More On Making Portraits-Update

 More On Making Portraits-Update

by William Lulow

Note: This is an article I publish every once in a while to remind us about what goes into making more serious types of portraits.

As I have said, a portrait is as much about the photographer as it is about the subject because many different photographers have often photographed the same people but they always look different based on the photographer’s own style, lighting, background, set and other circumstances. There are some photographers who make their portraits kind of “off the cuff” or with a more relaxed style, while others are more studied in their approach. Some like to shoot outdoors, on location, while others love the studio setting. If you are going to develop a style as a portrait photographer, it’s important to get an understanding of what you like to do and how you like to shoot. Then just set up your shots accordingly.

Since studying portrait lighting and studio portrait techniques with Life Magazine cover photographer Philippe Halsman back in 1974, I learned all about how and why he used the various lighting setups that he did. Halsman was among quite a few photographers who came to be well-known in the late 1940s up through the 1970s. He was there at the beginning when studio flash units replaced the older “hot” lights that many Hollywood photographers used at that time. Things were beginning to change and studio flash units which were lighter in weight and much more portable were coming into wider use. But Halsman’s techniques were readily adaptable from the older lighting units to these more modern electronic flash units.

The principles of studio lighting could be taught much more easily by using the older hot lights because one could readily see the effect of the light on the subject. This, of course, was way before the era of digital photography, and also somewhat before the time that the Polaroid process was invented. So, my teaching techniques even today, often involve hot light because one doesn’t even need to take a picture to become aware of what light can do when it is directed at a person.

With all this being said, light is of primary concern when it comes to making a portrait. It can be HARSH, SOFT, ANGULAR, FLAT, or just plain WRAP AROUND the subject. The kind of light a photographer chooses to use is largely dependent on a few factors:

1. Who will be the judge of the photo
2. What the photo will be used for
3. Where the photo will be used
4. Whether or not the photo has to fit a prescribed format
5. And, how the photographer sees his or her subject

So these are questions I ask sometimes before the subject arrives at the studio.

I have already made up my mind that I am basically a studio photographer. I am always searching for a definitive picture of my subjects, one that will kind of sum up, who they are at that point in time. My technique is to decide on the kind of light I want to use(depending on the subject) and then to apply my knowledge of psychology and human interaction to involve my subjects in the process of making their own portrait. I often tell them what I am doing and how the light will affect them before showing them the digital playback. It often serves to make the subjects actually forget that they are the subjects and makes them think more about what they are doing. So, besides getting the lighting just right, I try to get them involved in the whole process in order to try to find that one moment when they appear to be totally absorbed with me in making the image.

A recent headshot for an actor:

Headshots for actors are different than portraits in one major way; they need to show the person off for exactly what they look like. The difference between a HEADSHOT and a PORTRAIT is that a portrait can and should be how the photographer sees the subject and a HEADSHOT is much more about showing what the person looks like, well-lit, with little shadow and totally recognizable. With a headshot, there should be no strange lightings or deep shadows. The image needs to look like the person in real life perhaps with the addition of some minor retouching to clear up any obvious blemishes. If, upon seeing the actor in the flesh, if he doesn’t look like his/her headshot, the casting director will likely look for someone else. But if the person has a beauty mark or some other recognizable feature, it has to be there. It has to be a representation of what the person looks like, but at his or her best.

A portrait, on the other hand, can be anything the photographer wants it to be. Here’s one I decided to do just for myself:

This is an image of my friend Jean Rault, a fellow photographer. I wanted to make a serious portrait of him to kind of show his serious and more philosophical side. Hence the use of the shadowy lighting and the cigarette.

This was one of my early pictures of famed television personality and musical conductor, Mitch Miller, of the “Sing Along With Mitch” TV show in the 1960s. He was one of the first celebrities I had the chance to photograph. I traveled to his office in Manhattan and when I came in he was seated behind his desk. I decided that I wanted to make an image of him conducting from behind his desk. He had a baton on his desk and I asked him if he would mind picking it up and pretending he was conducting, since that was what he was primarily known for, and he willingly obliged. I also remembered that he had a goatee and a mustache so I decided to use a REMBRANDT LIGHTING on him and this was the image I made. This was a portrait because it was my idea about how I saw Mr. Miller, not something he would use for any specific purpose.

Here is another headshot:

Here, notice how the face is evenly lit, no real shadows and the person is represented pretty much exactly how she appeared. Although for this shot, we used the services of my hair and makeup stylist to heighten her appearance slightly and a little retouching just smoothed the final image out just a bit.

Generally speaking, I prefer to have my subjects looking right at the camera because it is my way of connecting with them psychologically-speaking. This doesn’t mean that portraits always have to show the subject looking directly into the lens. But for the shot to be a true portrait, in my opinion, it should really show that connection between subject and photographer. If it is purposely set up to have the subject looking away from the camera, it can also be a portrait if it says something specific about the person. There was a famous portrait of actor/comedian Bill Cosby (in his heyday) that I think was shot by former Life Magazine photographer John Loengard. It showed Cosby in profile and in silhouette holding a cigar in one hand and wearing his signature, rimless glasses. Even though it is a profile and you can’t see any facial features, you know immediately that it’s Mr. Cosby, one, because of the cigar and two, because of his Afro-style hair do.

Portraits should be able to reveal something of the character of the subject but in the photographer’s own style.