(My eldest little boy, Thomas, in South Africa.) Despite my mini-rant on my fight against portraits while an editor and assigning them as a last possible option, it does not mean that I am not a fan of portraiture. They are an integral part of photography and go to the heart of what we do. Portraits are obviously an important element of documentary photography. What brought my issues to mind was Paul's discussion of magazines increasing use of them. I'm assuming that most in our group probably are already aware of the reason why magazines opt for portraits much more now: it's essentially a money issue. It has been a hotly debated topic. In general, making a portrait is much cheaper than producing a work of documentary photography. That's a big reason wy magazines such as Life and Look took a big death fall. It is absolutely the reason why many magazines will ask for a portrait of Tony Blair rather than a day in his life. There's little risk; you won't have to pay a photographer to actually spend days following a subject looking for real moments; you know what you'll get and can plan easily for it; you won't have to give up valuable potential ad space for photographs.
Politicians, celebrities and other news subjects and unfortunately public relations representatives have come to expect this and encourage it. They have a lot more control over the situation and how their client appears. The Los Angeles Times-my hometown newspaper-and several magazines had a small war with Hollywood over this issue. At it's height there were some publicity people who insisted on providing their own photographs or taking complete control over the photo shoot. For the L.A. Times, the were finally able to reign things in a bit and their staff photographers are making portraits of stars again, but that newspaper has much more pressing issues at the time.
At The New York Times our photography staff had diverse strengths, but for the most part were powerful story tellers and I think were much better served along with our readers by real photojournalism than a portrait. I got much more joy and satisfaction working with Joao Silva's project on the morgue in Bagdad; James Estrin's work on a Brooklyn kosher butcher; or Mike Kamber's project on homeless, HIV-positive teens than I did with portraits of CEO's or lawmakers.
Again, I have nothing against portraits in themselves. I have a long list of my favorite portrait photographers. My bookshelf includes several Annie Liebovitz books (her early book "Shooting Stars" is much different from what she does now); Diane Arbus and various compilations. Certainly, the roots of photography and it's popularity came from portraiture; portraits were no longer the property of those who could consign a painter. I respect a fine portrait photographer. There are a list of portrait projects and photographers that have really inspired me over the year. Cartier-Bresson, Steve McCurry and Sebastiao Salgado and others we've discussed have done incredible portrait work.
As a newspaper photographer, I had to shoot tons of them and spent much time searching for locations, hauling gear, setting up lights, or locked in a studio. It's a unique talent and my friends who are really good at it are generally doing well financially as well getting lots of magazine and corporate work.






