21 Beautiful Portrait Photos on Imagekind

21 Beautiful Portrait Photos on Imagekind

0Comments

Portrait photography is one of the most basic functions of the camera. The art of portrait photography has been around since the camera’s inception and is one of the predominant reasons the camera has become a mainstay device in modern life. We all know this. Camera’s have the power to capture the special memories of life, and there are few better memories than the people you surround yourself with.

man on break by Jordan Kologe

man on break by Jordan Kologe

But taking a good portraiture is not easy. We all know this as well. How many times has the phrase “one more try” slid past your lips after disappointingly seeing the results on your viewfinder while trying to gather your family or friends for the perfect shot? Conversely, how many photographs have you seen where you wish they did say “one more try” maybe a few more times? In either case, taking a good portrait goes beyond simply snapping the lens at yourself, best friend, family, model, or complete stranger. There is a definite science to the art.

If portrait photography is something you’ve struggled with, or if you feel stuck in the same pattern and want some additional inspiration on different techniques, check out the 21 Beautiful Portrait Photos by member photographers on Imagekind below.

Want to learn how to take Portraits with the WOW factor? Check out our Essential Guide to Portrait Photography.

Pipesmoker by Emyr Pugh

ol' Bob by Robin Neilly

ol' Bob by Robin Neilly

p273 square2 by Alexey Vronsky

p273 square2 by Alexey Vronsky

La-la-la by Alexey Vronsky

La-la-la by Alexey Vronsky

Falling Hearts by Dana Daneli

Falling Hearts by Dana Daneli

Loaded by Distorted Retina

Loaded by Distorted Retina

the white sheet by Lisa KC

If you shoot at mimes, should you use by Sarah Mercer

If you shoot at mimes, should you use by Sarah Mercer

 224/365 by Souphatra Xaypanya

224/365 by Souphatra Xaypanya

It's that wonderful bathroom window light by Karin Elizabeth

It's that wonderful bathroom window light by Karin Elizabeth

Day 222/365: Sad Clown by Karen Ilagan

Day 222/365: Sad Clown by Karen Ilagan

Cuando nadie me ve by Franca Franchi

Cuando nadie me ve by Franca Franchi

untitled by Holly Henry

untitled by Holly Henry

Carnival Chillax by Laura Ferreira

Carnival Chillax by Laura Ferreira

Tokyo Nights by Laura Ferreira

Tokyo Nights by Laura Ferreira

matters of taste by Pawel Wewiorski

matters of taste by Pawel Wewiorski

farmer`s wife in front of power plant by Hans-Joachim Herr

farmer`s wife in front of power plant by Hans-Joachim Herr

The Street as Graphic Novel 43 by Steve Gubin

The Street as Graphic Novel 43 by Steve Gubin

perfume by Pawel Wewiorski

perfume by Pawel Wewiorski

Portrait of man smoking match by Pawel Wewiorski

Portrait of man smoking match by Pawel Wewiorski

Read more from our Tips & Tutorials category

Nate Jelovich works at Imagekind.com where you can buy and sell photography as framed wall art prints online to a worldwide audience. You set the price and keep the markup, Imagekind handles the rest. You can even frame photos of your own or print photos on canvas. For more information on selling your photography as framed prints, visit Imagekind.com/sell. Connect with Imagekind on Twitter and Facbook.

Some Older Comments

  • simon May 21, 2010 03:56 am

    I think beauty can only be defined in the ratio of 1:1.618.

  • D April 19, 2010 01:49 am

    Hmmm, most professional models with their fake pouts and over-applied make up look like animatrons. Too staged. The one by Holly Henry is almost uncanny valley quality.

    People are much more beautiful when you take them without makeup, having fun in a natural setting. Even people who some may consider ugly can exhibit beauty if the photographer is skilled enough.

  • d' February 14, 2010 10:26 am

    is it possible to achieve photos as great as these without pp? with the right lightning and lens??

    [eimg url='D:\Pictures\altira\IMG_0178.JPG' title='D:\Pictures\altira\IMG_0178.JPG']

    i just want to know your opinions about this... i love B & W... i used a 50mm f1.8 to take this one... no flash..

    i would love to learn how to take portraits as wonderful as these ones...

    Thanks DPS for creating this..

  • Roldan February 9, 2010 08:31 pm

    I think that these artworks presented here are just a way of showing how photography as an art form is evolving with the advent of technology of course.
    This is simply evidence that photography will continue to evolve and with it, the photographers should do so as well.

    Great site!!! Valuable insights! Very substantial discussions!
    Thanks DPS!

  • Tim Hoy February 4, 2010 01:43 am

    Holly's is my favourite but only one or two look over processed to me. Most are lovely. The close second for me was Hans-Joachim Herr's

  • elliot condon January 26, 2010 08:35 am

    This is such an amazing collection of Portraits. Its always great to see some professional work to inspire you to do better.

    I've just put together a really smart, minimal and powerful WordPress theme specifically for Photographers to get there own portfolio up and running without much of a budget.

    Have a look at http://ethemes.elliotcondon.com/crisp-gallery/.

    Thanks, great post

  • chad January 26, 2010 01:30 am

    What ever happened to the days when a photograph was beautiful because the photographer saw something through there eyes that was beautiful as it was. ansel adams is one of the best that ever looked through the viewfinder and it was not because he knew post production before his fellow photographers, it was because he would wait for the perfect image before he captured it. Dont get me wrong post production is not bad, but the truely amazing photographs take your breath away before the shutter opens.

  • Flores January 25, 2010 10:42 pm

    Beauty is in the eyes of beholder. Most of the portraits in this page are annoying, unreal and not beautiful.

  • panoramic photo stitching January 25, 2010 04:44 pm

    The art of portrait photography is really very creative. Love those portraits here. These 21 beautiful portrait photos on imagekind are absolutely very stunning. Keep blogging and thanks.

    Regards,
    http://www.sblgraphics.com/panorama.aspx

  • Letaief January 25, 2010 09:50 am

  • Ann January 25, 2010 12:37 am

    Unlike some others, I say pp your little heart out. However, the good pp is stuff that you don't think to yourself "wow that's a lot of pp". I love the soft textures and lighting used in some of these, but the first and the tie one are also great. I think the white sheet is my fave.

  • Gremlins666 January 24, 2010 08:37 am

    Portrait: a likeness of a person, esp. of the face, as a painting, drawing, or photograph
    Likeness: a representation picture, or image, esp. a portrait

    I think "representation" covers a wide range of definitions... artistic intepertation does not remove it from the category of portrait.

    If post processing means these are no longer portraits... then you should not be allowed to use studio lighting.... or off camera flash. Because this is "pre processing" and creates a light that would be VERY difficult to obtain in the field.

    I like both the natural portrait... and the "overprocessed" variety, both have their place. It's just a matter of taste.

  • t.l. January 24, 2010 12:22 am

    I guess I lean more towards the untouched definition of portraits. I am just starting out in digital photography and I judge my photo's on the raw image. If it has not captured the moment or the personality then it doesn't make the cut. To be able to capture a moment in time is an art and a skill I am working toward in my new hobby.

  • Sean January 23, 2010 09:21 am

    This is certainly an interesting debate! What is a portrait exactly?
    And on photography as art in general.
    Personally, I like the two pics by Alexey Vronsky - sure the first one is a little airbrushed, but for me its the cropping and composition that make the shot.
    And I actually really like "perfume" despite the fact thats its gotten a lot of PP work - but its still an image with impact.

  • Matthias January 23, 2010 07:19 am

    Here are some of my portraits:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthiashombauer/sets/72157616391902562/

  • Nikki January 23, 2010 05:18 am

    Especially love the images by Pawel Wewiorski and Laura Ferreira. These are two artistic photographers to keep an eye on!

  • Julius Sori January 23, 2010 04:53 am

    The beauty of photoshop and lightroom.

    Learn how to use both programs and you can make any picture you take look like a painting.
    The blending on some of these are flawless.

  • Jonathan Sherlock January 23, 2010 04:42 am

    There is a new guise taking over the photography world, and it's digital artists posing as photographers. These people don't compose images, they crop them. In many cases, it's not necessarily their fault. The photography so many people hail as "good" sends a clear message to new photographers and old photographers alike. "You MUST be a master of photoshop in order to be a successful photographer". I see far too many mastering photoshop BEFORE they take any steps towards mastering photography.

  • Cindy Thompson January 23, 2010 04:31 am

    Personally, I like my own photograhps to be really good without much processing, that is the style that I am working for. However, I do love looking at all types of photos. Just because I am having a heck of a time learning Photoshop doesn't mean that I do not marvel at those who have it mastered, which many of these do. Keep the interesting articles coming, I am a HUGE fan!

  • David Genac January 23, 2010 04:25 am

    Portraiture was, for most of its history, painted rather than photographed. As a lesson in portraiture, and what makes an interesting portrait, most of these are good examples – even if they had been painted, or if they have been processed to the point that they look like they are painted. The lesson is to think about the composition and what makes a portrait interesting.

    What I define as a portrait is when the piece is about the individual and says something about who the person is. A painting of a clown is a portrait of a clown, but a photo of a person dressed as a clown as a prop is not a portrait. (The exception would be if the subject of the portrait requests to be photographed as a clown, because that would be the expression of the subject.) If the work is about the artist’s expression, or his concept of what is art, then it is about the art, not the individual in the portrait.

    I am not at all against post-processing. As someone who once spent 8 hours to make one final print in the darkroom, I like that with Photoshop I am able to do so much more in less time.

    The photo “Falling Hearts” is an amazing work. It is very artistic and creative, and the artist could have commercial success with it. It would make a great greeting card or poster, and would look great hanging on the wall. It looks like it could be a CD or a book cover. That being said, it isn’t a portrait. Crop it so it is just the model’s head and reflection in the mirror and it becomes a portrait.

  • tabletopdrummer (Donnie) January 23, 2010 03:17 am

    To each his own, and in a way I can see good points on both sides of the fence. My problem is that as a new photo enthusiast is that I have trouble sometimes in seeing the differnce, unless it's really obvious. And some of these are really obvious. But I have been using this website as a very helpful tool for my learning process into photography. And my approach has been first that I have to learn how to run the camera, then thru trial and error I have tried to pick up on composition, lighting and so on. So far that is enough on my plate. As I have went thru these motions with my photgraphy, I have in my opinion, improved.
    I have had people tell me that they are impressed and so on. Last year I was given cs4 for a Christmas present. I am overwhelmed with it, and really do not understand how to use it. I feel I would have to go to a school or class to learn how to use it. So I have blown it off for now. I have been using an old school approach on my photography and learn how to have the eye of a true photographer first, without the post production. And sometimes I feel the post production distorts this, for my minds eye. So I will continue to view this site, to help me with my journey thru photography. I thank everyone that uses this site and gives comments because it really does help me learn alot about photography perspectives, and views. Sorry for being such a wind bag!

  • Nate Jelovich January 23, 2010 02:55 am

    Wow, LOTS of different opinions about these... or maybe just two. Whether you like them or not, I am loving how the ART illicit an emotion in each of you who have commented. And in my opinion, that is EXACTLY what art should do!

    I personally love all the photographs whether they are processed (read: what is "over" mean?) or not. That's the beauty of photography AND art, you can create SO Many different images and express both your own (as a photographer and artist) as well as those of the subject.

    I am failing to see the difference between "art" and "photography". In the VEN diagram of life, do these two concepts never merge?

    Thanks for everyone's comments! Especially @rRobin Neilly - Love you work!

    Nate
    nathan@imagekind.com

  • JMarkLabbe January 23, 2010 12:40 am

    have you seen magazines lately??? these could all be used,.. its edgy and works,... lets face it there are two photography camps,..

    1. untouched and straight from the camera
    2. straight from the camera,.. and touched

  • suseu January 22, 2010 09:50 pm

    Sorry for the corrupted link above.
    I have a nice selection of portaits in my galleries on flickr.

  • suseu January 22, 2010 09:48 pm

    I have a nice selection of portaits in my galleries on .

  • Gino Eelen January 22, 2010 09:20 pm

    Postprocessing is perfectly ok with me, as long as it serves the image.

    This blog entry is about portraiture, and for me a good portrait conveys something about the the person being portrayed, it allows you to look into the heart and soul of the person in the portrait, it is about the person in the picture.

    Having a person in the frame does not automatically make an image a portrait. The images posted here are not about the person in the picture, but about the person behind the camera/computer. So with the exception of a few I would not call these "portraits" at all.

  • Karen Stuebing January 22, 2010 08:51 pm

    I find all of these interesting even the heavily processed ones. I looked at them more in terms of composition and framing and the use of settings and other elements to give the person context. IMHO, they succeeded very well there.

  • stengaard January 22, 2010 08:23 pm

    I LOVE those pictures.

  • Robin Neilly January 22, 2010 07:53 pm

    Someone pointed out to me that my image was being used in this page and I was really chuffed. I am then disappointed to read some of the comments on over processing. For my shot I used a lot of making and lighting and some basic photoshop to achieve the look. I do however see nothing wrong with over processing. Yes taking a great shot straight off the camera is the best feeling but being able to make something look the way you see it in your head, that's the best.

  • Rusty January 22, 2010 07:43 pm

    I like the quite a few of the images especially the girl laying in the leaves but as portraits I do not think many of them succeed unfortunately. You need a lot more then photoshop to make a good portrait, lighting etc. I do think that they make interesting photoshop art and can appreciate the time and effort gone into manipulating the images to get a desired effect.

  • Marcia January 22, 2010 07:15 pm

    In my opinion, they are a bit overdone, but come on, it is 2010! Thing's do change and people love to experiment. Whatever we took from this, or not, it got us talking!

  • Jake January 22, 2010 04:41 pm

    I think the traditional idea and what is being called "over worked" are ok. It depends on what you the photographer are trying to say about the subject. Having started out as a painter first and moved to photography there was a huge transition between the "realness" of a camera and what i felt was flexible with a painting. To me it changed to a matter of an Art picture or an Art photograph. Picture being manipulated and made into something vs the skill and ability to take a powerful photograph. Both I feel are acceptable and do the same thing. Funny thing is, many photographers hold to tradition, its just what we do. However, those who push the boundaries tend to push the market.

  • Sahil Mehta January 22, 2010 03:35 pm

    Love the pic "p273 square2 by Alexey Vronsky" I don't know much about photography but i like how the skin is shinning/reflecting light. I'll try and replicate this image one day..

  • Jim January 22, 2010 03:16 pm

    One man's Trash, Another One's Treasure.

  • Matt January 22, 2010 03:14 pm

    It's great to see such a wide selection of images to highlight portraiture. I marvel at how much work must have gone into most of these, from the posing through the post processing. Most of the images elicited a response from me, be it a smile, frown or a widening of the eyes.

    I am amazed at the majority of comments - for a site so geared toward helping people expand their skills, there seem to be so many close minded people commenting. Just because you don't like to produce shots like those shown does not in anyway compromise their validity as portraits. Analysing things we don't like can help us focus on what does work for us.

    Personally, I love the photos Bob and Portrait of a man smoking a match. Humorous and character filled, presented in the artists style. Marvellous. Thanks DPS

  • SS Chua January 22, 2010 02:47 pm

    Nice portrait photography...or artwork. Don't be surprise in future we need spectacles to view them (3D) like Avatar. Ha Ha

  • cowwithaballoon January 22, 2010 02:32 pm

    Art is great because the only limit to it is ones imagination. There are some limitations that technology can occasionally present, and other limitations are just how hard one is willing to work. However there is nothing that makes older technology better then new technology or vice versa. In the same way, there is no rule that say that art that is hard to make is better then work that is easier to make. There are no rules that portraiture has to convey anything, even a person's appearance. You might call a picture of a person's asshole trash and I can call it a beautiful, meaningful self-portrait. A urinal can be sculpture. It is a crazy world, this Art World of ours. You can build up and you can debase. Art is what I just described and it isn't.

    Anyways I think that a lot of images are quite pretty. My favorite is probably the girl laying in the leaves. I like the cheesiness of the leave pattern on her dress matching the leaves she happens to be laying on. It reminds me of that scene in the movie Garden State, but that is really besides the point. Its repetition or continuation or something like that. It looks quite color processed to my eye, and also very digital. In general that is what gives it the very modern vibe that I like about it. But mostly I just like it because its pretty. The girl is pretty and the patterning is pretty, and it makes me feel a little bit happy on the inside. :)

  • ericova January 22, 2010 02:30 pm

    wow !! great ! nice shot

  • Stephen January 22, 2010 02:07 pm

    Most of these photographs suffer from over processing. Seriously. What happen to good old fashion grit photography that relied on composition and candid moments in life? If you know how to photoshop, you are considered a great photographer. Boring.

  • Lorian January 22, 2010 01:45 pm

    There seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a 'portrait' and 'photographer'. It seems that just about everyone believes a portrait to be an image from a camera that must include the face and is not post processed (well at least not too much) and that a photographer is someone that captures an image using a camera and uses minimal, if any, post processing. It also appears that just about everyone believes that this post does not belong on this site because of those misconceptions. Let's analize this for a moment.

    According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company via dictionary.com the definition of portrait and photograph are as follows.

    por·trait (pôr'tr?t, -tr?t', p?r'-)
    n.
    A likeness of a person, especially one showing the face, that is created by a painter or photographer.

    pho·to·graph (f?'t?-gr?f')
    n.
    An image, especially a positive print, recorded by a camera and reproduced on a photosensitive surface.

    According to Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010 via dictionary.com the definition for photographer is as follows.

    pho?tog?ra?pher [fuh-tog-ruh-fer]
    –noun
    a person who takes photographs, esp. one who practices photography professionally.

    According to those definitions these photographs are just that. Whether they are "over" processed or have none at all. Most of them are in fact portraits and ALL of them were taken by a photographer. Regarding whether they should be on this site or not. Why not? Is the title of the site not DIGITAL Photography School? Am I to believe that everyone is in agreement that it is ONLY digital if it was taken from a digital camera and posted without alterations? Am I also to believe that in order to consider a photograph a portrait it must be within the bounds of some unritten rules? As I understand it, being a photographer is part entertainer, part computer savvey and part artist. Whether we post process or not. If we just stayed within some unwritten bounds there would be no creativity. That's what make a photograph stand out.

    Now I don't believe that every photograph NEEDS post but some do and that's what makes it that photographers image and style. Take Ansel Adams for example. He created spectacular images. Yes I said created because he did just that. Did you think he snaped a photo and developed it as is? If you do take a look at the post on this site "'Moon Over Hernandez” An insight into Ansel Adams" which has an incredible video with some insight on how he did his processing. And just for the record, Ansel was HUGE into the development (aka post) process.

    Keep in mind the old addage "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all". I'd actually like to modify that a touch if I may. I think that for the purposes of any art/photography it should go "If you don't have any constructive criticism, don't post your nasty opinion." Remember the next time a photograph is being bashed for creative differences it might just be yours.

    Loe

    @The DPS crew - AWESOME site. Keep up the fabulous work. Oh, and thank you from the bottom of my image sensor. (I know it's cheesy but that's just me.)

  • oliverignacio January 22, 2010 01:36 pm

    some of them are interesting.. I'm not a fan of overprocessed images, though.

  • vilas January 22, 2010 01:32 pm

    The article on Portraits was really educative for me as I am not professional in photography. I will surely go into the details of it afterwards.
    Thanks.

  • Jim January 22, 2010 01:20 pm

    I think most of you are missing the point, anyone can take photos even great photos but its going beyond that and putting together something new and interesting vs same old, you can apply way more on there because of the fact you have a good image vs something bad u can do nothing with, scorn as you may these people have what it takes, if it displeases u that much why bother looking at anything other than old Large format as they are the only things barely touched at all :P try to be more open minded. The theme of this site IS digital photography so of course something like this happens, its part of art, stop sounding like old corrupt politicians

  • Mindy January 22, 2010 01:19 pm

    I just wanted to clarify - I don't have a problem with post-production work, nor particularly with the images used to illustrate this piece, but I think we need to be careful about stating that something is a portrait. If the person is lost in all the glitz, it's not a portrait. If your image is telling a story unrelated to the individual in the image, it's not a portrait.

  • Shellie20 January 22, 2010 12:56 pm

    Guess its time for me to add my 2 cents worth. I agree with everyone. While they may meet the criteria for Portraits, they are way too over processed for my liking. They are lovely, but I guess I am "old school" and think that the original should stand with as little processing as possible - you know, a bit of Talent from the Photographer. To me the only one that looks remotely realistic is the lady with the gun. A grainy shot, but to me it doesnt feel too overworked in Photoshop like the others.
    Begs the question - Graphic Art or Photography?

  • Killian January 22, 2010 12:24 pm

    Honestly, regardless of the amount of post-processing involved, I liked a grand total of 3 of these. I liked the farmer's wife, the bathroom light, and the one by Franca Franchi.

    Other than that? Eh. Fake backgrounds, mediocre composition and light, fake looking models. Just not my style.

    To me, a portrait captures the story being told in a face. Without that, it's a snapshot, and in these examples? It isn't even that.

  • Jyoti January 22, 2010 11:28 am

    These are example of good photoshop work. But there should be a basic difference between painting and photography. Most of the painting shown above - you don't need camera - just take brush and canvas and you cane create those. I am confused with DPS's selection procedure - how come most of the pictures listed as photography?
    Request to photoshop shavvy photographers - pls don't overdo your snap and redefine the art of photography.

  • Alain January 22, 2010 11:28 am

    I guess these portraits were nice before... you know...
    Seriously, I still appreciate the "original" portraits as I imagine them. I wish I could do that.

  • Annemarie January 22, 2010 09:59 am

    I agree with most of the comments about too much post production. I do like my picture more natural, although I am learning to tweak my pictures a bit in photoshop nowadays. I would actually love to lear the way these photographers have used post production just to expand my own knowledge.

  • johnp January 22, 2010 08:58 am

    I like them. I think if you can use photoshop to convey the personality and situation of the subject of the portrait then use it if you want to. These photos tell a story rather than just being technically correct recordings of an image. If you look at some of the great film era portraits a lot of them have had quite heavy darkroom processing techniques applied.
    Rob makes a good point re art as photography or photography as art. I'm trying to make more of an effort to get away from being pedantic about getting my photos technically correct and am trying to make them more "art". I think (maybe incorrectly) that I need to do this if I ever want to have an image that stands out from the billions that are out there. If you can create that one in a billion portrait straight from the camera then you are a much better photographer than I will ever be (or a very lucky one).

  • Danielle January 22, 2010 08:51 am

    I think I have to agree that the post-processing craze is making photographers lazy. Most ultra post-processed images I come across have little inherent artistic merit. A good photographer doesn't rely on post-processing to create a saleable image. Perhaps, where post-processing is the feature, not the photo, one could call themselves a "photo painter" or something? Surely great images should only need post-processing to bring out the inherent natural qualities within the original shot, to accentuate what is already present, not to create what isn't there?

    Maybe I'm a traditionalist too...

  • Bongani January 22, 2010 08:39 am

    I think it is ridiculous to even think of photography without a post process element, however intense it may be.

    From its inception, photography has been an art that requires something to be done to the negative, digital or otherwise, by the photographer, to produce a finished piece of work. The advances in digital photography simply mean that we see an image straight of the camera that is essentially positive, and skip development stages of the darkroom. But even then as is now, photographers would manipulate the image in various ways, dodging, burning, tinting, coloring, blurring, to name a few, portions or or whole photographs, combining different photographs and doing all sorts of collages.

    At what point then would that be considered 'over processing?'

    To think of post processing as only fixing a photo would be in error too.

    I think it is important to take all elements into consideration when planning your photograph, having mastery from visualizing it, shooting it, and processing it (as you see fit - not at all, a little, or a lot).

    If the photo you want it the one that comes straight of your camera, thats fine. If its not. Thats fine too. If you choose to process it. Thats fine again. In any case, with what is the photo you as the photographer want to be seen?

    In respect to portraiture, if you capture the essence of the individual, then you have to done well.

  • Amandalynn Jones January 22, 2010 07:53 am

    Some of these are REALLY beautiful, but I hate to agree with everyone else and say that MOST of them are good examples of "Learn when to stop photoshopping!". I personally take no issue with post processing - I don't see any problem with "fixing" photos to make their potential stand out... but there is a certain line that you cross when it stops being photography and starts being "art", and at that point you can't turn back and pretend it's something it's not. Photos are something that happen in camera, the farther you get away from the camera, the farther away they are from being "photos". While many of them are very creative and artistic, photographic portraits they are not.

    I'm disappointed that the majority of them are only mediocre in quality - it makes this whole article feel as if it is NOT about the photos, but rather about promoting ImageKind, which is a site that doesn't impress me either.
    I know "beautiful" is a matter of personal perspective, but there are significantly better photos out there to feature, so to throw these up and claim them as beautiful portraiture is just sort of sad.

  • Matt January 22, 2010 07:45 am

    We're not talking about cheesy school portraits here or something you'd get from a "Portrait Place" in the mall - these are portraits which deliberately use post production to highlight personality and convey emotions.

  • Dana January 22, 2010 07:18 am

    What about the classics?
    [eimg link='http://www.flickr.com/photos/grampspics/4266499432/' title='Cyn in the Garden' url='http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2214/4266499432_57abd0f9fa_o.jpg']

  • Kevin January 22, 2010 07:04 am

    And to Robert, no amount of post work will turn a bad photograph good.

  • Kevin January 22, 2010 07:02 am

    Reply to Mindy

    Quote "I think if we over-process images, then we have to be careful about calling them “portraits.” Isn’t the point of a portrait to capture and convey a real person?"

    I hark back to the old saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
    In our OLD dark room days ALL photos were processed to reproduce the image that the photographer wished to capture, Post processing is NOT a new thing to Digital Photography.
    If we wished a portrait to be as the lens saw it, or as you look at it, we would no longer be able to gaze in wonder at some of the great art works like "The Mona Lisa"
    That is why Photography is classified as an art Not a science ( although I will admitt it is a mixture of the two.
    Said in kindness Kevin

  • Courtney January 22, 2010 06:56 am

    These are certainly creative images, but I have to agree with the other posts....I think they are over processed. A true portrait should be very minimally processed...I actually think that goes for most photos if you call yourself a true photographer. There is a huge difference between photographer's who learned the "old school" way with processing our own film and developing our own prints, without access to computers and the newcomers today that have known only digital imagery. Don't get me wrong, computers are great, but when it's overdone it takes away from the true subject. Besides there are so many folks out there today that own a digital camera and a computer and call themselves photographers just because they learned some tricks in Photoshop. These images (most very beautiful) were created by very talented people, but I think these images fall under PS skills instead of true photography. We should take advantage of the amazing things that computers can do for our images, but we have to remain true to what the camera captures. Sorry...i guess I'm still a little bit old school.

  • Arturomar January 22, 2010 06:51 am

    That picture "matters of taste" by Pawel W. is a very beautiful...piece of work.

  • Mr. Culver January 22, 2010 06:26 am

    The only one I liked was the one with the dog.

  • O.R. January 22, 2010 06:20 am

    The portraits most of them are mediocre... the "WOW effect" is photoshop, not the photo....
    Sorry guys... you've very good, but this chapter is not my taste...

  • Robert A January 22, 2010 06:13 am

    Post work has taken the need for talented "Photographers" and tossed them aside. A true, good, talented photographer uses little to no post work. Those who sit and repair / modifies photos for hours after taking 10 minutes to shot a photo are computer nerds NOT photographers.

  • Nancy Minter January 22, 2010 06:09 am

    I think the images are beautiful. Post production doesn't bother me a bit.

  • Glenn January 22, 2010 05:55 am

    I think they all met the requirement of a portrait. I do agree that some were over processed and it appears that
    "perfume" has distorted the subjects mouth. I especially liked the technique used on "It's that wonderful bathroom window light by Karin Elizabeth."

  • carlbt January 22, 2010 05:48 am

    I like the composition on some of them but the post production makes them into ART - not Portraits. I think the family on the stairs and the lady in the white dress would be perfect without the post production. Now it just looks like a painting and looses the realism. Post production has never been a favorite of mine. It changes the whole photo to something different.. I say keep it in the original state, warts and all. This is what gives a portrait character. Otherwise it looks like fantasy art.

  • Mindy January 22, 2010 05:36 am

    I think if we over-process images, then we have to be careful about calling them "portraits." Isn't the point of a portrait to capture and convey a real person? The image above by Franca Franchi comes closest to a real portrait of the subject, as opposed to a documentary photograph or a fashion/modelling picture. The other photographs are still very interesting, but let's reserve the term "portrait" for images that are more about the subject and less about the clothing/props/post-production. Just my .02.

  • Allen January 22, 2010 05:34 am

    I agree with all as well. Way over worked, especially "Falling Hearts".

  • TJHawk January 22, 2010 05:32 am

    Agree with PP's - I respect the artists style but it's not my personal liking. I'd prefer to see photos with minimal editing and certainly less "exageration".

  • Naveed Thanvi January 22, 2010 05:06 am

    Most of them have an artificial plastic look. The ideas and angle are creative but post processing has snatched away the element of believability. They could have easily been absorbed if the title were "21 Beautiful Made Up Portrait Photos".

  • Rob January 22, 2010 05:06 am

    I think there are times when there is Photography as Art and others where Art as Photography. These seem to be focused on the prior. Interesting and beautiful in their own right but focused on creating art out of a photo as opposed to allowing the photo itself to be the art. Just two different ways of looking at things. Given the comments so far, it looks like we have a lot more photography focused individuals (as one would expect from a photo based website). I would be curious to get a explanation on post production techniques on these. Its always nice to present a image to a customer that may be totally different that what they would expect and outside of traditional. The worst they can say is pass.

  • JJ January 22, 2010 05:00 am

    Come on, guys, most of them are great pieces of art. This is the way photography becomes art. What happens through the lens is only the beginning - the artists interpretation is what happens after. Imagine these pieces blown up real big in beautiful fat frames hanging in homes - that will make people appreciate photography as an art form.

  • Ian January 22, 2010 04:47 am

    Most of these are over-processed and can hardly be considered photos. I have to say the quality of this website has been severely eroded over the past five months. I know you need to continuously create content to get good search rankings, but your article and photo quality has been going downhill fast. Time to reassess...or maybe it's just time for me to unsubscribe.

  • Ken January 22, 2010 04:45 am

    I enjoyed most the photos. I really don't like the ones with the fake pasted in backgrounds.

  • Yolanda January 22, 2010 04:43 am

    I have to echo the sentiments of other commenters and say these are not my taste. I am attracted to portraits that tell a story. And that story isn't about the image creator and his/her mastery of software, it's a story about the person in the photograph. Simply placing a human in a shot, does not make it a portrait, in my opinion. If the final image tells me more about the photographer than the subject, then that human is merely a model, a tool being manipulated to photographer's whim.

  • secondhandcamera January 22, 2010 04:40 am

    There is only one that I really quite like (mainly because it is something I can try myself) and that is the one with the woman lying on the grass. I have to agree with the others and i'm surprised that some of them are considered as portraits.

  • Jayson January 22, 2010 04:33 am

    While a few had quite the allure and drew the eye pleasingly, the majority of these looked forced and, as previously mentioned, over processed. I would have enjoyed the portraits more if they captured more of the individual, and less of the post process.

  • Linz January 22, 2010 04:26 am

    Can't say any of these images really struck me as beautiful. Some interesting, many over processed, several merely mediocre, but the art form is subjective so as long as photographer &/or subject like then all is good.

  • vikki January 22, 2010 04:26 am

    Yes, I have to agree with all the previous posts... not to my taste for the most part. A few were beautiful uses of texture layers, but most are way overdone and in general I don't like a ton of HDR in portraiture.
    I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

  • ieuan January 22, 2010 04:10 am

    i like the shots but i think the purity of the original image was lost... they are processed to the core...

  • Martin Barabe January 22, 2010 04:03 am

    There are actually two only that i really enjoyed looking at, The lady with the white dress on the couch and the one with the gun, the oters, well i have to agree with the other posts, they are overdone. They do have character but it is not what i am looking to find in a portrait.

  • scott January 22, 2010 03:18 am

    I have to agree with Andy. although some of them are interesting, most of them are overly processed and not to my taste at all.

  • Robert January 22, 2010 02:54 am

    You're joking, right? I'm seriously starting to wonder about this blog lately...

  • Robert Barnes January 22, 2010 02:30 am

    I have to agree with the other ppl on this one although i did like Karin Elizabeths photo of the bathroom light one, Laura Ferreira and Alexey Vronskys pics as well. As for the others, too much processing.

  • andy brannan January 22, 2010 02:00 am

    These are OK i guess Not to my taste at all.They are so over produce the Integrity of the original Image is completely lost.Knowing when to stop is the best piece of advice in was given with regards to Post production

  • Danferno January 22, 2010 01:47 am

    HDR + Portrait = HELP

  • MeiTeng January 22, 2010 01:39 am

    The last few are HDR aren't they? They looked like paintings.

  • Eric January 22, 2010 01:36 am

    I found most of those "beautiful" portraits quite annoying. I just wanted to see a portrait. Not a mediocre portrait painted up like some overworked hooker.