Photographs taken by wizarding means merely move, but portraits speak and behave just as the subjects they were painted of. In fact, the retain the memories, passions and motivations of those they were painted....I speak specifically here of the Headmaster's office and all the past headmasters. Do the portraits retain a bit of soul? Like a nonevil horcrux? Or, if they are fictionally painted, is a soul created for them?

I'm going to move this to the Deathly Hallows forum as I think this question might result in a good topic.

I personally have never wondered about this but now that you've brought it up it does seem odd that they can speak. But as far as we know only the paintings can speak, not photographs taken with a camera. Perhaps the paint in enchanted by the wizard who the portrait will be of and they can somehow put a part of themselves into the paint. I don't believe it's a part of their Soul but more like a personality imprint.

I'd love to hear others views on this.

I think that the reason certain portraits talk and others don't is that they are magically charmed to do so. perhaps the most similar thing to this could be the diary of tom riddle. that diary was imbued with the memory of tom riddle at a particular time. perhaps in a similar way to a memory that is extracted and placed within a pensieve. i'm not sure if the memory and the horcrux parts of that diary are one and the same. there was more to the diary than just a memory (stealing emotional life just the locket did) but there was more to the diary than the other horcrux's.

in short i believe the way that portraits talk is by imparting memory into it. but not a part of the soul. in the case of the headmaster portaits this is done automatically when they die. but every other picture must be done manually.

Exactly. I am not sure where I read this, but I recall that JKR mentioned somewhere that portraits are embellished by the "essence(s)" of witches and wizards (the occupants of the said portraits) that are left behind as a sort of "imprints". I think this came in response to a query about Wlaburga Black's portrait at 12 Grimauld Place. According to her, the portraits did not have all the traits of their subjects, just a few basic things. However, what we have seen of the portrait seems to contradict that. The seem to be fully aware, sentient beings who can communicate with living humans on the events that have taken place after their departure from the mortal plane.

Typical examples would be Phineas Nigellus's outrage about Mundungus Fletcher, whom he knew to be a half-blood and his disapproval of Sirius and his joy on the "role of Slytherin house" in Tom's demise. Dumbledore's portrait appeared to be fully sentient, then it remains to be seen that how are the portraits able to resemble their subjects so closely. Lets' consider the example of a similar sentient being that we know to possess a fragment of soul- Tom Riddle's diary which was able to absorb and acquire current knowledge from those who wrote in it. Even then, the diary had to rely upon people writing in it, while the portraits seem to absorb everything without any help. Thus, the portraits are different from an object that contains a fragment of soul. Then what could they have that gives them such traits

i think that the reason the book had to rely on people writing in it is because it's a book. books can't talk and listen, but apparently it can write and read. the other thing is i don't believe that the book was JUST a horcrux. it could think and plan and actually desired things like wanting to meet harry and find out exactly he destroyed his real self. whereas the locket for example just projected it's emotional state or feelings onto anyone nearby. it tried to get people to sympathize with how voldermort IS. but it didn't use any great intelligence.

p.s. by the way mayfair, your description of how portraits are imprinted with the essence of the witch/wizard i believe was right on the money. good call.

I was wondering that too after reading about Dumbledore's protrait in DH. The portrait was talking as if it was the actual person. Maybe they can talk if you use a special spell or a special paint?

Dumbledore's portrait is certainly more than just an imprint I think. Mrs. Black's protrait just really shrieks so that would make it seem like just an imprint, but maybe there is a special charm on Hogwarts Headmaster's portraits?

I reckon a portrait is pretty similar to a ghost - and imprint of a soul left on earth after someone has died. It retains some semblance of being - it can voice opinions and advice, but isn't living, and therefore, has no soul.

I agree with all of you, but what I don't understand is why didn't Harry just have portraits painted of all his lost ones? Then he could talk to him as if they were they were real.

I think that the ability to react to situations as if it were the real person is reserved for the headmasters paintings. As far as we have ever seen, none of the other portraits in the castle, or anywhere, have real advice and help towards different situations. Most portraits just make snide comments or sleep. As is mentioned in OotP, the paintings of old headmaster's have a duty to help the current headmaster, so i think these paintings are like the actual people. They think like them, say what they would say, everything. But i think it is just the portraits in the headmaster's office

Well i think that as they have a sort of soul. A peice of magic takes place that noe of us can explain it just happens. Though really is there a painter to thesse potraits? Because Dumbledores potriat was there just an hour or so after his death. I think it's like a will the actual wizard or witch paints it and they leave behind the things they want to them to have in thier potraits.

I think they are sort of like the resurrection stone--they do what the person would do, but they do not have souls. They're a bit of an imprint, I guess...but no soul
I have a related question: Do ghosts have souls? Are they made of a soul without a body? And a big question...Could Voldemort be a ghost *shudder*? Because of everyone, he is certainly the most afraid of death. Do you need a soul to be a ghost?

I just reread Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and I have this question about the portraits.

Dumbledore and Harry talk in King's Cross after Harry gives his life about the Deathly Hallows and the Pevrell brothers. Then after he defeats Voldermort, Harry goes in to the Headmaster's office. When he talks to Dumbledore, it is like Dumbledore's portrait knows the conversation that the two had at King's Cross.

Do you think that the Portrait is connected to the soul of Dumbledore?

In DH, it seemed odd to me when Dumbledore gave Snape instructions. How could he really know what was going on if he's a portrait? I think that they probably retain a part of the person's soul, which would explain why they have the same knowledge and memories as the living person and their soul. It's like they are connected in a way.

My theory is that when the portraits are awake, they are the souls of the person painted revisiting the living world (via the portrait) and when they are asleep the soul returns to heaven or wherever it is that the souls go when they "travel on".

Query: How did Dumbledore's portrait and/or Snape know the real date that Harry would be moved?