|
psylent posted:How did you get the perfectly black background here? Look at the original it's not as perfect as you think (also it's probably a piece of cloth)
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2009 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
jackpot posted:Thanks, I think your snapshots are really cute too! You make jokes but I feel like a big pharmaceutical logo for a drug that solves some vaguely described problem would be right at home on any of those other portraits
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2009 04:26
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:Reich normally I can get behind your stuff, I'm not crazy about your style but I can see thought behind most of your images, I can see talent, I like dull colours, depressing hues and crushing tones... But I really dislike that image. His face is oddly coloured, perhaps it's my monitor but he has a slight magenta tint that just looks odd. The depth of field isn't picking sides, does it WANT to be shallow and simply reveal an eye or does it want to cover his face? At the moment it just looks as if you took it at the wrong stop or didn't carry the one when measuring DOF. That and the focus appears to be on his cheek bone. You've avoided blow-outs on his skin (barely) which is great but otherwise the lighting looks like it's trying to do the hipster dead on angle thing but comes out looking just flat, blah. I know you like destroying the rules of composition but in this case his centre position in frame just gives him no space to look into and, like the lighting, rather than achieving a deliberate-messy affect it just looks uninspired. If you ask me, based on your critiques, this is probably one of Reichstag's most successful images.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
I guess the word "seem" is pretty operative in that sentence. When you spend years learning how to take photographs by yourself you learn much more than just how to take pictures that other people like to look at. You develop a personal sense of aesthetic, you learn to understand the form and its limits, why things happen the way do and how you can manipulate things to create the image that you want. Moreover you learn from what you see and you get a sense of what people are doing and what they have done so that you can draw your own photography from that collective experience. I find that people who "get traction within weeks" generally just get that by being fed a set of rules and tutorial instructions from blogs, forums, and flickr and all they really learn is how to create one image and, because they have no personal aesthetic, they are always unsure of the "quality" of that image. It isn't impossible to develop these things after the fact but I feel that it is much easier to learn later on and that there is a generally more even ground to ones photography if they develop first by taking photos of what they want purely for the fun with no regard for what is correct or right and over time developing their personal image organically. I wouldn't say necessarily that one way is right and the other is wrong but my two cents generally amounts to having knowledge before trying to impress people by being smart.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:I like the look of this one... ....does that sound right? No.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2010 01:57
|
|
|
He looks like he just graduated from Hogwarts
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2010 22:46
|
|
|
That seems a bit narrow, I can think of a handful of photos where the main focus is anything but the face (some that don't even feature a face at all) that I would consider portraiture. I think a better definition might be somewhere along the lines of a work depicting a living (or perhaps dead) form where that work is expressive of the subject within the work and perhaps their environment. I think an image that uses a generic character or actor to express an idea then that is not necessarily a portrait unless the specific identity of that character is somehow manifested in the work. For example here's a couple photos by Jeff Wall  I would say that neither of these images are portraits because they are not so much about the people in them so much as the ideas they represent. Who the people are supposed to be is obvious, what's really under discussion in the image is the cultural ramifications of those characters. Incidentally, these photos are recreations and not candid though that has little to do with the point I'm making. Here's a couple photo by Avedon that don't feature a face at all:   I think that these are portraits. Though the identity of the people under the clothes is irrelevant the images are study of form and movement that is specific to the human subject and their dress. So despite being anonymous the focus of the photos is one specific form. The images are uncomplicated by a real environment which makes them very powerful as a study but even if the subjects where placed on a street corner or in the woods or wherever they would still likely function as a portrait but with much more complex environmental interactions. Also be careful about breaking down ideas into discreet categories a fashion, editorial, or documentary photograph are often portraiture as well and it's common that there is blurring of the lines between each category.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2010 00:46
|
|
|
maybe its a who gives a poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Bang3r posted:Figured this is close enough to a portrait! that's good
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Ansel here notwithstanding, this is an extremely good point. This shoot in particular was more pointless than normal even for me; I just found a model in the area I was visiting family in because I wanted to shoot. I didn't have any concept or ideas behind it, I just wanted to shoot. I figured I'd just call it practice. hey man dont let these dweebs get u down. id say u should take a gander at your favourite photos and try to figure out what you like about them and then try to use those elements in ur work. heck even just trying to replicate your favourite pictures is a great way to grow an innate aesthetic sense and connect that to the physicality of photography good luck goon
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
noticed the clock was a little askew and did my best to fix it
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
I think in photography or any visual medium a good start is to try and make something beautiful. Everyone has a different idea about what that is and I think that by following your own notions of beauty you will eventually end up somewhere unique. Sometimes you might think you are tired of making beautiful things and want to do something different from that. If you are having that kind of thought then I would suggest you follow that notion instead as it is likely to lead you exciting places. Of course there is no escaping influence in art but our aesthetic sensibilities are constructed from an assemblage of our influences. If you study photography and other art or intellectual material and do so widely what sticks with you will inform your photographic style. If you have diverse influences I believe you are more likely to produce something personal and unique in your practice. I think the second portrait is better as others have said. The geometric simplicity lends itself better to the appearance and manner of dress of your subject. The first feels full of tension and is messy and unfocused but for what purpose ?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2020 09:32
|
|
|
im just saying if you want to have "ideas" about photography a good start is by thinking about it
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
Don't limit yourself to photography as inspiration especially if we're talking fantasy look at paintings and illustration. I think the shot of the model touching the water features a lovely classical pose that shows wonderful expressiveness and form. The scene is simple and made up of strong elements. You get a genuine sense of connection to the environment and it's playful and much more natural. The reflection of the leg and ripples in the water are cool. Technically it's still sloppy. It needs better lighting and a better crop, probably a lower angle, but it gets much closer to evoking something other than awkwardness than the rest in the series. If you are struggling with managing things on site you need a more thorough plan. Especially when working with a model you aren't familiar with and especially for nudes. Find some locations that are visually arresting beforehand. Think about how your model can use the expressiveness of their body to play in that form and make that connection. It's a cliche but if you must, tell a story.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
In addition to the lightning I think you've run into the same basic problem with these as you did in the forest. It doesn't seem like you have a good grasp of how to make use of the environment. In all of these there's stuff around (plants windows grass etc) but they don't work either in terms of composition or theme. You need to get rid of the setting or use it better because it looks messy and pointless. A random assortment of objects including an awkwardly posed woman
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2022 13:08
|
|