Latest or all posts or last 15, 30, 90 or 180 days.
2024-03-18 21:00:27
Designed for the most demanding needs of photographers and videographers.
877-865-7002
Today’s Deal Zone Items... Handpicked deals...
$3399 $2999
SAVE $400

$2997 $2997
SAVE $click

$348 $248
SAVE $100

$999 $699
SAVE $300

$5999 $4399
SAVE $1600

$1049 $879
SAVE $170

$4499 $3499
SAVE $1000

$999 $849
SAVE $150

$999 $799
SAVE $200

$5999 $4399
SAVE $1600

$799 $699
SAVE $100

$1199 $899
SAVE $300

$1099 $899
SAVE $200

$348 $248
SAVE $100

$1602 $998
SAVE $604

$3399 $2999
SAVE $400

$3997 $3697
SAVE $300

$5999 $4399
SAVE $1600

$1397 $997
SAVE $400

Catchlights in Eyes in Portraits (National Geographic)

The October 2013 National Geographic magazine has an article titled America’s Changing Faces. In it, there are portraits (head shots) by Martin Schoeller, interesting because of the diversity of features.

But in viewing the well-lit portraits I was struck by one thing: eyes have always been the most interesting aspect to me, and yet every single portrait had dual large white catchlights in the eyes, which whites-out the iris of the eye to varying degrees. For me, this really undermines the impact of each and every portrait, though some are more affected than others depending on size and color of the eyes. I find the effect distracting; I see the lighting first for some reason.

Take a look for yourself and see what you think. It’s at least good to be aware of the effect it has when making your own portraits.

Update: reader reaction so far is summed up as neutral to “alien” to “zombie”.

Natural light

My personal preference is natural light at dusk as seen in the image below.

Some reflection off the eye is almost always unavoidable and desirable, but the portrait below looks so much more natural and appealing to me because the eyes are not diminished by the lighting choice. I like it because there is no barrier between the viewer (me) and the subject; the style itself (lack of) is highly appropriate to a guileless face. Compare that to a signature photographic style that puts a distance between the viewer and the subject by lighting “signage” stating emphatically “signature style ahead”; to me that’s an imposition, a sort of intellectual veiling haze more about the photographer than the subject.

This image is stunning when printed on the Canon PIXMA Pro-100.

Taken with the Sigma DP3 Merrill (the DP2M and DP3M are exceptional cameras for portraiture). The three dimensional feel and the recording of fine details and texture is stunning, and shows in the print.

Click to view larger.

Natural light portrait
Sigma DP3 Merrill @ f/3.2, 1/80 sec handheld

Gustavo M writes:

I’ve been a long time reader, and really admire your photographic work, apart from your great technical insight as well. I am writing because your comments on this post made me curious about your views of the concept of “reality” in photography. At what point style becomes a gimmick? And is it possible to have a “lack of style” or “lack of imposition” if you may in photography?

To me, the images from Mr. Schoeller make those celebrities appear like “aliens”, those people kind of are “aliens”… So I get his point. I’m not sure that was his intention, but I find that unnerving style (catch light) intriguing.

DIGLLOYD: Good questions. As a self-taught photographer, I have noted a marked evolution in my thinking about photography and my confidence in my own image making. I feel neither the need to criticize, nor the need to emulate. But observing one’s own reactions is a fine way to proceed.

For me, the style should efface itself. But "should" is the wrong word: plenty of room for many approaches and that’s where many photographers make their mark, so I acknowledge that having a signature style is probably a great way to be noticed, and to make money over time. If others have their own look they wish to impose, the more the merrier, variety is good (but HDR get old). But it doesn't mean I have to like (or dislike) a style, especially after seeing it over and over (including my own shots!). An analogy: that TV with cranked up saturation and contrast might grab attention in the store and make the sale, but it gets very wearisome after a week at home.

Schoeller’s point seems to be to standardize on one look and thereby create a body of consistent work. Which is laudable and a common thread. But I still find those catchlights a big distraction. I cannot get past them. Accordingly, when I see any one of the Schoeller portraits, it’s the same as all the others in an iconized sense, like seeing one “Yield” traffic sign and thus it never gets past its iconized form; I don’t see the individual so much as the template (which includes not just the catchlights, but the nearly identical size and framing). I recognize the visual pattern immediately and thus the differences take some effort to see. I think this is a weakness of the style which could be deemed a strength when presented as a group of images. But in the sense of communicating one image at a time, it doesn’t work for me.

As far as the “alien” look: that signature look is in itself a demand generator, something prized by collectors. Good for him, and I mean that in full support of anyone who can get to such a point. I congratulate him on his approach and vision.

As one reader put it: “mug shots”. Very well done mug shots. Except that they are most powerful as a group, as a body of work. At least that is my reading of it.

On the general subject of style: there is a stylistic gestalt with magazines also. Some magazines like Aperture make me think that I’d throw away most all the photos if I had taken them (I guess I just don’t recognize “art” when I see it, since so much of it looks like junk to me, especially technically bad photos of the ugly things the world has to show). And I grow increasingly bored with magazines like National Geographic, which by choosing only the "best" images, end up telling the same story over and over (with entirely different subjects), with images so carefully chosen as iconized views that they leave me wondering what the place is really like. But sometimes I am pleasantly surprised with NatGeo: the recent lion photos taken with a remote camera are really different and very intimate portraits, very well done, refreshing.

Dan M writes:

Finally saw the new National Geographic photo issue, with Afghan Girl on the cover again. I've been waiting to get it from my mother-in-law, who has issues back to the time before Moses, so I could see what you were moaning about in the Changing Faces article.

Man, you were right. It looks like he parked every single subject in front of a pair of big softboxes, with the long dimensions vertical. If it were a gallery, I'd entitle it "Catchlights with Faces Attached."

It's bad when it happens to one shot, but it's REALLY bad when it's shot after shot and they're all printed alongside each other. It just killed the effect of the photos. I can't believe the editors let that series get published.

DIGLLOYD: definitely not my intent to be “right”, because everyone sees differently (quite literally), but the images really stood out for me as I discuss above.

The uniformity makes a strong graphic statement, which itself allows an easier critique (positive or negative), and makes it comfortable for an authority to make a strong statement one way or another, which the world at large can then adopt without having to think separately and critically. Isn’t that true with most all photography and art, the idea that “what everyone else thinks” makes it great? (A flawed premise or an axiom, depending on one’s POV). And why truly great artists have lived in poverty, not having been acclaimed in their lifetimes?


View all handpicked deals...

Nikon Z7 II Mirrorless Camera
$2997 $2997
SAVE $click

diglloyd Inc. | FTC Disclosure | PRIVACY POLICY | Trademarks | Terms of Use
Contact | About Lloyd Chambers | Consulting | Photo Tours
RSS Feeds | X.com/diglloyd
Copyright © 2022 diglloyd Inc, all rights reserved.