Andy Gotts is an absolute master of his craft, using simple lighting and a minimalist (albeit Hasselblad) camera. Such a contrast to other ‘celebrity’ photographers like Annie L.
I like this video. I shot a photo of this social worker from my school. She told me that she didn't like how she came out in pictures, but when she saw my photograph of her she liked it. I was the photographer for this school class of 2003 graduation picture. They came out really beautiful. The students loved the pictures. I also did a portrait for this lady for her portfolio. I did portait shots for another teacher too. They were happy
It makes sense that Hollywood stars would desire the world know who the real person is and not just the actor's persona. It also makes sense that this kind of thing would be popular because people fixate on stars. On the flip side, everyday people, who aren't considered "beautiful" people, who don't have someone doing their hair and makeup for them, or picking out their wardrobe, want something different. The "right thing" in a portrait is not always to show the subject "warts and all" or "find the real person" in the portrait. What's important is that the photographer understands what the subject wants in the portrait. When being photographed, the vast majority of people want the fantasy. They do not want the same thing they see in the mirror every day. They want something they consider "better." The average person wants to diminish the things they dislike about themselves, and they want to accentuate or draw more attention to the things they like. If you run a portrait studio (and want it to be profitable), see what happens when you charge hundreds or thousands of dollars for a portrait session and spend the entire time talking and then only take one or two photos. The "rules" for what is appropriate depends on the context, who your subjects are, and why the portrait is being taken. And if the portrait is strictly for an art piece, the artist would say there is no "right thing." By the way, even though it may not sound like it, I liked this video and appreciate the great service you are doing for the photographic community. The content you provide is sorely needed. I just think that there is a fine line between studying what great photographers have done and turning that into "you should do this in your photography too."
thank you i was looking for inspiration to try and take portraits, you just made me discover Andy Gotts. It's exactly the kind of portraits I want to take. the best photos are taken when people are really themselves for a moment, I love capturing those moments. I always talk when i practice taken portrait of my kids or family and friend.
These are amazing videos , a fresh change from the pixel peeping genre that is so common on the web, your a good teacher .I’ve more or less unsubscribed to other photo channels , amazingly produced . Keep them coming. Thank you .
What a great video to watch, especially as I start on my journey as a professional portrait photographer. This is what I truly love about your channel I've heard of and have books on the usual suspects like Irving Penn and Richard Avedon but Andy Gotts has slipped underneath my radar until now. Thank you so much for the introduction to a stunning portrait photographer.
Finding the real person in a portrait 1. talk, real questions not B.S. 2. really engaging and listing 3. less photos equals the real person Awesome advice Thanks
Hi Alex, great video and I love your content. Andy's photographs are truly remarkable but I wonder if you also might have a recommendation of an inspiring portrait photographer who creates images of "normal" people ? I'd love to study such a photographer without having counter for the influence of the fame of the person we're looking at. I guess there is a fundamental question in my mind, can one be a "inspirational" photographer in the vein of Andy Gotts without photographing celebrities ?
One minor nitpick. The phrase "playing in Photoshop" is sort of a pet peeve of mine and in this context probably shouldn't be used. I can virtually guarantee that most, if not all of these portraits have had post processing done on them. Obviously the photographic and lighting skills here are outstanding but so are post skills. One should be "working in Photoshop" (or whatever you use) to add to your image. Obviously, you need good material to work with and the idea of saving a bad image in post is the wrong way to approach it as you pointed out. But, let's not diminish the impact and value of good post processing work. Great video as always.
@RS _"We often need reminding even if we do not often need educating." -- Samuel Johnson_, although I can't prove the attribution. The late Jerry Pournelle frequently used a variation on this on his blog...
I learned many things from this, but one that I want to start practicing immediately is knowing when the shoot is over. I love what I do so much that I always wait for the subject to tell me when we are done (because I can keep going for hours). Reaching the point where you are confident enough that you know you have what you need is key.
"Try to make the photo latter rather them make it on camera..." Alex, you possibly can´t believe how important is to hear this from people I respect as you to legitimate something that I always say to some people that I chat with and says about the supremacy of edition over to make the best we can right there when you are in touch with the person you are working with. I know that an argument that goes on and on is useless but to me this is the cornerstone of all I believe photography is all about. Thank you so much!
Oh Alex! I believe this is the most important video I've seen in a year! I'm aiming to be a portrait photographer (Albert Watson is my favorite at the moment) but I haven't heard of Andy until today. Thank you so much for that! It is very inspiring and it means a lot to me!
Thank You sir once again for a really enjoyable vlog. Your honest, humble descriptions of other photographers are really uplifting. Keep on your good work!
Indeed it is important to build rapport with the subject, however it is not only in order to make the subject feel comfortable and make him/her open up. It is also very important for the feelings of the photographer himself! You want to study and understand the personality of the subject because It is not about making a beautiful (perfect) shot, it is about capturing the subject's SOUL! (allusion intended). The good shots come almost by themselves when you are emotionally invested in the personality of the subject. The goal is satisfaction rather than perfection as good photography comes from passion.
It's never too late to learn and start experimenting! Thank you so much for the inspiration, while watching your videos a picture popped in my head and the same night i took it. I feel it's one of my best !!! And there will be more to come tonight, and hopefully tomorrow and forever after )) Blessings!
As always so nice to listen to your words, and so helpful to understand photography every time a little inch more. And yes, these portraits are very great. Thanks for sharing.
I shoot a few celebrities in casual, candid settings and over the years learned that they really are just normal folks, when they aren't "on" or working. Even if they aren't quite normal, I tell myself they are or else I get nervous and ruin the vibe. But I have to be fast or else they feel exploited or like they're working.
Such a creative sweeping blow of inspiring hints! And with a sigh of relief I'm missing those poor common portraits with people placed upright in front of a wall(paper) or portray so called power players with crossed elbows;-)) I like portraits showing men inmidst of their doing or at least with one gear typical to their main interest or occupation. An outstanding face full of character may tell its own tale. Some people gain their optimum of personality not until they are engaged with interpersonal encounter. Portraying is mostly psychology and the ability to communicate in a pleasant mood. I love it.
David Bailey has also frequently spoken about having a conversation with his subjects, and then spending a really short amount of time actually shooting.
Very nice video. Nothing else to say. I enjoyed it and enjoyed viewing the work and philosophy of a photographer that I didn’t know about until today. It’s something that I’ll take in and part of it will influence my style as it develops.
Having done over 200 photo-shoots mostly with amateur or novice models but a few semi professional etc I find the professionals or dancers etc are far more easy to photograph. They know how to be photographed. All of these excellent photos are of professional actors etc who know how to act, pose etc. Could this photographer get the same quality photos from random people? Would the photos have the same impact if the faces were unknown?
Prob not. They aren't camera aware. And many (most) people like the "melted Barbie", Facetunes look. I may appease them but keep the REAL portraits to myself.
It's about connecting soul-to-soul in Gotts' case. It requires confidence from two sides: the photographer and the sitter. His advantage is that he has a reputation and his sitters know what to expect. They also know not to expect a flattering portrait. In everyday commercial portrait photography, your paying client-sitter may expect a flattering portrait but they have no clue how to sit in order to make that happen. That makes you responsible for the result, in their eyes, and that is what Gotts solved in his way. As to "200", the number to master something (peer reviewed scientific publications) is 10,000 rehearsals for simple tasks or 10,000 hours and Gotts has passed that number already a long time ago, I guess. Whether you passed that with 200 shoots - say you did 50 conscious shots per shoot - is an open question and it depends on how conscious your learning was focused on "what you brain sees before the photo and what is in the photo actually". So these 10,000 should teach you to see the photo (portrait) before you take it, in your brain and it gives you the ability to make spatial rotation simulations in your head of position changes in the subject, changes of the point of view of the camera, etc. This then also enables you to e.g. mask asymmetry in a face though posing, viewpoint or lighting. Shoot a woman with an asymmetrical face head on and show her the shot and you lost all trust. And as a man you may not see it even when under the spell of a fertile woman (they produce pheromones called copulins that confuse men so they are less well able to decide which woman in a group is prettier than the others) - it will take you 10,000 conscious shots and analysis to train your brain to even "see" photographically when women and their copulins are around. So women have an advantage here and potentially, wild-assed guess, gay men may not be sensitive to these pheromones as many of them are way more conscious of who is the prettiest girl in a group (may be a gross generalization, but exaggeration helps to build understanding, especially of our own limitations, and what we need to do to compensate for them). In commercial portrait photography with paying client-sitters it does not end with that because they expect you to influence their mood into a flattering portrait and that is a whole other learning process. If you have the charisma to start with, you're done with the 10,000, if not, good luck. The fact Gotts took "one shot" does not mean it took him seconds to do that. He may have been waiting silently for the sitter to mentally surrender to him and get into a pose and mood desirable to Gotts (Henri Cartier-Bresson would actually shoot portraits like that and might wait more than an hour for the single decisive moment in his brain, to push the shutter button). Looking at Gotts' contact sheets (some are online), I would say that "one shot" is likely at least a couple rolls of 120 film - in most cases. But, beyond the 10,000, you know when you have the shot that you need and that's where his confidence comes from "yes, we're done". If you work in a smart way with your sitter, that may be one of the first shots. One of my tricks to amateur sitters may be to tell them I need a couple test shots for exposure and these are not the real thing - it's funny that these sitters often give the most natural expressions at that. In my case, this stems from an incident - I shot studio pack flash in the past where each had has a modeling light and the pack makes the modeling light proportional to the flash power setting. This proportional modeling light was very precise and you could actually use it to read your flash aperture when you had figured out the exposure time at which to read it. So the modeling light perfectly showed what the flash exposure would be like. At some point I built a mobile studio with a bunch of speedlights and the modeling light totally sucks. I had to chimp a bit to learn the light modifier effects by heart. If you ever shot large format then this changes everything in terms of tempo and approach. 4" x 5" can still be done reasonably fast but at 8" x 10" - forget it. And then you are completely thrown back to yourself, your connecting and ability to manipulate the sitter. Look at Richard Avedon's fashion portraits of two supermodels in a catfight in their super dresses and imagine 8" x 10". There have been different shots with slightly different poses and he may have taken the head of one model and pasted it into another shot, but, before digital, you could only do that if you had extremely good lab assistants. In interviews about Avedon, the supermodels have one word for Dick: "mischievous" - and they meant to describe his mood and expression influencing ability in a positive way. But it's totally personal. Albert Watson has this documentary series you can watch for a load of money and in it you can see him shoot a portrait with two E27 incandescent light-bulbs (Tungsten) when assistants hold flags to control light and dark (to illustrate that "it is not about the tools"- (*) ). Albert does not manipulate the model into a mood but has a more cold way of directing. Consequently, he shoots relatively many shots before he gets the desired result rather serendipitously. (*) Once upon a real time, someone said to me that "a fool with a tool is still a fool" when I proposed a corporate business to invest in some tool. My answer: "true, and a carpenter without a hammer is an idiot."
Love your videos, Alex! Can you offer any info on the prompts Andy or others give for the "expression collages"? What are they telling folks to get them to fire off these crazy expressions? Thanks!
There are so many "ranks" in portraiture - many iconic shots are iconic purely because of the celebrity of the subject. The very top people in the field don't just get the access but also they get these subjects to do things in the session that they would otherwise refuse to do . I remember Annie L doing a shoot at the Kennedy family property had the entire family running through the waves on the beach fully dressed. I think if I asked my brother and his family to do that I'd get knocked back LOL! There is in a sense a little too much reverence for the shooter and people don't realise that they get out of a session only what you put in - + the skill of the shooter
Lets see portraits of Dogs or other animals, where there is no playing a character but a true connection between the photographer and subject. Tim Flach is one to look at.
The portrait expressions themselves are awesome, but I find the haloing effects around their sillouete odd, I checked his Instagram and the haloing is so extreme it makes them look superimposed and cheap.🤷🏼♂️
Hmmmm... some big question marks here! Scarlett Johansson for instance: I can't see any acne on the forehead at 5:23. And I certainly do not miss it!! I also disagree: This is NOT the best picture of Tony "The Flag" Curtis. Why should it be?? You can hardly (if) recognize him here. A strong icon, yes. But I don't think the "loud", sometimes "screaming" portraits here are the best. You show that Gotts can do it both ways. Some grimaces I find really cheap... Short sessions: There is a L.A.-based photographer named Norman Seeff. In the foreword to one of his books he wrote: You can always throw the first two rolls of film of a portrait shoot away! Because only after the first rolls the model gets relaxed, stops posing, acting and so on. I liked that and made the same experience. Of course: with Monty Python it is all verrrry different. ;-)))
I am struck by the idea of getting an understanding of your subject as a key to getting better photographs. In portraits it is chatting with the subject to better understand them as a person; in other areas it is developing an understanding of the subject. It is not the quantity of photos taken or even if one took any on a particular day but that one had a feeling for the subject.
When you are on the level on which you can tell scarlet Johansson that you will not edit her photo. Then you can set your own rules. However anyone if one is starting or not famous than your denying of editing will cost you in loosing your client.
Sorry, but that "Han Solo, that's for Annie Leibovitz tp photograph" comment erases her immense, broad talent in portraiture of all kinds, especially her portraits of family and friends and celebrities in their environment. Just take a look at her portraits of her parents and of Susan Sontag, especially during her later years. Plus, like Gotts & Leibovitz, there are many other portrait photographers who take the same care, if certainly in idiosyncratic ways that fit each photorapher's personality, to get to know their subjects and who work with their subjects to achieve very personal, dynamic portraits. So, yes, Mr. Gotts work is inspiring, and most of his photos are great, but dismissing other photographer's work is not cool, nor does it in any way inspire leaving one's creative comfort zone.
Allow me to throw in a handgranate. IMO if you need celeberties to create interesting images you're not such a great photographer cause they make out the biggest part of the quality of the shot and your photography less. Make totally uninteresting and unknown people interesting through your amazing photography, that's where the quality is.
Maybe people are simply uninteresting (visually at least) full stop? Of course, some are naturally more 'characterful' in appearance than others... but interesting?
Alex You need to NOT use photographs of celebrities as examples. It smacks of paparazzi work and since the individual is know to virtually the entire audience, its' worth as exemplary work to explore portraiture is from my vantage seriously compromised. Street portraits, old people, shy children at play, men working in their element taking a five second break from their task, 8 year olds playing baseball ....you can tell a story of what that person is about without carrying the baggage of celebrity.
![[ENGSUB] UNPRODUCTIVE DAY ใช้ชีวิต (เปื่อยๆ) ด้วยกัน 1 วัน! | OUROAD CLOSEFRiEND SS2 EP.9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pyYKZ3kra9w/mqdefault.jpg)
Andy Gotts is an absolute master of his craft, using simple lighting and a minimalist (albeit Hasselblad) camera. Such a contrast to other ‘celebrity’ photographers like Annie L.
I like this video. I shot a photo of this social worker from my school. She told me that she didn't like how she came out in pictures, but when she saw my photograph of her she liked it. I was the photographer for this school class of 2003 graduation picture. They came out really beautiful. The students loved the pictures. I also did a portrait for this lady for her portfolio. I did portait shots for another teacher too. They were happy
Powerful, amazing work. The Tony Curtis story and image really moved me. THIS is true "portrait" photography to me.
It makes sense that Hollywood stars would desire the world know who the real person is and not just the actor's persona. It also makes sense that this kind of thing would be popular because people fixate on stars. On the flip side, everyday people, who aren't considered "beautiful" people, who don't have someone doing their hair and makeup for them, or picking out their wardrobe, want something different. The "right thing" in a portrait is not always to show the subject "warts and all" or "find the real person" in the portrait. What's important is that the photographer understands what the subject wants in the portrait. When being photographed, the vast majority of people want the fantasy. They do not want the same thing they see in the mirror every day. They want something they consider "better." The average person wants to diminish the things they dislike about themselves, and they want to accentuate or draw more attention to the things they like. If you run a portrait studio (and want it to be profitable), see what happens when you charge hundreds or thousands of dollars for a portrait session and spend the entire time talking and then only take one or two photos. The "rules" for what is appropriate depends on the context, who your subjects are, and why the portrait is being taken. And if the portrait is strictly for an art piece, the artist would say there is no "right thing." By the way, even though it may not sound like it, I liked this video and appreciate the great service you are doing for the photographic community. The content you provide is sorely needed. I just think that there is a fine line between studying what great photographers have done and turning that into "you should do this in your photography too."
Thank you ever so much for this precious talk. Fondamental, essential and rich.
thank you i was looking for inspiration to try and take portraits, you just made me discover Andy Gotts.
It's exactly the kind of portraits I want to take. the best photos are taken when people are really themselves for a moment, I love capturing those moments.
I always talk when i practice taken portrait of my kids or family and friend.
Andy Gotts total legend love his work
These are amazing videos , a fresh change from the pixel peeping genre that is so common on the web, your a good teacher .I’ve more or less unsubscribed to other photo channels , amazingly produced . Keep them coming. Thank you .
What a great video to watch, especially as I start on my journey as a professional portrait photographer. This is what I truly love about your channel I've heard of and have books on the usual suspects like Irving Penn and Richard Avedon but Andy Gotts has slipped underneath my radar until now. Thank you so much for the introduction to a stunning portrait photographer.
Finding the real person in a portrait
1. talk, real questions not B.S.
2. really engaging and listing
3. less photos equals the real person
Awesome advice
Thanks
Brilliant video, certainly changed my thinking👍
Hi Alex, great video and I love your content. Andy's photographs are truly remarkable but I wonder if you also might have a recommendation of an inspiring portrait photographer who creates images of "normal" people ? I'd love to study such a photographer without having counter for the influence of the fame of the person we're looking at. I guess there is a fundamental question in my mind, can one be a "inspirational" photographer in the vein of Andy Gotts without photographing celebrities ?
I think that as long as you know what you are doing technically you can make good portraits of anybody.
Very Bailey, methodology and images. Brilliant.
One minor nitpick. The phrase "playing in Photoshop" is sort of a pet peeve of mine and in this context probably shouldn't be used. I can virtually guarantee that most, if not all of these portraits have had post processing done on them. Obviously the photographic and lighting skills here are outstanding but so are post skills.
One should be "working in Photoshop" (or whatever you use) to add to your image.
Obviously, you need good material to work with and the idea of saving a bad image in post is the wrong way to approach it as you pointed out. But, let's not diminish the impact and value of good post processing work.
Great video as always.
This is one of the best videos I have seen about the essence of working with people in portrait photography. Thanks a lot for this!
Wow... This really drives it home. the story about
_"Personally I’m always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught."_
@RS _"We often need reminding even if we do not often need educating." -- Samuel Johnson_, although I can't prove the attribution. The late Jerry Pournelle frequently used a variation on this on his blog...
@@veivoli
I learned many things from this, but one that I want to start practicing immediately is knowing when the shoot is over. I love what I do so much that I always wait for the subject to tell me when we are done (because I can keep going for hours). Reaching the point where you are confident enough that you know you have what you need is key.
"Try to make the photo latter rather them make it on camera..." Alex, you possibly can´t believe how important is to hear this from people I respect as you to legitimate something that I always say to some people that I chat with and says about the supremacy of edition over to make the best we can right there when you are in touch with the person you are working with. I know that an argument that goes on and on is useless but to me this is the cornerstone of all I believe photography is all about. Thank you so much!
Oh Alex! I believe this is the most important video I've seen in a year! I'm aiming to be a portrait photographer (Albert Watson is my favorite at the moment) but I haven't heard of Andy until today. Thank you so much for that! It is very inspiring and it means a lot to me!
Thank You sir once again for a really enjoyable vlog. Your honest, humble descriptions of other photographers are really uplifting. Keep on your good work!
Indeed it is important to build rapport with the subject, however it is not only in order to make the subject feel comfortable and make him/her open up. It is also very important for the feelings of the photographer himself! You want to study and understand the personality of the subject because It is not about making a beautiful (perfect) shot, it is about capturing the subject's SOUL! (allusion intended). The good shots come almost by themselves when you are emotionally invested in the personality of the subject. The goal is satisfaction rather than perfection as good photography comes from passion.
Thankyou ever so much for making this,another masterclass.
It's never too late to learn and start experimenting!
Thank you so much for the inspiration, while watching your videos a picture popped in my head and the same night i took it. I feel it's one of my best !!!
And there will be more to come tonight, and hopefully tomorrow and forever after ))
Blessings!
As always so nice to listen to your words, and so helpful to understand photography every time a little inch more.
And yes, these portraits are very great. Thanks for sharing.
I have his book, Icons. Great inspirational images
Good to have one of these photographer profile videos again, I do enjoy hearing about the process different artists and photographers follow.
Great episode!
Great Work! Well done.
Alex thanks again
I shoot a few celebrities in casual, candid settings and over the years learned that they really are just normal folks, when they aren't "on" or working. Even if they aren't quite normal, I tell myself they are or else I get nervous and ruin the vibe. But I have to be fast or else they feel exploited or like they're working.
Thank you, that was wonderful.
Such a creative sweeping blow of inspiring hints! And with a sigh of relief I'm missing those poor common portraits with people placed upright in front of a wall(paper) or portray so called power players with crossed elbows;-)) I like portraits showing men inmidst of their doing or at least with one gear typical to their main interest or occupation. An outstanding face full of character may tell its own tale. Some people gain their optimum of personality not until they are engaged with interpersonal encounter. Portraying is mostly psychology and the ability to communicate in a pleasant mood. I love it.
Very insightful. As usual. Thanks a million, truly,
Big fan off your videos and the discussion you bring, thanks!
Sweet!
Very inspiring. Thank you so much.
Thanks!
The shot of Steve Tyler is class. 8:45
David Bailey has also frequently spoken about having a conversation with his subjects, and then spending a really short amount of time actually shooting.
Very nice video. Nothing else to say. I enjoyed it and enjoyed viewing the work and philosophy of a photographer that I didn’t know about until today. It’s something that I’ll take in and part of it will influence my style as it develops.
Having done over 200 photo-shoots mostly with amateur or novice models but a few semi professional etc I find the professionals or dancers etc are far more easy to photograph. They know how to be photographed. All of these excellent photos are of professional actors etc who know how to act, pose etc.
Could this photographer get the same quality photos from random people?
Would the photos have the same impact if the faces were unknown?
Possibly not.
Prob not. They aren't camera aware. And many (most) people like the "melted Barbie", Facetunes look. I may appease them but keep the REAL portraits to myself.
It's about connecting soul-to-soul in Gotts' case. It requires confidence from two sides: the photographer and the sitter. His advantage is that he has a reputation and his sitters know what to expect. They also know not to expect a flattering portrait. In everyday commercial portrait photography, your paying client-sitter may expect a flattering portrait but they have no clue how to sit in order to make that happen. That makes you responsible for the result, in their eyes, and that is what Gotts solved in his way.
As to "200", the number to master something (peer reviewed scientific publications) is 10,000 rehearsals for simple tasks or 10,000 hours and Gotts has passed that number already a long time ago, I guess. Whether you passed that with 200 shoots - say you did 50 conscious shots per shoot - is an open question and it depends on how conscious your learning was focused on "what you brain sees before the photo and what is in the photo actually". So these 10,000 should teach you to see the photo (portrait) before you take it, in your brain and it gives you the ability to make spatial rotation simulations in your head of position changes in the subject, changes of the point of view of the camera, etc. This then also enables you to e.g. mask asymmetry in a face though posing, viewpoint or lighting. Shoot a woman with an asymmetrical face head on and show her the shot and you lost all trust. And as a man you may not see it even when under the spell of a fertile woman (they produce pheromones called copulins that confuse men so they are less well able to decide which woman in a group is prettier than the others) - it will take you 10,000 conscious shots and analysis to train your brain to even "see" photographically when women and their copulins are around. So women have an advantage here and potentially, wild-assed guess, gay men may not be sensitive to these pheromones as many of them are way more conscious of who is the prettiest girl in a group (may be a gross generalization, but exaggeration helps to build understanding, especially of our own limitations, and what we need to do to compensate for them).
In commercial portrait photography with paying client-sitters it does not end with that because they expect you to influence their mood into a flattering portrait and that is a whole other learning process. If you have the charisma to start with, you're done with the 10,000, if not, good luck.
The fact Gotts took "one shot" does not mean it took him seconds to do that. He may have been waiting silently for the sitter to mentally surrender to him and get into a pose and mood desirable to Gotts (Henri Cartier-Bresson would actually shoot portraits like that and might wait more than an hour for the single decisive moment in his brain, to push the shutter button). Looking at Gotts' contact sheets (some are online), I would say that "one shot" is likely at least a couple rolls of 120 film - in most cases. But, beyond the 10,000, you know when you have the shot that you need and that's where his confidence comes from "yes, we're done".
If you work in a smart way with your sitter, that may be one of the first shots. One of my tricks to amateur sitters may be to tell them I need a couple test shots for exposure and these are not the real thing - it's funny that these sitters often give the most natural expressions at that. In my case, this stems from an incident - I shot studio pack flash in the past where each had has a modeling light and the pack makes the modeling light proportional to the flash power setting. This proportional modeling light was very precise and you could actually use it to read your flash aperture when you had figured out the exposure time at which to read it. So the modeling light perfectly showed what the flash exposure would be like. At some point I built a mobile studio with a bunch of speedlights and the modeling light totally sucks. I had to chimp a bit to learn the light modifier effects by heart.
If you ever shot large format then this changes everything in terms of tempo and approach. 4" x 5" can still be done reasonably fast but at 8" x 10" - forget it. And then you are completely thrown back to yourself, your connecting and ability to manipulate the sitter. Look at Richard Avedon's fashion portraits of two supermodels in a catfight in their super dresses and imagine 8" x 10". There have been different shots with slightly different poses and he may have taken the head of one model and pasted it into another shot, but, before digital, you could only do that if you had extremely good lab assistants. In interviews about Avedon, the supermodels have one word for Dick: "mischievous" - and they meant to describe his mood and expression influencing ability in a positive way.
But it's totally personal. Albert Watson has this documentary series you can watch for a load of money and in it you can see him shoot a portrait with two E27 incandescent light-bulbs (Tungsten) when assistants hold flags to control light and dark (to illustrate that "it is not about the tools"- (*) ). Albert does not manipulate the model into a mood but has a more cold way of directing. Consequently, he shoots relatively many shots before he gets the desired result rather serendipitously.
(*) Once upon a real time, someone said to me that "a fool with a tool is still a fool" when I proposed a corporate business to invest in some tool. My answer: "true, and a carpenter without a hammer is an idiot."
Love your videos, Alex! Can you offer any info on the prompts Andy or others give for the "expression collages"? What are they telling folks to get them to fire off these crazy expressions? Thanks!
Just discovered your channel. Loved the talk. Subscribed.
Awesome, thank you for being here.
Whoa!..how good was that!….📸😘🌈
Excellent message Alex.
Thank you. 👍📷😎
I’m loving these images. Any idea what focal length his lens is?
Gracias,
There are so many "ranks" in portraiture - many iconic shots are iconic purely because of the celebrity of the subject. The very top people in the field don't just get the access but also they get these subjects to do things in the session that they would otherwise refuse to do . I remember Annie L doing a shoot at the Kennedy family property had the entire family running through the waves on the beach fully dressed. I think if I asked my brother and his family to do that I'd get knocked back LOL! There is in a sense a little too much reverence for the shooter and people don't realise that they get out of a session only what you put in - + the skill of the shooter
Next banger video 💪
Lets see portraits of Dogs or other animals, where there is no playing a character but a true connection between the photographer and subject. Tim Flach is one to look at.
Intressting,Thank you, but I'm not a studio photographer
A lot of those portraits are of people clowning around, I'm not sure I'm totally into that.
The portrait expressions themselves are awesome, but I find the haloing effects around their sillouete odd, I checked his Instagram and the haloing is so extreme it makes them look superimposed and cheap.🤷🏼♂️
Hmmmm... some big question marks here! Scarlett Johansson for instance: I can't see any acne on the forehead at 5:23. And I certainly do not miss it!! I also disagree: This is NOT the best picture of Tony "The Flag" Curtis. Why should it be?? You can hardly (if) recognize him here. A strong icon, yes. But I don't think the "loud", sometimes "screaming" portraits here are the best. You show that Gotts can do it both ways. Some grimaces I find really cheap...
Short sessions: There is a L.A.-based photographer named Norman Seeff. In the foreword to one of his books he wrote: You can always throw the first two rolls of film of a portrait shoot away! Because only after the first rolls the model gets relaxed, stops posing, acting and so on. I liked that and made the same experience. Of course: with Monty Python it is all verrrry different. ;-)))
I am struck by the idea of getting an understanding of your subject as a key to getting better photographs. In portraits it is chatting with the subject to better understand them as a person; in other areas it is developing an understanding of the subject. It is not the quantity of photos taken or even if one took any on a particular day but that one had a feeling for the subject.
Don’t forget to check out Alex’s F B group where you post some photographs and join the discussion 😉 geni.us/BmDmY
Few weeks ago there was nothing on his page
@@1967davidsrebrnik Not his page on his group
When you are on the level on which you can tell scarlet Johansson that you will not edit her photo. Then you can set your own rules. However anyone if one is starting or not famous than your denying of editing will cost you in loosing your client.
The shot of Clint Eastwood is bad.
He looks like Prince Philip.
5:59
👍👍👍👍👍👍🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀
Sorry, but that "Han Solo, that's for Annie Leibovitz tp photograph" comment erases her immense, broad talent in portraiture of all kinds, especially her portraits of family and friends and celebrities in their environment. Just take a look at her portraits of her parents and of Susan Sontag, especially during her later years. Plus, like Gotts & Leibovitz, there are many other portrait photographers who take the same care, if certainly in idiosyncratic ways that fit each photorapher's personality, to get to know their subjects and who work with their subjects to achieve very personal, dynamic portraits.
So, yes, Mr. Gotts work is inspiring, and most of his photos are great, but dismissing other photographer's work is not cool, nor does it in any way inspire leaving one's creative comfort zone.
Allow me to throw in a handgranate.
IMO if you need celeberties to create interesting images you're not such a great photographer cause they make out the biggest part of the quality of the shot and your photography less. Make totally uninteresting and unknown people interesting through your amazing photography, that's where the quality is.
Maybe people are simply uninteresting (visually at least) full stop? Of course, some are naturally more 'characterful' in appearance than others... but interesting?
@@mikefoster5277 and that's where a good photographer does his magic
Alex You need to NOT use photographs of celebrities as examples. It smacks of paparazzi work and since the individual is know to virtually the entire audience, its' worth as exemplary work to explore portraiture is from my vantage seriously compromised. Street portraits, old people, shy children at play, men working in their element taking a five second break from their task, 8 year olds playing baseball ....you can tell a story of what that person is about without carrying the baggage of celebrity.
Thank you! Very inspirational!