Portrait vs. snapshot

Maybe no one wants to give up the recipe for the secret sauce but I was wondering what tips you could give to making more formal pictures of people look more like portraits and less like snapshots. Posing, composition, lighting, post processing etc. I think I could improve in all these areas frankly but sometimes I take what I think are good shots and they still don't look "professional" to me so then I wonder how much if it is in post processing... but then whenever I think that I think that's too simple, there is more too it... Nothing is as simple as making it look "artsy" after the fact. I need work on the the other areas too I think. I can post some shots tonight and maybe you can give some feedback.

Great question--I'm hoping to improve and move toward more professional level qualites in my portraits, alos. I understand that "better" subjects result in better photography, and that the next two concerns are lighting and then lighting. Just looking for that edge, myself, and am looking forward to comments.

For starters snapshots are usually not posed and the lighting is usually either what is there (available light) or you use on camera flash. I've written a free tutorial on posing and lighting http://photocamel.com …les-good-portraiture.html

Check it out, over 100,000 others have!

Benji

Thanks Benji. I've actually read that thread before. Its a fantastic resource. Posing is definitely one of my weaknesses.

wow, I thought you were a nikon shooter Benji... or in this case both

Snapshots are not set up like portraits are. When I have an engagement couple, for instance, I plan where I'm going to shoot and scout out the lighting, which is the most important element. And it's the whole lights, diffusers, filters, tripod thing. You don't necessarily need any of these props for snapshots. Another element is isolating the subject. I use lenses with large apertures to give good bokeh, leaving the subject in full focus. For instance:

In addition, a true portrait (IMO) has the cooperation of the subject. There are many great and even iconic images taken of people without the subject's cooperation (or even knowledge), but I would not consider them "portraits."

Benji wrote in post #8685072
For starters snapshots are usually not posed and the lighting is usually either what is there (available light) or you use on camera flash. I've written a free tutorial on posing and lighting http://photocamel.com …les-good-portraiture.html

Check it out, over 100,000 others have!

Benji

So your saying you can't take portraits using only available light? Some of the greatest portraits taken have only used available light.

Ah, well then none of my pictures of my kids are portraits because they sure as hell don't cooperate

imahawki wrote in post #8688045
Ah, well then none of my pictures of my kids are portraits because they sure as hell don't cooperate

LOL. I've been carrying a camera throughout the lives of 4 sons, and when they see me coming, they generally run the other way. But knowing they'd be nagged to death, they cooperate as well as they can. And I can get a good one as the above of my youngest when I can get him to stop moving around.

for me, the first thing that separates a decent portrait from a snapshot of someone is depth of field. It shows the person shooting the camera actually put some thought into what the camera was doing, rather than just pointing and shooting.

Many would probably disagree with this, but it is just my opinion on the difference between the two.

dave

Do you mean having shallow depth of field or deep depth of field?

Of course, there are many fine potraits in which the photographer intentionally shot for as much depth of field as possible (look for the environmental portraits of the rich and famous by Bill McIntosh, for instance).

The current fad is to shoot with extremely wide apertures on long lenses to blur the background as much as possible. While that can be a lovely look, being able to consider and control a visible background is a higher level of craftsmanship

interesting question - I think:

a snapshot to me is a photo that was not planned, has not artisitc value, is crappy
please don't mix it with photographs whicj were created using only 1 click. big difference.
I will disagree about the DOF comment. shallow deapth of field is does not guarantee that all my snaps of random faces at a party with my 85 1.2 will be portraits.

Here is an example I am referring to. I like this picture but to me it doesn't look like a pro took it.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

imahawki wrote in post #8730433
Here is an example I am referring to. I like this picture but to me it doesn't look like a pro took it.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Lighting is very good in this picture.. just because it doesnt have bokeh on the BG.. doesnt means it wasnt a pro..