|
As a portrait what did you like about these? I ask because I would expect to find them in the snap shot a day thread. The framing is bad on the first and third. The light is poo poo in the second. And none of them have great expressions (if you can see them at all).
|
# ? Sep 14, 2009 23:11 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 09:32 |
|
^ The first and third of those are part of an ongoing series that I am working on that centers around the primacy of subject-viewer contact and model as object. It's not entirely defined yet, and won't be for a while. How is the framing bad? The expressions aren't great? I think you're looking for an entirely different type of photo altogether, or have an ill-defined idea of what a portrait is. 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Sep 14, 2009 |
# ? Sep 14, 2009 23:11 |
|
Reichstag posted:How is the framing bad? The expressions aren't great? I think you're looking for an entirely different type of photo altogether, or have an ill-defined idea of what a portrait is. I didn't deny they were portraits. I asked you why you thought they were good. I'm curious is all. All three of these look like your subject didn't want to be in the photo. I have an ill-defined idea of portraits? Not really, I generally think having my subject's face be seen by the camera is a good start.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2009 23:28 |
|
Reichstag posted:How is the framing bad? The expressions aren't great? I think you're looking for an entirely different type of photo altogether, or have an ill-defined idea of what a portrait is. The framing in the 3rd one is the one that doesn't do it for me. Blam, center of the frame, landscape orientation. I'm sure that was a choice, but I don't think it worked for that photo. On the second, there's the obvious light leak at the top. If it was intentional, then I apologize, if it wasn't, it's a pretty serious technical flaw that detracts from an already-dark subject. The first would probably look better in the context of the rest of the series.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2009 23:29 |
|
benisntfunny posted:I asked you why you thought they were good. I'm curious is all. All three of these look like your subject didn't want to be in the photo. I have an ill-defined idea of portraits? Not really, I generally think having my subject's face be seen by the camera is a good start. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to have it in your head that a portrait is about very specific things (Subject face? Check. Happy? Check.) to produce a very limited photo.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2009 23:58 |
|
Reichstag posted:This is exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to have it in your head that a portrait is about very specific things (Subject face? Check. Happy? Check.) to produce a very limited photo. Portraiture is about flattering the subject though. I can't honestly look at your stuff and say its portraiture. I think its a neat idea for a project though. E2: < Reichstag> NO IT IS NOT < Reichstag> ARGHHHHH E: I suppose what I'm trying to say is that just like almost everything else in art, theres a set canon to define what falls into certain categories. You're really pushing the boundaries of portraiture to the point that it is probably safe to say it isn't portraiture. Yes it is. Pick up any photography book on portraiture and it sure as gently caress isn't going to be about the non relationship about the non subject and the blah blah blah. Toupee fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Sep 15, 2009 |
# ? Sep 15, 2009 00:20 |
|
Without getting into overall judgements, I'll say that I used to compose like in the first shot all the time, and I still have to consciously remind myself "fill the frame". I think it's because the face is so important to us there's a naturally tendency to put it near the center of the frame. Anyway, fill the frame.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 00:22 |
|
I always liked to think about portraiture as the connection between the person in the photo and the viewer, whether it is happy/sad, commercial, aloof, disconnected, etc. I would hate to think that all portraiture has to be flattering. I tend to prefer a face for easy connection, but don't forget that as people, we communicate tons with just our body; the face isn't necessary all the time. Here is another picture of a person for your viewing pleasure
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 00:46 |
|
nonanone posted:I always liked to think about portraiture as the connection between the person in the photo and the viewer, whether it is happy/sad, commercial, aloof, disconnected, etc. I would hate to think that all portraiture has to be flattering. I tend to prefer a face for easy connection, but don't forget that as people, we communicate tons with just our body; the face isn't necessary all the time. Ok flattering is the wrong word. Maybe just "pleasing to look at" ? That is to say - they don't have to be pretty or whatever, but it needs to highlight their features in a way that makes it nice to look at. Like this is very nice. Thats generally what portraiture is. I'm sure someone else can come in and say how I'm a retard and I have no idea, blah blah, but I think you get the general gist of what I mean by portraiture and the canon that goes with it.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 01:08 |
|
Toupee posted:Ok flattering is the wrong word. Maybe just "pleasing to look at" ? That is to say - they don't have to be pretty or whatever, but it needs to highlight their features in a way that makes it nice to look at. Like this is very nice. Thats generally what portraiture is. I'm sure someone else can come in and say how I'm a retard and I have no idea, blah blah, but I think you get the general gist of what I mean by portraiture and the canon that goes with it. You're looking for 'engaging'. Creating a connection between the subject and the viewer is what makes a portrait (or any photo, really) a good photo. It could be a toddler's natural smile or a withered, filthy face, but it has to be engaging. Personally, I think this is why a lot of portraiture shot at 70+mm can seem boring and bland. There's no connection between the viewer and subject at all. That's why the subject itself has to be interesting, look interesting, or be doing something interesting. I don't care if I'm seeing the subject's face as long as I'm intrigued by their body language, appearance or environment.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 01:43 |
|
Toupee posted:Portraiture is about flattering the subject though. I can't honestly look at your stuff and say its portraiture. I think its a neat idea for a project though. Pick up an issue of Aperture magazine or read a web site that doesn't focus entirely on commercial and wedding photography. Slightly off-kilter portraiture is a very well established genre, and Reichstag is by no means pushing its boundaries (sorry Reichstag), for a rather extreme example, consider paintings of runckenfigur, or if you must, this flickr group: http://www.flickr.com/groups/ruckenfigur/ At worst his photos are deadpan (which more or less requires the centred framing) and show the reluctance of his subjects, but that hardly disqualifies them as portraits.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 03:03 |
|
Reichstag posted:It seems a bit funny that people suddenly care about that sort of thing in a thread that has thus far been 100% about gear/technique and had a very strong 'commercial' bias. It seems silly to complain about this when up until just now whenever anyone asked about these issues in your work (in this thread and others) you avoided discussing it or posted snarky responses. I mean I hate the focus on process/gear too in these threads, but it goes both ways. Anyways Reichstag posted:^ The first and third of those are part of an ongoing series that I am working on that centers around the primacy of subject-viewer contact and model as object. It's not entirely defined yet, and won't be for a while. This is basically what I figured, and I think this is a really interesting concept to be exploring. I think of the 3 you've posted here the first stands out and the others aren't really doing it for me. The second just seems a little too confrontational in relation to the other work you've posted and works against the model-as-object thing. I think my favorite out of the ones you've posted was back in the PAD thread I think, with the girl out of focus against the landscape. I'm curious as to what other photographers/artists you're looking at too. Toupee posted:Portraiture is about flattering the subject though. Why do you think this? What do you think a portrait is? I can think of plenty of unflattering or even degrading pictures of people that are extremely successful as portraits. My avatar is a pretty famous Arnold Newman one (Alfred Krupp, Nazi war industrialist) where he had to actively deceive the subject and then flee the country after he took it. Is it not a portrait?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 03:50 |
|
Here's two from today. I've got some more to process but thought I'd throw them up for some critique. pbpancho fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Sep 15, 2009 |
# ? Sep 15, 2009 04:19 |
|
Pretty sure the only thing necessary to be a portrait is something sentient (or that used to be) somewhere recognizably in the photo. Be it animal, person, dead-baby, or otherwise. It's a fairly loose genre. It doesn't have to be a closeup of a smiling blond bride to be a portrait.
poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Sep 15, 2009 |
# ? Sep 15, 2009 07:33 |
|
pbpancho posted:Here's two from today. I've got some more to process but thought I'd throw them up for some critique. Whoah nelly. What's with the crazy lighting? This looks like two flashes, with the one coming from the right at equal power to the main (maybe even higher power). It's extremely unflattering, is causing glare all over her skin, and flattens/widens her face to the point it's ugly. The point of lighting (in this kind of portraits) is to define the volume in a flattering way. This requires some sort of ratio between the main and fill. Even if all you did is drop power by 1-4 stops on your 2nd light, it would look 10x better. poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Sep 15, 2009 |
# ? Sep 15, 2009 07:41 |
|
brad industry posted:Why do you think this? What do you think a portrait is? I can think of plenty of unflattering or even degrading pictures of people that are extremely successful as portraits. My avatar is a pretty famous Arnold Newman one (Alfred Krupp, Nazi war industrialist) where he had to actively deceive the subject and then flee the country after he took it. Is it not a portrait? Well, I think that's a hot issue that comes up in these kinds of threads. Right now, I'm making some cash doing portraiture for high school students -- senior photos and all that. But, unlike the guy with the 16-year-old-whore title, I'm in a place where people DON'T want that. They want their portraits to be ultra-super-traditional. And, while it's boring and all, that is how I'm making money. That is what people want in the cultural wasteland of east Washington. Whereas, if I were in a cultural Mecca like New York or San Francisco or Tokyo, I'd be able to get away with having less than flatting pictures. Portraits are hard to define. They kind of depend on what you are going for, where you live, and what the subject wants. Like I said before, I'm not a huge fan of ConfusedUs's baby pictures, but then again, that's what people want where he lives. Hell, I would make more money as a Walmart photographer in my town. But that's not the point. I'm working on my own thing, but at the same time, trying to put it into a global perspective. And these days, in the Big Cities, having a well-done picture is not necessarily a good thing. So yeah -- portraits are "taking pictures of the person". If the person is a wanted drug-dealer, it's going to be a different portrait from Mary-kate Olsen. Portraits are hugely subjective in that way, and the post is also going to be hugely subjective. Anyways, yeah. I don't mean to start poo poo. I just think there is a huge, HUGE difference between art school (hey, long time no see!) and the actuality of commercial or profit-making photography.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 07:49 |
|
plaguedoctor posted:Well, I think that's a hot issue that comes up in these kinds of threads. Right now, I'm making some cash doing portraiture for high school students -- senior photos and all that. But, unlike the guy with the 16-year-old-whore title, I'm in a place where people DON'T want that. They want their portraits to be ultra-super-traditional. Yeah, but without being a kill-joy, commercial photography as documentaries has kind of been figured out. That's why there are franchises that can set up a portrait studio and definitely make money. Main+fill+hair+compression lens and bam, you can sit practically anyone down and have a fairly flattering portrait. Yes you have to work up people skills and getting someone to relax, but this is not the standard we want to be judging portraits by. The ratio of pivotal, ground breaking portraits taken at Olen Mills or Picture People is probably 1:1,000,000,000. I'd say the ratio of people going out and trying to push boundaries and do something for their own personal artistic motivation is a bit higher. It'd be like someone changing oil at Jiffy-Lube lecturing a car-tinkerer that he could be more efficient and get his car to run fine much more easily. It's kind of missing the point. There is representing the person's face to friends and family members in an interesting way (boring) and there is portraits as art (possibly still boring, but with the potential to be engaging).
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 07:59 |
|
poopinmymouth posted:Yeah, but without being a kill-joy, commercial photography as documentaries has kind of been figured out. That's why there are franchises that can set up a portrait studio and definitely make money. I guess that's what I'm saying. If you are a part of whatever high-school-portrait thing, then, hey, more love to you. But if you just want to be negative, then you have to supply something else. You can't just say "this sucks". Of course it sucks, but at the the same time, that's what the plebians want. If you want to provide something better or something more, you have to give them a reason to want that.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 08:35 |
|
Isn't a successful/good portrait just one that manages to capture a part of the subject's personality? This can be achieved in many different ways so I don't really know what everyone's so worried about.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 08:38 |
|
This might confuse you but there is an aspect to portraiture that isn't about selling your photos or necessarily pleasing your subject. E: That was a response mostly to plague doctor. With regard to the post above mine, a human body can be a prop like any other but there is a special consideration with humans which is that they have a formal geometry that expands beyond the physical. A living, or post-living, prop has different interactions with it's environment than something that never lived at all. Portraiture does not necessarily need to capture the subjects personality but will likely consider it in it's overall composition. Twenties Superstar fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Sep 15, 2009 |
# ? Sep 15, 2009 08:39 |
|
plaguedoctor posted:I guess that's what I'm saying. If you are a part of whatever high-school-portrait thing, then, hey, more love to you. But if you just want to be negative, then you have to supply something else. You can't just say "this sucks". Of course it sucks, but at the the same time, that's what the plebians want. If you want to provide something better or something more, you have to give them a reason to want that. um, no? Photography can be an art form. You don't need to provide pleasure to your subject in any way. In fact some of my favorite portraits, the subject absolutely hates how I portrayed them.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 09:12 |
|
Without getting too involved in this debate, and taking on the general question of what makes a portrait: I think that capturing that person's "human"-ness is the magic. That's an obvious statement, though it's easy to get lost. Life is always about balance, and making a technically good photo is what you expect, but if you can also get that moment, that flash of a person's humanity... people in live events are great to cover for this. Everybody puts on masks to the world and they switch off as they go through the day. I found my best photos are when I have the technical stuff already taken care of and I catch the subject in-between changing those "masks." It's the little hard nut that is tough to crack, but when you do it releases a fragrant spice that makes it work. For me so far I have done it relatively few times, in relation to the number of photos I've done, so I work on refining that approach to get what I want more often. I don't profess to fully get Reichstag's work, or lodar's for that matter, but I'm always paying attention when they post something. They have a vision and sometimes they fail, but if you spend life afraid of failing, you probably always will. Having the confidence to continue pushing yourself, while always being satisfied where you are, is part of the balance.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 11:26 |
|
This is why I only break out the deep "meaning of my art" speeches if I'm trying to pick up girls in bars. Gary Winogrand had the right idea when he said "I photograph to see what something will look like photographed".
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 11:48 |
|
Toupee posted:Ok flattering is the wrong word. Maybe just "pleasing to look at"? Are those not portraits? If a character's the subject of a picture, then it's a portrait, isn't it?
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 15:03 |
|
evil_bunnY posted:Are those not portraits? If a character's the subject of a picture, then it's a portrait, isn't it? Hot Cops had what I was thinking of with 'engaging'. So yeah those are portraits. Reichstag is self admittedly intentionally creating un-engaging photos, though, which is the angle I'm coming from.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 15:14 |
|
plaguedoctor posted:If the person is a wanted drug-dealer, it's going to be a different portrait from Mary-kate Olsen.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 15:19 |
|
Toupee posted:Hot Cops had what I was thinking of with 'engaging'. So yeah those are portraits. Reichstag is self admittedly intentionally creating un-engaging photos, though, which is the angle I'm coming from. I disagree that they are unengaging. Yes, they fail the test of letting you peer into someone's eyes through the screen, but you should be left to wonder why (as opposed to assuming its some sort of incompetent snapshot). What does that say about the subject? Why won't the subject engage the camera/photographer... why won't they engage you? What are you left with? Examine their posture and body language, their clothing, the setting, your usual relationship with people in portraits, etc. Art man, it's like, deep or something.
|
# ? Sep 15, 2009 15:53 |
|
psylent posted:MrButterpants: where can I learn more of what you just said? Besides reading the 3 books that I listed a few pages back, try the video products from Zack Arias (OneLight) and David Hobby (Strobist). Both are fantastic.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2009 01:54 |
|
poopinmymouth posted:Pretty sure the only thing necessary to be a portrait is something sentient (or that used to be) somewhere recognizably in the photo. Be it animal, person, dead-baby, or otherwise. It's a fairly loose genre. It doesn't have to be a closeup of a smiling blond bride to be a portrait. I've heard some people who shoot landscapes claim their work is really portraiture because they make images that are about people even though they don't actually contain any. Really I think portraiture, kind of like photography, is a broad medium and I'm OK with people calling whatever they want a portrait if they can justify their position. plaguedoctor posted:Whereas, if I were in a cultural Mecca like New York or San Francisco or Tokyo, I'd be able to get away with having less than flatting pictures. I think you're confusing geography with what your clients want. You shoot flattering pictures because the subject is your client. There's nothing wrong with that. When I shoot editorial work I am free to be as flattering or unflattering as I want because the subject isn't the one commissioning the work, the magazine is. Fine artists are free to explore whatever ideas they want in relation to portraiture because the "client" is their own vision. quote:The ratio of pivotal, ground breaking portraits taken at Olen Mills or Picture People is probably 1:1,000,000,000. You know it's easy to knock those places, but Arnold Newman worked at one and credits it with his ability to connect with a subject. Richard Avedon shot mugshot ID photos for the Merchant Marines.... against a white background. Anyways this is way more interesting of a discussion than talking about butterfly lighting or whatever.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2009 03:23 |
|
brad industry posted:I've heard some people who shoot landscapes claim their work is really portraiture because they make images that are about people even though they don't actually contain any. Really I think portraiture, kind of like photography, is a broad medium and I'm OK with people calling whatever they want a portrait if they can justify their position. Right, so my ratio was correct. You meantion Newman and Avedon and..... amongst how many people have worked at these places through the years? Thousands. Tens of thousands. It might be worth it just for the very fact you'd get a lot better at connecting with people. Treating it as an exercise.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2009 10:10 |
|
A friend of mine works in a photomat that does passport photos and he is collecting the ones he finds interesting for some purpose yet to be discovered. It's certainly a little unethical, and would be illegal to reproduce commercially (even though he is operating the camera it is work for hire as he is employed in a quite conventional way by the photo mat), but it sure is interesting to look through.
|
# ? Sep 16, 2009 22:15 |
|
Has he seen Amelie? edit: I'd like to see the finished work either way. psylent fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Sep 17, 2009 |
# ? Sep 17, 2009 03:46 |
|
psylent posted:Has he seen Amelie? Its similar i suppose, but its a bit more transgressive since they are taken and repurposed photos as opposed to found... edit: I imagine it's been done before, but the results I've been shown so far are pretty engaging. dunno fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Sep 17, 2009 |
# ? Sep 17, 2009 04:25 |
|
poopinmymouth posted:um, no? Photography can be an art form. You don't need to provide pleasure to your subject in any way. In fact some of my favorite portraits, the subject absolutely hates how I portrayed them. Re: also psylent and Brad Industry as well--- Yeah. Of course. But, in the end, and especially if you are wanting to make money off what you are doing, the client/subject is going to be the end-all-be-all of the shoot. The one with the money is the one who is calling the shots. For example -- I used to be art director for a small company in Japan. What was my immediate thought? Of course, I wanted to make everything easy and understandable for the end-consumer. *BUT*, who was paying my salary? In the end, I was simply following the CEOs orders. He had no idea about marketing, art direction, advertising or anything. BUT, he was the one writing the checks. *SO*, I totally understand art. If you want to make things intentionally ugly, that is totally cool. If you want to make BECK-style ironic photos in the way of "I'm a loser baby", and you have an audience that will pay money for it, that's totally cool. But, most of the time "personal vision" and "economically viable" are mutually exclusive. That's basically what I'm saying. To use an old example -- everybody likes "Friends". But people that know about TV and storytelling think it's poo poo. Okay, be edgy and forward-thinking -- great on you, but at the same time, you still have to eat.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2009 07:36 |
|
MrButterpants posted:Keeping your shutter speed at max flash sync (most likely 1/250 sec) to knock down the ambient....shooting at a 'normal' portrait f/ stop (8-16 depending on lighting) and subject distance from background are the most important things in turning a background black. Because of the inverse square rule with light, the subject distance to background yeilds the most effective results. Keep your flash to subject distance the same if you like the exposure and walk them both 10' from your backdrop....amazing difference...no more grey I love this place I'm picking up a couple of the books you mentioned too.
|
# ? Sep 17, 2009 08:03 |
|
psylent posted:Thanks a million. Just got back from my shoot, turned the lights off (there was still dull ambient light from the window), set my shutter to 1/250, f/stop to 8, set my background far back from the subject - everything came out exactly as I needed it to. Glad to help.
|
# ? Sep 19, 2009 12:09 |
|
plaguedoctor posted:*SO*, I totally understand art. If you want to make things intentionally ugly, that is totally cool. If you want to make BECK-style ironic photos in the way of "I'm a loser baby", and you have an audience that will pay money for it, that's totally cool. It has nothing to do with making ugly or ironic images. "Personal vision" is just another way of saying you have a consistent and unique perspective or aesthetic, whether that is nicely lit, typical, flattering portraits or something else. If you can't make a living doing the kind of work you want to do that seems more like your own failure to market your work to the right clients than the fact that you have a vision. Actually I can't even really tell what your point is, photographers who have no perspective are the ones who don't get hired, no one hires people who are all over the place. And this has nothing to do with the the fine art world which is different. plaguedoctor posted:To use an old example -- everybody likes "Friends". But people that know about TV and storytelling think it's poo poo. Okay, be edgy and forward-thinking -- great on you, but at the same time, you still have to eat. I don't like Friends, and I'm pretty sure shows like The Wire, Mad Men, or any of the other edgy and forward-thinking TV that's out there are still winning awards and getting good ratings. brad industry fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Sep 20, 2009 |
# ? Sep 20, 2009 01:46 |
|
brad industry posted:I don't like Friends, and I'm pretty sure shows like The Wire, Mad Men, or any of the other edgy and forward-thinking TV that's out there are still winning awards and getting good ratings. I haven't shot any portraits in a while but I'd like to get back into it; I went and looked at some old ones for motivation:
|
# ? Sep 25, 2009 02:36 |
|
I really like that second one. The others seem kind of contrived ie "duuude you're taking my picture!" but that second one I really really like. Here's some more people!
|
# ? Sep 25, 2009 04:04 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 09:32 |
|
Large Hardon Collider posted:Yeah and most successful photographers are unbelievably talented what's your point? I like the black eye one. It's almost like a satire of glamour or fashion photography.
|
# ? Sep 25, 2009 04:35 |