I just discovered this Netflix documentary on portrait photographer Platon (Platon Antoniou), in which he describes his approach and technique.
Frankly, I've never managed to shoot a portrait that was anything more than a family snapshot. I don't think I picked up any tips from the 45-minute video that I will be able to exploit, alas, but it held my attention and I thought it might be of interest to some of the participants here.
Just watched this straight after breakfast: for sure, he is a good businessman too!
Much of the work seems to depend on a wide-angled look, even though he often uses long lenses, and he does get very close physically to his subjects, even with those lenses, which feels kinda odd, but it works for him.
Black and white has always felt (to me) to be the superior mode for portraits; colour just gets in the way, which is even the case, surprisingly, in much landscape work that people do. Colour mostly presents WYSIWYG, whereas black/white is your personal interpretation of what you think lies beneath the makeup, as it were. Problem is, as with people, there is often nothing much there to be discovered below the skin.
The point was made in the film - by a female editor, I think I recall - that film somehow allows you to continue shooting, concentrating on subject without interruptions, implying that whereas with digital, folks are constantly looking at the screen whether of the camera or the monitor, so film has to be best. This is silly: anyone who has shot people series with a Hasselblad film camera knows only too well how disruptive it is to run out of frames at the tickly bit. It's almost too short a roll in which to
build up towards a photographic climax, never mind have one, which is the prime reason for switching to a 135 format camera for such work. Digital cameras allow you the freedom to build up through nothing to something without having to stop to change films. Now, if people on a set who are not the photographer keep looking at screens and interjecting, that's not the fault of digital cameras: that's the fault of people who want to feel important and to be seen as contributors to a job. The photographer, once he is set up, should have no need to chimp or consult a monitor. The fault lies in the people that are on the set. They should shut the fuck up and let the guy do his thing; isn't his thing the main reason they hired him and not the other guy on the block?
Glory. How much is his, how much that of his technicians? It's the old story that ran well before digital came along: many photographers can't/won't use a meter, and it's their darkroom/lightroom boys and girls who rescue badly-exposed films or files, do all the retouching that ends up as the final product that attracts the oos! and ahhhhs! If you desire the glory, then you have to earn it yourself and be the complete photographer and print-maker. I can't imagine anyone wanting to lose that control over their efforts. Of course, guys with a full day-book don't have the time... charge more, do less.
