Long Time No See and a Question :)

Marcin Wuu

Hi there, it's been a while.
So I'll give you a couple of b&w's and a question that's been bothering me for a while.

The images first:

I. You are so SCI-FI



II. Elstree



Cute, aren't they

Now for the question.
I spent a day browsing various photographic forums, sites, blogs and whatnot, to grok the trends in today's portraiture and I noticed no one, and I mean it literally, no one is doing a classic formal portraiture. You know, Karsh style. There's a lot of portraits, but it's mostly a from-the-top-looking-up-lots-of-softboxes-type of work. So this question goes to all of you pros - why? Folks don't like classic look? Too retro? Too much of the old passe? They don't sell? As you can see I follow the classic trends and I have pretty positive feedback sofar. But then, I am not a professional, it's just a hobby for me, a pastime if you will. I don't have to cater to clients needs or wants, quite the contrary, if someone wants a portrait by me, they have to follow my rules...
So, to sum it up - what's wrong with classic?

Bryce Wilson

I still shoot (and prefer/enjoy) classic style portraits when photographing the proper subjects. Alas, I have found that the under 35 crowd prefer images that lean more toward "fun" much more than "powerful" and "poignant" these days.

Personally, I think people have been inundated with so many images over the past few years that have been done in the current (much more forgiving) style, that when they see a true classic that is supposed to evoke a feeling through expression and dramatic light, they think it's a poorly done image.

Most likely not a popular statement on this board, but I blame a lot of this on the advent of digital.

Nice images!

anonymouscuban

I don't disagree at all with Bryce. I think people are bombarded with so much garbage photography, being past as portraiture, that the average person wanting their portrait done doesn't have a sense of what a good portrait makes.

divamum

I think it's simply a trend. The "Hollywood portrait" style is also popular, but I think considered more "retro" than current; possibly thanks to digital, but also possibly just a current phase in the art that is leaning to the more natural-light, lifestyle look. High end fashion photography has gone to a very stylised, conceptual kind of shooting (look at any issue of Vogue) which is kind of out of the range of a "normal person" (most people don't want stick-insect, vampire-white, tulle-covered versions of their family lol), and PJ styles are very popular in weddings (which I'm convinced is one fo the key markets for driving photo styles). All combine to drive styles in different directions.

In my own niche - performer headshots - I'd say we're coming out of the totally-natural-light phase, and adding more studio looks again to some extent BUT in general actor headshots are often trying to look like a still pulled from a film rather than a static formal portrait as they did in the old studio days. I think both can be aesthetically appealing, and are simply different rather than good/bad.

I think also the horrible "formal" portraits of old - school pictures, Sears baby pix, 80's soap opera star headshots - have put people off "formal". I know speaking for myself I was THRILLED when even places like The Picture People started to offer something else (at the time our daughter was a baby it was high key and even - GASP - black and white shots) so you had a little bit of choice above and beyond Mottled Blue Background or Cheesy Sets.

And don't get me started on 80's style backlit, big hair, stupid props headshots (both actor, and the heinous mall glamour shots). Any look at the Awkward X Photos series shows just how hideously bad that was....

Marcin Wuu

Alright, so it's an anti-Hollywood trend? You have to understand, I'm coming from a completely different cultural background. Back in the day, in the godforsaken country on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain we had this superfamous portraitist, Zofia Nasierowska. She took headshots of celebrities, mostly actresses. Anyone who was someone had to have a portrait by Nasierowska. She perfected her own style, something akin to Studio Harcourt's. No one would think her portraits are cheesy or horrible or stupid. Mainly because they weren't.
What I'm getting to is, I don't really understand why the formal equals bad. I saw the pictures you refer to, had a good laugh. But they're bad not because of the style, but because of the ineptitude of the guy behind the cam. I think, no actually scratch that, I'm bloody certain I could shoot any of these poor folks in the very same style, way, way better and like I said before, I'm not even a pro. Same goes for backlit portraits. I did my share of those:





And while they're not necessarily masterpieces, they fall way on the right side of acceptable If I do say so myself.
So, perhaps it's that? Different cultural upbringing?

Divamum, I have another question - did any of the performers you shoot ever came to you and wished for a strong, classic, Hurrellesque b&w?

divamum

To be 100% clear, with the exception of mall "glamour" (nothing can salvage that look) I wasn't saying any of the styles under discussion are good or bad per se. They just ARE... and, just like in clothes/cars/music etc... trends come and go. And come and go. And are most definitely different in different countries.

Those are beautiful portraits you have posted - not arguing that at all (wish I had your technical skill!) But as shots to put on the wall in the 2013 family room - or submit to a 2013 casting agent - they look retro, not current. Not because they're BAD, but because trends have changed. (tangent: also, I submit that the hair/mu styling contributes to the retro look as much as the photography......).

Personally, I love Hurrell-style shots. And Christian Steiner (big name portraitist of classical musicians from about the 1970s on). And Lisa Kohler (very popular operatic headshot photographer in the 80s/90s). Just google them for samples of their images, which I would definitely call formal portraiture. Hugely admire them. More currently, you might consider Devon Cass more formal in his style.

BUT... I'd say that even in Opereland where people still often go for a more formal portrait than an actor might, things have moved to a more editorial feel than the formal portrait of 20 years ago. The portraits are still formal, but with a fashion/commercial rather than 1930's Hollywood studio feel to them. Dario Acosta takes shots for a lot of name opera singers and musicians, as well as takes the pictures used in interviews in the industry magazine Opera News. (navigate to his opera/classical portfolio if that link doesn't take you straight there)

I often shoot some more formal portraits just for fun (within my own technical limitations). But it's not what is *currently* popular unless one is specifically going for a "retro" look. Just like ladies don't typically wear seamed stockings to work, or hats or gloves except if they want to be retro or evoke a certain style.

I've never had anybody ask me for a Hurrell-style shot, although I do sometimes do kind of evocative ones because I like them, or if the client's clothes REALLY evoke that feel.

Here's one I did a while back for a friend who is a complete 20s/30s/40s clothes and jewelery nut; the style was dictated by her devotion to things past, and I wanted to try a film noir look (this was a "play" session for both of us, rather than for a client). I don't have a beauty dish, and made it work with what I do have. I think it evokes the style - not perfectly, but I do like the shot, as did she. We had a BLAST playing with it!




Here's another more recent shot, from a headshot session which included much more casual looks as well. Modern formal? Fashion style? Opera headshot? Dunno what you'd call it.




Not sure if these count as "formal" portraits to you or not. But I don't think these are lifestyle or snapshots....