|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Munkaboo posted:How might one go about focusing both the background and the person? Small apertures and more distance from the subject...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2009 00:41
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I'll be using a crazy large aperture more than I'll be taking pictures of bugs. That would be ideal, frankly I prefer photos taken in dimly lit circumstances, low depth of field portraiture and natural vignetting over flower and insect close-ups.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2009 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
pwn posted:It was more difficult than I anticipated to previsualize what I wanted in the end. I've started taking notes, and hopefully next time I shoot a new person I can at least meet them once before the shoot. Is that reasonable to expect out of editorial stuff like this, or is it always going to be this way? If you're shooting for a paper you shouldn't expect much more. If you want to do more ambitious shoots with musicians, you should be doing their press photos before an album release or tour or be shooting for a magazine/more photo-centric publication with a budget and facilities for that sort of thing (and a potential for exposure that is worth the subject's time). edit: Also, please avoid "dude/dudes in an alley against a brick wall" for music press photos, it's a really over-used trope... dunno fucked around with this message at 11:00 on Nov 19, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2009 10:50
|
|
