www.stnphotography.com/tips.html#people

Try these links. Apparently, some of your responders do not understand the importance of making the average client look their best. For heaven's sake, even top models have imperfections that are cleared up, during or after shooting, by the photographer. :roll: You don't think those women actually LOOK like that, do you??

In the end, its about the bottom line. People who look good in the photo return for future sessions and sign you up to do other more important jobs. Good luck!

You're right, I suppose I looked too deep into the question. But those websites that you linked do offer helpful tips when it come to portrait photography, but they're just general rules of thumb. I don't think they can really do anything to make an ugly person look prettier. My only sollution would be photoshop :lol:

[Bruce Foreman]

I have a friend who is an exceptionally beautiful woman. We grew up together and i have witnessed years of her trying to get some nice pictures done. She waisted so much money on pro photographers and studio shots in Russia. I wasn't into photography at this time and have been always amused how terrible she looked at ALL photos. People kept telling her she needs to find a 'right photographer". Years passed by. Recently she visited me here in US and I tried to take some of photos of her. We have been friend for over a decade and I can't imagine a person who would know her better and with whom she would feel more comfortable. ALL PICTURES TURNED OUT HORRIBLE!!!!! I can't understand what it is but she looks SO different on photos. I tried different lighting, enviroment, outfits. She just doesn't look herself in front of the camera. I even trued to get her drunk so she can be more relaxed. Nothing worked. I gave up.
Moral: Even pretty people can look awful on photos. Now I am convinced.

Some people are so fixated on their appearance that they cannot allow themselves to relax enough to get a good portrait. And often these will be very good looking folks. The trick to getting good images of them is to effect enough control over their body position, head tilt, facial angle, and overall pose that they have to quit "trying" so hard to look good themselves.

It's hard to explain, but it's all in the photographer's manner, confidence, and maybe a lot of "experience". It seemed to come fairly easy to me, but I have seen a lot of folks "uptight" about the portrait experience but could sense the point at which they "gave up control" to me and let me manage the session.

The beautiful, stunning looking women were the worst. It was the average looking and not so photogenic ones that helped me get the best portraits of them.

I'd advise you to cultivate the ability to establish a good, genuine working rapport with your subjects. Diffrent from friendship.

Bruce Foreman

[MikesJo]

mitch, do you mind posting the link with the shots from the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8.

Thanks.

[tarves57]

If you want to get rid of a multiple chins (or at least some of them!), try to get a the subject from the side, with the head turned towards the camera. This tightens the skin under the neck a bit.

Also, a face-on picture of a person lying on the floor resting on their elbows with their hands at the side of their face. This way they can pull the skin up and back a bit (like a facelift), yet look as though it's natural.

A photo in dark shade can look good, exposing only an outline or certain features of a face (or body).

Plus I think black and white photos tend to disguise a lot of imperfections and look "arty" into the bargain.

In the meantime, there are some serious challenges out there..... my partner included...... :D