Studio Portrait vs Environmental Portrait: A Subjective Matter?

[Rsuslow]

I understand this is a very subjective topic, which is why I bring it up. I'd like to see the differenct views from the many different types of photographers here, (amature, semi-pro, pro).

For me, there appears to be two main styles of portraits (candids aside).

Studio Portrait, with the backdrop, a few props, a stool, chair, ect. ect.

Environmental Portrait, placing your subject in an environment such as the street, an old building, sports field.

I've done no studio portraits, and very very limited environmental portraits, but I would imagine it would be more difficult to shoot an environmental portrait. Am I correct in assuming this?

What is everyones preference when it comes to the types of portraits? Am I missing any?

This is just to start a friendly discussion, and get an idea on everyones view of each style of portrait.

My preference would be an environmental portrait as I feel it adds a lot more character to a photo.

Your thoughts?

[Edbee]

My choice is for studio portraits.

[LearnMyShot]

In my opinion it's not a meter of personal preference but what works for particular image.
If you are planing your photoshoot ahead - there is always some sort of purpose.
1. If you are photographing a gardener - the garden will probably make the most appropriate backdrop. / environment
2. If you are photographing family portraits all day long - Studio might be good solution because of controlled lighting and climate

but there also nothing wrong about shooting the gardener in the studio or to take the family on location....
I think I am contradicting myself- but the point is don't get stock with one thing.

[Austin.Manny]

One of each! :)

[suecassidy]

When I was in photography school, many moons ago, the term "environmental portrait" did not mean something shot outside of a studio. I was taught that by strictly definition, an environmental portrait was one that told a story about the person, their likes, dislikes, and was perhaps shot in their own environment like a carpenter in his woodshop, or a painter in a studio. Semantics, I guess....

[banpreso]

I like environmental, as it's more story telling. As a disclaimer I love documentry style photography. When shooting a portrait on location i'd just say keep things simple, use the natural like or balance is with a simple ocf, just keep things simple.

[Ruhan]

This is an old debate. On the one hand people do not live with white backdrops and lights following them around every day. We don't live in studios. On the other hand by using a studio some argue that you only focus on that person and you are not distracted by all the other clutter.

Something else to consider is the experience of your subject. I have found that families or people not used to being shot, often come across more relaxed in a natural space. A carpenter might be more relaxed in his workshop whilst an actor for instance could be equally as comfortable in a studio as they would be on a street corner.

My personal preference is to shoot portoflios outside of a studio and to limit studio work to fashion/beauty work but others might prefer the opposite.

ps. If you do decide on doing a studio shoot (which you should at some stage) then do so with a friend as a subject. If you don't your subject will be aware of the fact that you are nervous and unfamiliar with your environment and it will make them even more uncomfortable.

[RDKirk]

When I was in photography school, many moons ago, the term "environmental portrait" did not mean something shot outside of a studio. I was taught that by strictly definition, an environmental portrait was one that told a story about the person, their likes, dislikes, and was perhaps shot in their own environment like a carpenter in his woodshop, or a painter in a studio. Semantics, I guess....

Yes. If you take a bird out of its native habitat, that's not an "environmental" portrait, even it is "natural." The same is true of people. The background and foreground of an environmental portrait should tell you something about the individual. If you place an athlete in a library, you may as well have placed him in a studio, as far as expressing anything "environmental" about him. OTOH, if you place a jailhouse lawyer who managed his own acquittal amid a stack of law texts, that might be precisely what you want to say about him.

Studio portraits are trickier...they may say more about the photographer than the subject. One of the great masters of studio portraiture was Irving Penn (Annie Leibovitz draws a lot from him). Penn could put a subject in front of a muslim and still reveal the personality of the subject...not an easy thing to do.

Seriously, google Irving Penn's images. The man was amazing. Karsh tends to get more press, but Penn was a master.

[Ruhan]

The irony is though that the natural environment for a model or even an actor is a studio as it is their work place. :)

[RDKirk]

The irony is though that the natural environment for a model or even an actor is a studio as it is their work place. :)

But there have been some excellent environmental portraits done of actors in their "natural habitat"--portraits of actors clearly showing them on movie or stage sets or behind the scenes.

[FlyingPhotog]

I don't necessarily consider someone standing against a brick wall down some alley to be an "environmental portrait." All that's been done is to trade a muslin background on a stand for a wall.

To me, an "EP" includes some sense of where they work or play that also requires you to light / flag or otherwise highlight those elements accordingly.

[RDKirk]

I don't necessarily consider someone standing against a brick wall down some alley to be an "environmental portrait." All that's been done is to trade a muslin background on a stand for a wall.

To me, an "EP" includes some sense of where they work or play that also requires you to light / flag or otherwise highlight those elements accordingly.

True. Grab shots out on the street are not necessarily "environmental portraiture" either. And also true that "environmental portraiture" does not absolve the photographer from using care to light and expose the subject and background artistically and appropriately.

[Frugal]

It's whatever the client wants, and mine all want their portraits outdoors or at a location - seniors, familes, children. Not necessarily environmental. But no backdrops unless it's a business portrait.

[elithrar]

I don't mind either, but I do have a preference for environmental portraits — and when I say "environmental", I mean one that fits the look of the subject.

I don't think it necessarily has to be a place that tells a distinct story about them, or a place where they associate with. A lot of my most recent work has been grainy, editorial -style portraits — and old brick alleyways and locales downtown have worked well to fit that look.

[Rsuslow]

Sorry for the confusion in the terms I used. You guys make a very correct point that when most people think of environmental portraits, they think of telling a story about someone.

I guess I would have to change it to "on location" portraits for lack of a better phraze.

I preffer the "on location" portraits to the studio style. I agree with RDKrik that it does take a very good photographer to bring life to a studio portrait. For me, and again this is my opinion, portraits taken "on location" in an old building, in front of a setting or rising sun or in a garden ect ect is much more appealing to my eye.

I also have a lot of fun doing these kinds of shoots, granted, it's mostly with myself or my family!

[GregBrave]

From my experience the on location portraits are easier to do, and I also like them more than studio portraits.
They are easier because you don't have to have (or rent) a studio. If you have a studio, and want to create an interesting background for your model then it requires creative thinking and even after you came up with the idea, you still have to find props to implement it. While shooting on location you have everything already there. Yes, you have to choose your location first, and it also requires some kind of creative thinking, but then you just look for locations and find what suits you (and the model), so you don't have to create it yourself as you would in the studio.
So I like to shoot on location much more than in the studio.

[RDKirk]

They are easier because you don't have to have (or rent) a studio. If you have a studio, and want to create an interesting background for your model then it requires creative thinking and even after you came up with the idea, you still have to find props to implement it. While shooting on location you have everything already there. Yes, you have to choose your location first, and it also requires some kind of creative thinking, but then you just look for locations and find what suits you (and the model), so you don't have to create it yourself as you would in the studio.

If you have a studio, it's already prepared for use. There's nothing easier than that, which is why most photographers charge more for location photography than in their studios. I think you have it backwards. I have everything in my studio; I have to transport everything to the location.

Also, don't discount the "cost" involved in looking for locations and getting the necessary permissions to use them.

[FlyingPhotog]

If you have a studio, it's already prepared for use. There's nothing easier than that, which is why most photographers charge more for location photography than in their studios. I think you have it backwards. I have everything in my studio; I have to transport everything to the location.

Also, don't discount the "cost" involved in looking for locations and getting the necessary permissions to use them.

Exactly how I look at it as well. Studio can stay set up with minimal changes needed. Walk In .. Fire Everything Up .. Shoot!

[GregBrave]

If you have a studio, it's already prepared for use. There's nothing easier than that, which is why most photographers charge more for location photography than in their studios. I think you have it backwards. I have everything in my studio; I have to transport everything to the location.

Also, don't discount the "cost" involved in looking for locations and getting the necessary permissions to use them.

Well, you are right from your point of view. But the thing is that if you say that your studio is already prepared for use, then it means that you shoot everybody with the same settings, and I don't mean lighting, which obviously can be easily changed in the studio. And if you would like to get more creative in the studio and add some background elements, that in my opinion is more "difficult" than finding a location. There are plenty locations out there that you don't have to get permit for.
Another factor of course is how much equipment you need for your shoots, and if you absolutely have to carry all these heavy studio flashes, and power packs and huge octabanks with you then again you are right - it is costly and difficult. But if you would carefully choose your "on location" equipment, counting more on your creativity than on "light power", then it might be that much easier.

I am talking here about creative side of shooting. From the business side quickly shooting your subjects in the studio where everything is familiar and the results are mostly predicted might be a wiser choice.

Again, all this is only my opinion.

[RDKirk]

Well, you are right from your point of view. But the thing is that if you say that your studio is already prepared for use, then it means that you shoot everybody with the same settings, and I don't mean lighting, which obviously can be easily changed in the studio. And if you would like to get more creative in the studio and add some background elements, that in my opinion is more "difficult" than finding a location.

You don't think Irving Penn was creative?


There are plenty locations out there that you don't have to get permit for.

In the US, at least, there is no land that does not belong to someone or is not under someone's authority. There is no place that does not require someone's permission or acquiescence to shoot. If I'm on a professional shoot, I'm going to make sure I have secured whatever permission or acquiescence is necessary before I take a client there. I expect my clients to pay me $1500 and more for my work, and that does not include getting chased away or arrested in the middle of the session.

[GregBrave]

You don't think Irving Penn was creative?

I didn't say that you can't be creative in the studio, I said that it is more difficult than on location.

[asysin2leads]

Personally, I like a little character in an image and an on-location type portrait can add just that. Like it was said, it's a bit harder to get that from a muslin backdrop, but it's possible. Babies are a bit easier in studio because they mostly lie or sit there and aren't that mobile and easy to work props in. I love taking a toddler out in a middle of a field and shooting them. You'll get genuine expression as they explore their surroundings. I did some environmental portraits of my cousin who is a minister. I shot him against the backdrop of his church w/ the lit-up cross in the background. He was a fair distance from the wall, so the DoF was great. Made for a great image. He doesn't wear a robe to preach, so no one would know he was a minister in a simple studio or on-location portrait. The environment made the shot.

[asysin2leads]

In the US, at least, there is no land that does not belong to someone or is not under someone's authority. There is no place that does not require someone's permission or acquiescence to shoot. If I'm on a professional shoot, I'm going to make sure I have secured whatever permission or acquiescence is necessary before I take a client there. I expect my clients to pay me $1500 and more for my work, and that does not include getting chased away or arrested in the middle of the session.

Very good point. I would rather ask someone for permission to use their land and them say no, then to get chased off w/ a shotgun. Call me crazy, I guess. If where I want, or the client wants, to shoot requires a permit, that is my responsibility to know about and to secure. There is this old, one-room school house w/ an old farm wagon in the side yard. It makes a nice senior picture location. I knocked on the door, talked to the wife and she said it was fine. All she asked was I call about a day in advance so she could make sure the kids' toys were picked up out of the yard for us. I never would have gotten to use that spot if I didn't simply ask.

[akipics]

photoshop the backgroud to the studio shoot