On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:49:37 -0500, sligoNoSPAMjoe wrote:
> I would say that lighting is only one of many factors in portrait
> photography. While it is important, I would not consider it prime.
>
> To impress me, a portrait must bring out something inside the
> shell of a person we normally see from the outside.
>
> A portrait may show what the photographer sees, but someone
> else who may know the subject in a different context may well visulize a
> far different image.
>
> Many years ago I worked for a photo studio. We turned out
> good work and never would the boss allow second rate work. That said
> there was little or no of what I would consider trully geat portraits.
> For examples of some of what I would consider great work,
> check out the work of Karsh. Often some of his best work was done with
> nothing more than the artist inside him and minimal equipment. My favort
> is the Churchill photo.
I wouldn't have called that minimal equipment, he used a 10" x 8" plate
camera with a first class lens.