Portraits vs. Candids vs. ???

Noobish and dumb question, I know. But I am kind of getting confused as to portraits vs. candids.

The way I understand it a portrait is a picture of a person (maybe a pet too) where the subject knows their picture is being taken? Is that it? Or is there more to it, such as staging, lighting, etc?

So what about say a random picture of your wife outdoors, where she knows you are taking the picture and smiles for you, but that's it? No special lighting setup or anything like that. Is that still a "portrait" or does it fall closer to a "candid"?

I was under the impression the main difference is whether the subject is aware that they are being photographed. Portraits come out looking nice and staged, candids capture actions/ emotions as they are happening in real life.

Would this be fairly accurate? If so, are the typical lens needs for these type of pictures similar? It seems generally for portraits you want longer focal length fast lenses. How about for candids? Go wider?

It's a noobish and dumb question that many experienced photographers may not know. I think you are confused because different people have different definitions of these words.

I usually go by what the dictionaries say. "Portrait" is related to a likeness of the face (i.e. a photograph, painting, drawing, etc.). I would not consider a full body shot of a group of people a "portrait".

A "candid" photograph is an unposed, informal photograph. This definition does not say anything about whether the subject knows that they are being photograph or not. They just don't do a formal pose. "Formal" photographs would be just the opposite - posed photographs. The subject would usually know that they are being photographed. Unless, of course, they are unconscious.

frugivore wrote in post #15020544
It's a noobish and dumb question that many experienced photographers may not know. I think you are confused because different people have different definitions of these words.

I usually go by what the dictionaries say. "Portrait" is related to a likeness of the face (i.e. a photograph, painting, drawing, etc.). I would not consider a full body shot of a group of people a "portrait".

A "candid" photograph is an unposed, informal photograph. This definition does not say anything about whether the subject knows that they are being photograph or not. They just don't do a formal pose. "Formal" photographs would be just the opposite - posed photographs. The subject would usually know that they are being photographed. Unless, of course, they are unconscious.

Thanks, and I'm confused even more, haha.

I guess in the grand scheme it doesn't matter, you know what you are photographing and your skill/ experience should allow you to make the best of it. I guess I was just curious as I hear those terms thrown out and I can't seem to get a grasp on a universal definition.

I've been posting there that I enjoy taking portraits when it seems like what I enjoy doing are closer to candids.

I always go by the rule that if you verbally ask or tell your subject that you are taking their picture - it's a portrait (posed or otherwise).

If you don't ask permission or tell your subject they are being photographed - it's a candid.

BarrySpug wrote in post #15020703
I always go by the rule that if you verbally ask or tell your subject that you are taking their picture - it's a portrait (posed or otherwise).

If you don't ask permission or tell your subject they are being photographed - it's a candid.

I almost never ask because I would rather have my subject acting naturally than being aware of the camera. Morally some photographers think that they should ask permission. Legally (in the USA) if a person is in an area in which he or she has no right to privacy (like walking on a street) you have no legal requirement to ask. However if a person is in an area in which he or she has the right to expect privacy (Such as the bare breasted Dutchess of Cambridge in a walled French Garden) the photographer needs permission to legally shoot and or make use of the images.

You can additionally muddy the water between candid and portrait by calling an image, "a candid portrait".

To the OP, in general your ideas seem as good as any. I think it just depends on how detailed you want to define the terms.

Sort of to me a candid (portrait) is basically an informal portrait, where there is still forethought into what characteristics you plan on capturing from your subject - it is not a snapshot. It is just not formally posed (with potentially any to all aspects such positioning, lighting, etc...) like in a (formal) portrait.

I like candid portraits myself. Sometimes these are better than staged candids....

What you call it doesn't matter. I think more important is whether you can get people to stay put or not. If they stay put, you can pick the position and focal length that gives you the perspective you want. A common choice is 90-100 mm on FF, or 60mm or so on a crop. If they won't stay put, I think a prime is a pain in the rear. (I say that as someone who shot only primes for decades.) If people are moving around, it is enormously helpful to be able to zoom. My standard zoom (on a crop sensor camera) for 'candids'--people moving around--is a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

When you do have control: what determines which lens you want is (1) framing, and (2) perspective. Perspective is controlled by distance. If you do a head-and-shoulders shot with a 60mm lens (on a crop), that will give you what most people consider a pleasing perspective. As you go to longer lenses and get farther away, features flatten. As you go to wider lenses and therefore get closer, features become less flattened (e.g., bulbous noses, if you get close enough). However, the impact of modest changes in focal length, particularly lengthening, are pretty small. I shoot a lot of tight head shots (candids) with a 70-200 because sometimes it is too hard to get close without disrupting things, and no one has ever told me that the resulting pictures look flat.

I consider the difference to be 'posed' or 'directed' vs. 'unposed' or 'undirected'. I have taken many shots of folks who know that I am shooting them, but they are acting naturally and not giving me a specific facial expression or angle...these are 'candids' whether or not the person being photographed is aware of your activity.

If I tell them to put their head at a certain angle, their eyes to point in a certain direction, or even to move around a bit as I capture them at random, I am directing them. And those are no longer 'candids' but 'portraits'.

To me, a portrait is a photo in which the subject of the photo is the depiction of a person. It isn't an action shot of a person, or a landscape that has a person in it. It is a photo of a person, basically taken for the sake of presenting the person.

A candid is a portrait taken when the subject is not aware of the photographer and is not posed.

So all candids are portraits, but not all portraits are candid. Does that make sense?

JeffreyG wrote in post #15021116
To me, a portrait is a photo in which the subject of the photo is the depiction of a person. It isn't an action shot of a person, or a landscape that has a person in it. It is a photo of a person, basically taken for the sake of presenting the person.

A candid is a portrait taken when the subject is not aware of the photographer and is not posed.

So all candids are portraits, but not all portraits are candid. Does that make sense?

I would just say that 'portrait' is specifically a depiction of the face. 'Candid' and 'formal' are the terms I use to convey whether people are directed or redirected.

JeffreyG wrote in post #15021116
To me, a portrait is a photo in which the subject of the photo is the depiction of a person. It isn't an action shot of a person, or a landscape that has a person in it. It is a photo of a person, basically taken for the sake of presenting the person.

A candid is a portrait taken when the subject is not aware of the photographer and is not posed.

So all candids are portraits, but not all portraits are candid. Does that make sense?

Perfect!

JeffreyG wrote in post #15021116
To me, a portrait is a photo in which the subject of the photo is the depiction of a person. It isn't an action shot of a person, or a landscape that has a person in it. It is a photo of a person, basically taken for the sake of presenting the person.

A candid is a portrait taken when the subject is not aware of the photographer and is not posed.

So all candids are portraits, but not all portraits are candid. Does that make sense?

an edit to what was stated:
A candid is a portrait taken when the subject is not aware of the photographer (or chooses to ignore the presence of any photographer) and is not posed.