Photographing background separate from the person

[Mary Sparrow]

I'm curious about how most of you handle your backgrounds. After reading some of the replies to Renees photography questions, I see that Karin, and I believe Chris at times, (correct me if I am wrong) photograph their clients with a plain background and then add in a different background.

How do you handle this with your clients? Do you just tell them to leave it up to you? Do you have different "types" of backgrounds from which to choose?

Thanks

[Chris Saper]

Hi, Mary!

I was actually also very interested in Karin's response about adding a background in to a subject photographed against a "non-background"..actually I have never done this and am not sure that I would try. I have tended to go quite in the opposite direction, that is, photographing a person against a specific background and then modifying the background to become more abstract; in my paintings, the background usually serves the function of using value and color to move the viewer's eye to the center of interest. Backgrounds may suggest a quiet interior or a sunny day or a garden setting, but not generally much more.

I think your approach to backgrounds just needs to one that suits your viewpoint,temperment and what you enjoy painting and seeing. If you add in a background from some other source, I think the main things to keep in mind are light direction, color and quality so that your subject is unified visually with the setting.

Because of my viewpoint about my backgrounds, I usually let clients know up front that they should leave that decision to me. However, if they have preferences, it is important for them to let me know in the beginning. My business is every bit as much a service as it is a product, and I enjoy tailoring each piece, to the extent possible, to meet a client's desires.

However, if the conversation starts with..."I want to be painted with the silk Aubusson carpet, brocade drapes, taffeta lining, grand piano...etc" I make certain they know what my style is like and that they are comfortable with my appproach. I have had a number of instances where the client wants a photo-realistic painting, edge to edge, corner to corner, and I will show them other artists' work, and provide contact information. I don't want to start down a road with a client where our expectations don't align, as we will both end up less than happy at the end.

I think that it is important to show the kind of work that you want to paint. I have a friend who says, "Maybe I need to paint a bunch of portraits of little blond girls, barefooted in white dresses..." I would say, only if that is what you like to paint, and want to paint more of.

Best, Chris

[Mary Sparrow]

Chris,

Thanks for your response, I think I was confusing your comment about "leaving it up to me" as totally putting in your own background. Sorry about that.

Take care,
Mary

[Karin Wells]

I find that photographing a model is difficult enough by itself. When I photograph a person, I oftentimes put a 50% grey neutral drape behind them. This way I can easily tell if the color in the resulting photo is "off" in any way.

In my studio photo shoot, arranging the folds in the clothing, and making the head, hands and feet "correct" are a painstaking job. When I shoot a model, I oftentimes have a background in mind but will not even attempt to shoot that at the same time as it is too difficult for me.

If a background is to be outdoors, the lighting probably will not be correct for the model. If the background is to be indoors (but not in my studio), the lighting can seldom be controlled in the way that I like it.

I simply go out with my camera and shoot the background separately...because this works better for me.

[Karin Wells]

The photo of David was shot in my studio and he was sitting on a large wooden box.

Separately, I photographed the rocks in my driveway. I saw and took a pix of that sunset in Italy when I was there last year and the tree is from my imagination.

I also shot David's backpack and slingshot as a still life.

[Karin Wells]

I took photos of Grayson in my studio sitting on a low stool. I tried to include the background at that time, but in typical little boy fashion, he knocked everything over. It was tough enough to simply get a good shot of Grayson with shadow patterns that I liked.

After the shoot, I set up a "still life" of the things he and his mother wished to include in the photo. I used similar lighting and made my reference photos into the background you see below.

Frankly I find it sooo much easier to shoot my backgrounds separately. It helps me to plan better and eliminate that "candid snapshot" look.

[Michele Rushworth]

Hi Karin!

I have a quick question for you about your previous post: How would you describe "that candid snapshot look" and what it is specifically you try to do in your paintings to counteract it.

Thanks, and I hope you're having a great summer. (I'm struggling to find time to paint since my elementary age kids have been off school -- and I'm not succeeding very well at that! Though I do have a nice backlog of commissions lined up. Too bad I can't seem to get time to work on them!)

[Karin Wells]

"Candid snapshots," unless the photographer gets lucky, seldom have an overall "plan."

Such as: Shadows seldom have any pattern and do not necessarily flatter the subject. Hands and feet are often "clunky" looking and aren't paintable as posed. Camera angles cause distortion. No care is taken to shoot the model at eye level. The clothing is often boring and not very paintable. The background does nothing to enhance the figure, etc., etc., etc..

"Formal Portraits" are posed with some overall design in mind. The lighting is set up to enhance the figure and shadow patterns tend to be thought out in advance. The clothing is carefully selected and arranged to be "paintable."

There is a book by David Seidner called "Portraits" that is chock-a-block full of "paintable" photographs. Each one has been carefully thought out and it shows. The cover photo appears below, and as you can see, it is NOT a "candid snapshot."

[Marvin Mattelson]

A painting starts with an artistic vision. I think it is imperative to thoughtfully plan out a painting by taking into consideration tonal, color and light patterns, and how they contribute to the overall composition. To grab shoot a large variety of differing compositions and lighting arrangements is placing too much faith in being the beneficiary of one lucky shot. Sort of like playing the Portrait Painters Lottery? Even if it pans out, you are eventually going to be pulling out some short straws. Artistic vision after the fact is akin to letting the horse you are riding decide your destination. This approach, I believe, is the snapshot approach that Karin mentioned.

We all admire the wonderful compositions of the master painters of yore. However they never randomly started painting without a plan. I think the greatest problem with using photography is this abuse of the planning stage.

In addition, the aforementioned old masters would often add background elements which were obviously not in their studios. Painting out of doors was not attempted until later in the nineteenth century (after the invention of metal paint tubes allowed artists to be more mobile). The objective was to sketch on location or build miniature sets which would later be incorporated into the picture.

This is the way artists have been compositing the elements of their paintings for centuries. That said, what is an intelligent approach to take to insure a continuity and a sense of naturalism is realized? The first consideration is that the background must have a light source consistent with the subject.

This requires skill in analyzing the background and either recreating it on the subject or coming up with a scenario in which two divergent lighting schemes can feasibly coexist. For example, the subject may be under an awning or a tree, in front of a vista. However, one must be careful to include any influences of any light source in the background (sunset sky for example) on the foreground elements, otherwise the result can have the flattened look of a model placed in front of a photographer's painted background. Not good if you are interested in a naturalistic as opposed to a theatrical feeling.

So the basic rule of thumb is to have your background worked out before you shoot your model. Try to arrange your lights in a way that will best work with the lighting in the background you have chosen. When you shoot your subject try to match the general tone (if not color as well) to put behind them, since what is behind influences the edge values and color. Remember the idea is to try to recreate as much of a natural feeling as possible. The light reflecting from all the different elements in a scene bounce into the various shadows and this goes a long way towards achieving pictorial unity.

[Michael Fournier]

A painting starts with an artistic vision. I think it is imperative to thoughtfully plan out a painting...

Well said, Marvin.

We all admire the wonderful compositions of the master painters of yore. However they never randomly started painting without a plan. I think the greatest problem with using photography is this abuse of the planning stage.

Again I could not agree more.

I think If I had read this post earlier, my thread "Are we portrait painters or portrait photographers" would have been a little different.

In my post, I sounded as if I did not condone the use of photos at all and that is far from my intention or even my own practice, since I have used photos as reference at some point in a lot of my paintings. But I only take photos after I know exactly what I want, including the pose and lighting. I often start painting from life when I can but I almost always do sketches first. The more complex the painting, the more sketches I do. Marvin, I think you really cover every aspect of taking and using photos for reference and I must say I might have been too hasty with some of my other posts.