just a statement of fact - In what country it’s possible to get married in - polala.com

In what country it’s possible to get married in ::
Well, what can be done before is the "Sworn statement" in my Russian .. client of theirs and not just browsing so I would suggest that you get your facts
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/596655.htmlHOME

Since I cant rant and rave anymore just a simple statement of fact...

every picture with a person it it is NOT a portrait. no offense intended.

a female is always a woman, but she is not always a LADY, just symantics guys. He means that sometimes people are just caught in a picture that may be art/landscape/ etc... whatever...

they are not necessarily the focal point of the picture, and maybey steps were not taken to light them properly, etc...

A shoot of a bottle of cologne for a cologne AD with a off-center 3/4 of a car in the corner as background, would you say that its a car shoot ?

Not really the eye is in the composition the rest is just makeup. You shot a hell of a well composed shot.

Let me try by saying nobody is sure what a portrait is I think that is self evident. Most of us can say what a portrait isn't. At least for us individually.

is
photograph of a person that is well exposed and cropped. One that shows something about the person more than they have on a red top.

These days those items should be easy enough to do with any equipment and lighting situation normally available to most photographers on this site. With all the post production things available surely that isnt an insurmountable task.

Much easier to see if not define are snapshots of people that may or may not hang on a wall but are not my personal idea of a portrait.

is not
I try to not single out a picture i have seen here recently so that people can say hes talking about me. I have to go back a ways since I dont genereally shoot snapshots. Not that Im that good but I shoot mostly still life and landscape now. Im not the family photographer any more.

http://i10.tinypic.com/2wrlqiu.jpg

This is not a portrait and I took it so im not picking on anyone else.

Sure the line is blurred but I think of the term portrait being more than a snapshot of a person. I find it hard to believe that there is any doubt that such is the case frankly but I know that it is.

In the end it goes back to what I said before. It might be like porno I can't define it but I know the difference and i would think that everyone here knows that the image above is not a portrait even thought the main object is a person.

The dictionary tells us what it is not what it isnt...

Now I could be wrong but I don't think I said that a portrait had to be head and shoulders. I have made a ton of full length so if I said that Im sorry for misleading you.

I shot full length of a person standing in front of the mokey cage would not seem to me to be a portrait. the pictures you show here are all a little more telling than I went to zoo on friday. Do i think they are perfect no i don't. Do I think they qualify as portraits? Probably they do they say something to me. You sister in front of the monkey house won't speak to me that is a part of it I think as well as the quality of the shot.

Then i guess i should get it off to them. A portrait is always a picture of a person but a picture of a person is not always a portrait. Thats my definition and I expect it is a pretty fair discription covering those thousands of pics of people that go into the trash every day.

But you certainly are allowed your own definition. And I dont think mine is contradictory to your definition from the dictionary. I think the dictionary definition doesn't go far enough since it is a general dictionary.

By the way a crappy picture of a person isn't a portrait no matter how much you want it to be for the sake of argument. I doubt that those other 23 shots on that disposable camera made it to anyone wall even if they had people in them.

Well, I would certainly agree that not every picture that happens to have a person in it is a portrait of that person. Like when I was in Sanssouci Park in Potsdam, the place was teeming with tourists. I had persons in ever so many of my frames that I did not even WANT in them. So clearly my photos of those persons are no portraits. In this, I am sure, I am with everyone here on the forum! Everyone.

I also (still remembering our visit to that park) took a photo of a young Italian tourist taking a photo of his posing girl-friend who was sitting on the rim of a bowl shaped pool with fountain. MY photo of the two - though meaning to be OF THE TWO - certainly never is a PORTRAIT of the two. It is just a photo of the two, of that scene, of him taking her photo.

But could his photo (that I never saw, of course, since I don't know those people at all) have become a portrait? What do you think? Or was it only a nice snap of her posing for him. Because all they thought about was the surroundings but did not spend any thought on special lighting (other than the big spotlight up there in the sky) or any other things?

What is it that you think is needed to make the photo of someone's face (and shoulders, maybe) or of someone sitting on a chair in a stream of spotlight, or of someone captured at work in his daily (and life-determining) surroudings a portrait and not just the photo of said person?

If you shot it at my daughter's wedding I would ask if you could lighten up the picture of my daughter, so I could hang it on my wall So yes I personally would consider it worthy of being called portrait.

But then what do I know.

Every photo with a person in it is not a portrait. True. But every photo with a person as the main or dominant subject is.

I did find a portrait I had digitalized here you go this is A portrait not the only kind by any means. I think it is a little more portrait like than the last image I posted..

http://i11.tinypic.com/2hgbe9t.jpghttp://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-9/1082806/portrait.jpg

I did have this one digital as well...

Now I know you dont want to hear it but these are a lot different from the kid out of focus poor color and a toy. I love my grand son and I have some shots I do have on my wall but I sure as hell dont consider that one a portriat.

xxxooo Mystery. Thanks! It's all gonna work out. :-)

NOT every photo with a person in it is a portrait.

Hurrah

I never took any portrait ... although I tried.

I tend to wander off point.... gets to be out of the scope i think sometimes. On the advice of what I hope is a friend.

this thread it more to focus on opinions not my own.

I think you should contact the dictionary folks... I guess they didn't get your correction yet.

por�trait http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png/ˈpɔrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtrɪt, -treɪt, ˈpoʊr-/ Pronunciation Key (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/) - Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/)[pawr-trit, -treyt, pohr-] Pronunciation Key (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/) - Show IPA Pronunciation (http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2 Fportrait) http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif –noun 1.a likeness of a person, esp. of the face, as a painting, drawing, or photograph: a gallery of family portraits.

Why don't you say it's not a portrait to YOU. If somwone with a 35mm disposable camera takes a pic of someone and hangs it on the wall it's a portrait. That's fact even if you don't like it.

fair enough, I (personally) think a portrait should say something about the person. Not just be a mirror image. Although that can be a portrait as well.

Studio lighting does not make a portrait. Perfect lighting does not. I think you can look at the photograph of a person and tell what speaks to you and what doesn't. Everytime you take a picture of a person it is not a portrait and every shot in a portrait studio isnt either. Poor lighting will most often disqualify it.

However in the main....(not always but more than half the time) A portait is pretty much filled with the person you are shooting. Ie a picture of a man on a sidewalk with the rest of the frame 80% street sceen is going to have a hard time reaching portrait status in MY mind.

A skate boarder on a wall with most of the shot filled with the park is a nice shot but it is a person in a shot not a portrait.

What is the answer to this question?::
to specify that I was looking for the CORRECT answer, and not just AN answer. . The fact that the question is a "question" and not a statement means that
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/13884.htmlHOME

By the same token a head shot so tight it distracts from the subject hits me more snapshot than portrait most of the time. It doesn't have to be a classic portrait framing but it sure makes it easier for me to see it as a portrait if it is.

Lighting: a portrait my have terrible lighting and still speak but the odds are it will be well lit if not perfectly lit. there will be hair on the subject's head. Not with his hair blended into the background though that is just a technical thing. But one you have to overcome to reach portrait level in my mind

The person will have some indefinable, that takes it outside of the snapshot, look about it. If it isn't a classic portrait type

there are lots more but you cant really write them all down. A portrait even a low quality one has something about it that raises it above the snapshot of my grandson.

I think most people have an idea what a portrait opposed to a good snapshot is. Maybe its like porno, I cant tell you what it is but I sure know it when I see it.

But did you not start this whole thread by tossing out your "simple statement" IN ORDER TO make us think and discuss the matter thrown in front of us?

So there. Don't apologize.
As long as this discussion is being led with "good manners" it can be led and everyone can bring forward their points, I think.

The thing that I still haven't got sorted in my mind - in my attempt to find out what goes on in YOUR mind, that is - is: what makes the photo of a person's face and shoulders alone a portrait and when does it stay just "a photo of said person"? Is it a portrait when you seat the person somewhere and say: "I now want to take a photo of you"? But when you sneak up to them and take their pictures candidly it is not? Just because it was taken candidly? No matter how much this photo might have only the person (maybe even only the person's face) as its subject?

For example:

http://www.fastpictures.com/images/AnniRocS/ireneprobefreitag24nov0604filtered.jpg

Would you consider this photo of Julie, the person who took the part of "Irene" in our H�ndel oratorio performance, taken by me during rehearsal with her not knowing I was taking photos, just "a photo of Julie", or would you say this is a portrait since it shows her in what she is doing and loves to do and does for a living, so it shows more of herself than a static studio portrait shoot would do?
Or does this photo contain too many other things (stage props) to still be a portrait?

http://www.fastpictures.com/images/AnniRocS/ireneprobefreitag24nov0602filtered.jpg

Or would this one qualify more/less?

Or this one?

http://www.fastpictures.com/images/AnniRocS/ireneprobefreitag24nov0601filtered.jpg

Help me to see what you mean, will you?

I think the dictionary definition of what portrait is travels in a different direction to what I believe portraiture to be.

Wikipedia sums it up best for me in their definition.

Portraiture is the process of painting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painting), sculpting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sculpture) or photographing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph) a portrait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait). The term is also used to describe the final result from the creative process.
Portraiture is a way of recording people. Their personality, character, status, the place and time they lived, the environment in which they live or simply showing beauty. Artists over the years have created many portraits to express their feelings about themselves in self-portraits or other people they don't know. Creating a self-portrait can be one of the most rewarding and challenging experiences. It allows the artist to express themselves in a realistic or idealistic way. Even if we do not know the person in the portrait there are many clues or codes in the form of colours, objects, and symbols within the work that gives us an idea of what the artist was trying to communicate to the audience. Some clues are obvious and some are a little more obscure.

Complex queries in MySQL::
In fact, MySQL sometimes uses temporary tables internally for complex queries. statement; if you run into problems with that, or even if it's just more
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/231545.htmlHOME

I have no portraits on my web site (yet). My images of people are all glamour / fashion shots and are not about showing the person. I've only attempted a few portraits by my own definition. And photographically, technically, I'm not impressed by my results.

I post them here to illustrate my point, in some ways I think I succeeded in capturing a portrait, I just failed at taking a great picture.

1. This man busks in the same place in Sydney all the time, and I don't think he makes much money, his instrument is part can and obviously home made. The music isn't soothing or mournful, it's just sound and I couldn't tell you if he goes home at night to a warm bed or a doorway.

These things that I can tell you from being there, from personal observation, can also (I believe) be 'read' from the photo. To me, that's a portrait.
http://www.azuth.net/image_share/Chinese_Busker.jpg

2. This is a picture of Brian, he seems like a nice guy, I know he sleeps in a doorway. He doesn't beg, or sit with his head bowed waiting for charity. He shines shoes in a busy mall. He does a good job, and pays attention to his customer.
http://www.azuth.net/image_share/Shoe_Shiner_BW.jpg

I long for the day I can take a portrait that's also a good photograph.

I am 42 years old. I have emphasema.
I'm not using that as a reason why I can't get the job done. I can. And they are goona be really happy campers.
I feel for, but cant go with the tired folks, and all that. I've got a few years and I;m gonna do what I can.
I'm a perfectionist. I paid a whole lot of money to learn. My learning curve is pretty curvy, and I'm ok with that.

http://i12.tinypic.com/47v9iz6.jpg

Ps you can certainly like your version better there isnt much difference.

fair enough, I (personally) think a portrait should say something about the person. Not just be a mirror image.

This is generally how I feel about an image of anything. Just reproducing what is in the field of the lens well and accurately does not a good picture make. I see many LF pictures that are well exposed, horizontals horizontal, verticals vertical, DOF perfect, 50 shades of grey - and they tell me nothing, evoke no feelings in me, keave me cold.

A good picture is not necessarily a reproduction.

Darkening did such a trick, mysteryscribe! I now did that to my high-resolution version of the picture and the result is seriously making me speechless! Thank you for taking the time to edit, it made such a difference! :)

Snob maybe, but one with a keen eye!

this image has a lot of meaning to me but I dont consider it a portrait it is just a snapshot.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-9/1082806/020_17a.jpg

Well at least someone is reading it.

try this then:

every picture with a person in it is not necessarily a portrait.

Photoshop and good technique can turn that snapshot of your child into a better snapshot of your child, but can it really raise it to the level of a portrait.

The picture in my avitar was never meant to be a portrait. Whether it rises to that level or not is debatable. It was meant for the rear of a book jacket so not necessarily a portrait. I personally think it meets my criteria says more about me than I am not wearing socks. But that is up for debate.

I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO EDIT.
WHATEVER.o
I

Dangit. Sorry the meds. I wanted to say, thank you for your well wishes. It's gonna work out either way.
Love you guys,
Cindy

I've been reading this thread and others of its ilk with interest as one who A. aspires to learn to do portraiture and B. is painfully aware of how far away that goal is.

I think our learned albeit mysterious Scribe's most pertinent comment is:

not every picture of a person is a portrait by quality or intention

Is it fair to add "intention" to the list of necessary conditions to justly call a photo a portrait?

The picture of the young bride I put up earlier is a case in point. I have trouble thinking of this as much more than a fortuitous snap. It was taken in a park with a hyperzoom point & shoot at max focal length WITH a 1.7X teleconverter screwed onto the lens. (35mm full frame focal length equivalent works out to something like 734mm) In retrospect it's hard for me to see this as much more than me playing misguided peeping Tom. Paparazzi photos of Britney Spears with flabby arms and pimples may well say something about Ms. Britney, but I don't think they are portraits either. That the young bride is lovely and seems serene and happy are good things. I don't know if those good things are enough.

I'm finding portraits to be pretty difficult to pull off. Seeing so much good work on the web is both inspiring and daunting. It just makes it harder when it's so difficult to even define what this thing called portrait truly is. But I'll get there, someday. You see, I want this skill set pretty badly.

Okay if this will make you feel betting In my opinion it is a fact...

I frankly dont have a portrait gallery dewey i was in business before there were digital files to post.

I have my portraits hanging on a wall but if you like i can digitalize some negatives...this isnt about my portraits being better than your snapshots. I frankly am not in the business so I have nothing to gain of a personal nature in this discussion. It also isnt a matter of who does or does not sell portraits. Its just a matter of every picture with a person Is not a portrait. I think this discusion is getting out of hand.

I think we can find plenty of portraits around to show the difference, between them and what I stuck up above this post. But if you cant see it by now, you probably wont see it no matter what I put up here. But again if you like I'll be happy to post my portraits after I scan a couple of negatives. Or you can look at my website below to see the retro portraits there

I think that I have pretty much explained my point of view. And in my mind it is a fact maybe not in yours, So can you tell me with a straight face the snapshot I posted above is a portrait. If you believe that I'll never post another word on this subject because there is no hope of making anyone understand anything.

about the chick with the cleavage... It isnt a portrait because the quality is something you find a family album not on my wall. Not to mention what my wife would say...

I sorry to me it isnt just the crop that makes a portrait. In my mind at least portrait implies a certain amount quality. To me a photographic portrait isn't the dictionary definition. As I said before the dictionary tells us what it is not what it isn't

every picture with a person it it is NOT a portrait. no offense intended.

hm, do you mean "NOT every picture with a person in it is a portrait"? I would agree instantly with that.

or "once there is a person in it, it cannot be a portrait anymore" ?
I would have to meditate a looong time a bout that ...

or "on this forum there are no portraits ever posted" ?
could be argued but could be true ;) always depends on how you define portrait ...

:wink: help

Well, I think you gave Brian a portrait of his self here.
And there is more of his self than his face and features showing. He looks at us and communicates with us though his eyes firmly set on the camera lens and through his smile. The shoe brush in his hands tells even a tad more of the story, and the funny Santa-hat shows some of his humour. Apparently you were sitting there getting your shoes polished when you decided you wanted to take his photo?

The decision may have been a spontaneous one, and the outcome may be less "clean" than some would think a portrait would need to be (what with the white chair in the background and the legs of passers-by to be seen), but that is what Brian does daily: polishing the shoes of passers-by in the street. And you captured that - and more. So yes, I think that one is a portrait, all right.

As to the busker ... the POV isn't one that I like personally (you make us look "down" on him, literally, though you might not have meant for anyone to really look down on him in the other sense of the word). We see what he does for a "living" and we see his face and we see the surroundings in which he sits, but this one looks quite candid ... and, as I was saying, it is the POV that makes me think, maybe this one is NOT a portrait.

As to the photo of the bride ... and the circumstances under which it was taken ... it might not FEEL like a portrait to you, dgs, since your really and truly snuck up on her from afar to take her picture, and yet you managed to get something that speaks more (to me) than it might be speaking to you ... there is something in this "paparazzo"-style attempt to capture this bride than you might think. And definitely more than there is in very blurred photos of a unsuspecting-totally-relaxed-just-being-herself-and-enjoying-comfy-clothes photo of Britney Spears (and photos of her revealing her knickerless state are downright mean and cheap and striving for a very low kind of voyeuristic attention).

So I tend to think that albeit taken candidly and from very far away, this photo of the bride might be considered a portrait, all right.

I guess my rub is with the title "just a statement of fact". It's not a statement of fact it's your opinion.

Maybe you could show us your portrait gallery so we could know what a portrait is?

Actually, the basic line of all this discussion was mysteryscribe's saying that NOT every photo with a person in it is a portrait. No more. No less.

And hey: is your avatar pic a portrait?

Errm, errm, is your ,.. errm ,.. no, I won't ask ;)

sorry, you know I don't mean it :) :) .. don't you? :confused:

but if you step on it and fall into the river is it still a bridge.

Im sorry im just not the kind to dummy something down to please everyone.... If I stand alone in my thinking then I do but im sorry a picture of a person who you wouldnt hang on a wall of your home is not a protrait its a snapshot and i have made plenty of them.

Before we go back to the toss away cam you can most definitely make a decent portrait with one. The equipment isnt the issue the quality of the image is though at least in my mind.

By the way we dont have to agree on which images are portraits that wasn't my intent. My intent was to say simply that everything with a person in it doesn't qualify as a portrait. I don't see how that is even arguable but it seems to be lol....

As a photograph it is a very good portrait. I don't think you will get any debate on that.

Now as a photograph speaking to me personally, I like the lights expecially when combined with the musician theme. Now if I might be so bold as to suggest.

To change the mood and feel without doing much to the image try toning down the brightness about ten to fifteen notches. Just that one little thing in my opinion will change her from a pretty girl with an instrument to someone who belongs in a club. Also try darkening out the corners to give it a more moody look.

We don't usually post changes to someone elses image without permission so I won't post it but I did it and it makes a huge mood change. That's the beauty of portraits they can shift moods at the drop of a highlight or two.

Not really the eye is in the composition the rest is just makeup. You shot a hell of a well composed shot.

I think this is the nicest things anyone has ever said about a picture of mine. Thank you, mysteryscribe. :)

Regarding the topic of 'portrait' vs. 'no portrait': Could it be that you guys define portrait simply on two different levels of meaning?

One level of meaning would be the rather techical definition of what makes a portrait a portrait, i.e. a photograph where a person is the main subject.

The other level of meaning goes beond that and lays a claim to a portrait to meet certain requirements beyond the technical aspects, like "does it say something about the person", "is it of a certain quality", "does it 'catch' something more", "does it convey more than just the outlines of a subject". A more artistic approach, so to speak, whilst the first level is rather a technical approach.

Reading your arguments I get the feeling that you may simply be debating on two different levels of meaning. Just a thought. :blushing:

Thanks for the comment, Corinna. For the record, I didn't "sneak up" on her That's much too much work. This is less a case of stalking than setting up a spiders web and sniping from it. Perhaps that's too fine a point to place on too pointless of a distinction.

There was a much better photgraph that came out of that particular sniping attack. I think, though, any legitimacy it may have is more as an editorial shot than a portrait. Interested to hear what you think.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j255/First235/ba3d1ed5.jpg

Well, with this last example also I am curious to hear what our mysterious Scribe will say ... being not quite familiar with the expression of "editorial shot" but having an idea of what it might mean, I tend to agree with you. It is the very open, smiling, engaged and engaging face of a person here, but I don't think this photo qualifies as a PORTRAIT of said person. Too much surrounding (and distracting :lovey: ) action around her ... though I do like the composition of this one really much!!

Agreed. I get kinda confused sometimes with the heading "portrait" when it doesn't tell me anything about the person. But then again, I know its personally hard for me when taking my own family and friends photo. Because I know the person, I tend to assume that everyone does, and I don't struggle as much to attain the "true and telling expression".
Does that make sense?
Anyhoo, I think that a lot of shooters tend to do the same thing.

You know what?
I'm going to let mark have the last word this time. But note he made the distinction between a snapshot and a portrait lol

And the wheel turns round and round...

So the sharpness of the image defines portrait or, perhaps, it is defined by whether you intend to hang it or not? It seems like you would be eliminating a lot of decent portraits.

Never said I wasn't a snob...

It might eleminate a lot of decent shots but they arent gone just not of portrait quality in my mind. Family albums are full of interesting pictures that arent portraits. The chick with the cleavage falls into that category only I don't have it in MY family album.

Yes quality goes into it but it isnt all. I keep saying I cant tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it. If you dont think that works checks the supreme court decission on porno.

I'm just using your own rules here, but they aren't portraits because I wouldn't hang them on my wall. The direct on-camera flash in the second one is enough for it to be a snapshot in my mind. The first one is too for other reasons.

Using my own definitions they would be both snapshots and portraits, but that's me. Good snapshots and poor/mediocre portraits.

This is a photographic image (how's that for a cop out? ) I have very little if any emotional involvement with. I did take the photographic image but at this point won't describe how or why.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j255/First235/bride.jpg

Is this a portrait? Why or why not?

I promise faithfully to be neither offended nor gratified by any frank comment of this picture. I literally don't care, so go after it!

If you shot it at my daughter's wedding I would ask

that you crop it tighter and higher so that it frames her face and gets away from her cleavage, make it brighter and add a little contrast, then blur and vignette the corners - and then it would be a portrait I'd like to have.

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7651/bride2gv4.jpg

Not all the impact goes in through the lens.

http://www.azuth.net/image_share/Chinese_Busker.jpg

http://www.azuth.net/image_share/Shoe_Shiner_BW.jpg

Just want to say I love these two photographs/portraits (after reading all this I've lost the ability to really decide one way or the other :confused: ) and I've spent the past 15 mins. just studying all the little details. Fab work! I just :heart: :heart: :heart: them both!

I've always used the phrase 'More than just a likeness' as my guide.

Here I have to disagree with fmw.. I have brownie shots of my childhood that are just me outside and trust me they do not rise to the level of portrait. At least not protrait as I see a portrait. they are meaningful snapshots for sure, but not at all what i would consider a portrait.

One of the many many definitions of portrait is "Would I hang it on a wall?" duh no. So it failed the very first test of portrait. There are others but that one will weed out most of the people shots we see here.

this image has a lot of meaning to me but I dont consider it a portrait it is just a snapshot.
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-9/1082806/020_17a.jpg

Why is it not a portrait? The other image of the child with a guitar is not a portrait because a person is not the primary subject of the image, a guitar is. What is the difference between a portrait and a snapshot of a person? The time spent making it? Because the purpose was not to make a portrait?

Sorry, to me the word snapshot has no meaning. Most photographers tend to use it to define a poor photograph or one made with no thought. The image of the woman above was made with thought. It is not a snapshot.

A portrait is an image with a person as the main subject. It doesn't have to look like a formally posed shot in a studio. In fact the best portraits are not, in my view. Most people aren't good models. Shots of them doing what they do or shots made when they aren't aware of it are usually the best portraits. But you define it as a snapshot. We're just mired down in definitions.

I'm not even going to talk about the tech aspects of the images. I don't think that that matters in this thread. But I do want to say that they both capture something about the person, and I think that's the hard part. I especially feel like you've shown me a bit of who Brian is. Looking at this picture, I just want to give the guy a hug.

That's the difference in a nut shell imo. A "pitcher" is a photo that doesn't really give anyone but a family member an insight into the person.
A portrait tells me a bit about the person. It's more about the composion and expression than anything else.

JMO

I approve of your attitude highly by the way. Do what you can while you can. Not much more anyone can do.

In the words of Jimmy Valvanno (whose that you ask) Never give up, never give up, and one final thing never give up.

Just one question out of curiosity:

Why can't you rave and rant anymore?

And hey: is your avatar pic a portrait?

The problem with using how good something is as part of a definition is that you won't be able to get people to agree on what something is, as everyone likes something different.

A bridge made out of popcicle sticks and bubblegum isn't a very good bridge, but it's still a bridge.

that, my dear photo, was the only thing I meant to say. It got sidetracked somehow into definition. But the fact is not every picture of a person is a portrait by quality or intention. It kind of mushroomed out of control from there somehow. But it was a worthwhile discussion. So I'll take the heat. And when someone comes up and tells me that if that pic of my grandson was their grandson they would hang it on the wall, rather than wait for better on, I'll admit the basic statement was wrong. I certainly hope no one does it will just ruin my faith in the human's ability to judge pure trash and it is pure trash even if i made it.

Lets we forget in all the confusion of opinions this was the original statement given as a fact ,,,,every picture with a person it it is NOT a portrait... Yes I should have added not necessarily a portrait but hell im old. it made sense to me when i wrote it.

By the way if the portrait examples I put up were my daughter or my wife I would hang them but not the shot of my grandson or the other lady they are just bad snapshots. I say that only after some thought. One should not defend their work because it speaks for itself, but one should also not be afriad to admit they have poor taste and obviously I do....lol.

Well I guess whenever I get a new passport photo, I get a passport photo, not a self-portrait :lol: I think I get your point.

P.s. you said you can't rant and rave any more; is this on the advice of a doctor, or lawyer? Either way I am very concerned, as the forums are much more interesting with rants and raves :lol: please don't stop!

Wow, this is an interesting discussion (thanks to Alex and Corinna for leading me here), especially as I'm so new to the more professional take on photography.

I see that everything is about opinions and I tend to agree with the opinion that only a few pictures really are a portrait in the sense of "portrai-ing" something more than the display of a pretty face or person. I mean pretty faces are fine, too, but they lack something that speaks about the person. I already see that I can learn so much on here and hope nobody minds that I hop right in, despite being new and all. :blushing:

So help me grasp the idea of what you consider a portrait. With this picture I went for "portrait" (meaning more than just a picture of a person). Alex suggested that you might approve of it, mysteryscribe. Was he right? Or not? And why? What do you others think?

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b212/PaxE/005-1.jpg

Go ahead please, mysteryscribe, and post your edit! I'd be very curious to see it to really "see" what you mean. I mean I can imagine, but seeing it is better. And I have yet to print that picture, so it's not too late. ;)

Edited to add: Seems like a wise thing to put in my signature that editing is okay with me. :)

Actually, mysteryscribe, I think that most readers of and contributors to this discussion know what you mean to say and also quite well know the difference between a snapshot and a portrait, though when we leave the realm of the pure and clearly detectable just-snapshot photo it is where the lines become blurry.

I am convinced you started this thread with some member's photo in mind that was called a portrait while you thought in silence: "Portrait? This? Never!"

I am very far from wanting to find out which photo it was and by whom.

All I want to say is that obviously the lines are getting blurred at some point ... and I tried to help finding the distinction by using my example of the young Italian tourist taking a photo (portrait?) of his girlfriend in Sanssouci park in Potsdam while I took a photo of the scene, i.e. of him taking her photo. My photo is no portrait, I should say. It is just a photo of the two. His photo, on the other hand, MAY well have turned out a portrait of his girlfriend. What do I know? She was sitting there posing for him. He - so I am convinced - wanted it to be a portrait and maybe she now looks so lovely to him out of the frame he got back in August in Sanssouci park that he even hung this photo on his wall.

At the same time, should you ever see that photo, you might say: no portrait. Not to my mind. No.

But then that is a matter of opinion, not a statement of facts, is it?

What I do agree with is: Not every photo that shows a person automatically is a portrait of said person.