|
Reichstag posted:Meaning does not need to be narrative, though I would caution against using "meaning" at all. Subject as actor is only one way to create a portrait with intention. I was really crossing my fingers that you would jump in on this. It sounds like we agree on the surface, but I'd like to hear you expand on these ideas. If you want to.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
The cinematographic route is one available avenue in representation. It comes from a very specific history, well illustrated by both McMadCow and XTimmy's backgrounds. They are looking at the portrait as a very specific type of graphic representation, in which the reader is encouraged to engage with the photograph as representative of a large scene constituted by a narrative framework, situated within a contrived (even when read as natural) world. This sort of graphic representation perhaps reached its peak in the decades surrounding photography's origins, when all people of even some education were expected to be able to piece together the narrative within a painting, etching, or photograph and construct the depicted circumstance. Coupled with the mirror-like depictive capability of photography, this soon reached a creative endpoint in the tableau-vivant, elaborately staged photographic scenes, essentially created as a play in one image. This tradition has of course many other influences and precedents, as major portions of traditional arts across cultures have had a similar function, depicting specific narratives. Other possibilities include using the person as a purely aesthetic object, documentary distancing, tool to call attention to the medium (breaking the 4th wall, as it were), object for biological analysis, or just about anything. I think many photographers are entirely invested in the idea of photograph as transparent reality (this includes highly stylized or processed photos). This is the common depictive trap wherein we read a photograph not as an object but as a window into an artificial reality, a suspension of disbelief made possible because of the fidelity of presentation (again, not clear pixels or anything, but the accuracy of depiction of form). While this effect is useful and indeed magical, it should never be assumed to be the only, or primary, use of the photographic image. A larger issue appearing in the recent discussion is an assumption of the centrality of authorial intent, which, again, should be something you approach with rigorous skepticism. Any image, book, piece of music, will be interpreted. Absolutely nothing of your internal construction is in the object. "The point is that you can’t get at the thing itself, the real nature of the sitter, by stripping away the surface. The surface is all you’ve got. You can only get beyond the surface by working with the surface." - Richard Avedon This is to say, there is only the graphic trace of your image, none of what you created it is magically transmitted, though how you shape the object allows you to suggest certain interpretations given shared cultural horizons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Thank you for articulating all of that so well.Reichstag posted:Other possibilities include using the person as a purely aesthetic object This is a good summation of what I was intending. Nice to know some people think it's a legitimate aim in a portrait. From this perspective, do you think I succeeded with those two portraits, or were they lacking too much compositionally to justify the intent? Reichstag posted:A larger issue appearing in the recent discussion is an assumption of the centrality of authorial intent This comes up a lot in music school. Some people find it very difficult to listen to Wagner knowing he was inspired by antisemitism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:From this perspective, do you think I succeeded with those two portraits, or were they lacking too much compositionally to justify the intent? No. The techniques you used were geared toward diegetic depiction. The poses are front-loaded as unnatural "I am posing" poses, because of their naturalistic placement in the world and lighting they aren't read in a detached aesthetic fashion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:No. The techniques you used were geared toward diegetic depiction. The poses are front-loaded as unnatural "I am posing" poses, because of their naturalistic placement in the world and lighting they aren't read in a detached aesthetic fashion. Ok so in English, "too narrative to be A but not narrative enough to be B?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
The word diegetic was apt here. When applied to movies or books, that term means that the author is "telling and explaining" rather than "showing" and allowing the reader/viewer make their own connections. Same principles can be expressed in photography.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Ok so in English, "too narrative to be A but not narrative enough to be B?" More like completely divergent in intent and style.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:More like completely divergent in intent and style. Do you mind posting pictures of your own that have the same intent but actually do it well?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Do you mind posting pictures of your own that have the same intent but actually do it well? Here's a little picture I took of an environmental portrait. As you can see the image is about the landscape but I have added a person in it for a better feel 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
I really don't do it that often, but a place you will often find it is in fashion photography where the model is often specifically a lack of character, arrayed in strong colors intentionally to create certain shapes not to the end of conveying character or act, but abstract shape. The depiction of form, not essence. Some examples of person-in-service-of-form, not essense, in fashion:      Often Lukasz Wierzbowski's pictures are in this vein. This isn't to suggest it's all in line with the problematic world of gender-roles in fashion, but it is probably the easiest area to illustrate it. This leads to perhaps a need to define portraiture out from depiction of/involving people but instead toward an images that attempt to represent/communicate character/presence, which would still exclude photos where the narrative focus is larger than the person(s) displayed's primacy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Here's a little picture I took of an environmental portrait. As you can see the image is about the landscape but I have added a person in it for a better feel This is at least 8 arts right here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Here's a little picture I took of an environmental portrait. As you can see the image is about the landscape but I have added a person in it for a better feel Were you really not comprehending the discussion or are you just being funny? If the latter, then yes that is pretty funny. If you're sincerely trying to denounce an entire aesthetic, you're going to have to put more effort into it than that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Here's a little picture I took of an environmental portrait. As you can see the image is about the landscape but I have added a person in it for a better feel I think ive seen this image on insurance websites or AARP membership flyers. good work, voted 5 flickr gifs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Here's a little picture I took of an environmental portrait. As you can see the image is about the landscape I think it's about two old giants living out their remaining years together.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:20
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:I think it's about two old giants living out their remaining years together. No you're wrong, the picture isn't about how it looks, it's about how it's supposed to look.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Were you really not comprehending the discussion or are you just being funny? If the latter, then yes that is pretty funny. If you're sincerely trying to denounce an entire aesthetic, you're going to have to put more effort into it than that. That example literally says everything I said better tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:Were you really not comprehending the discussion or are you just being funny? If the latter, then yes that is pretty funny. If you're sincerely trying to denounce an entire aesthetic, you're going to have to put more effort into it than that. Huh. LargeHadron posted:It's nice that you took the time to write all that. Excepting the awkward one of her on the stairs, I was consciously trying to achieve a very minimal type of portrait in which the subject is there just a part of the composition (and something more interesting to look at than a log or whatever else it could have been).  016_a by Large Hadron, on Flickr There's no "minimal" look to this at all. You have a person directly framed in the center of your composition and you're trying to say the subject is just part of it - no. The subject *is* your composition. If you want to create something where the subject is merely a component of the entire composition, you can't just cut out a portrait, place it on a background, and call it a day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
No dude, he wants you to look at the shoes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:That example literally says everything I said better tbh. So the pic was meant as a parody of my pictures. I took it as a parody of the idea that a person can be used "as a purely aesthetic object." I've already admitted the pics failed, but I can see the diplomacy of the discussion has ended. I'll back out here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
LargeHadron posted:So the pic was meant as a parody of my pictures. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
dukeku posted:Huh. I really hate calling you out dukeku, but you can clearly tell the main subject of that photo are the shoes. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
whereismyshoe posted:trying to up my portrait chops - please tell me if anything is terribly horrible. This with the 5DII I sent ya?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 22:40
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
I can barely comprehend what the gently caress anyone is talking about in the last page or so. It looks like an intelligent and insightful discussion, I just don't understand any of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:I can barely comprehend what the gently caress anyone is talking about in the last page or so. It looks like an intelligent and insightful discussion, I just don't understand any of it. Look at this guy who doesn't get art. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
Yeah, that's not something I don't already know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
dukeku posted:
If this were a candid or street photo, and if it were in color, I would love it. In fact, I'm just going to tell myself that it is. I'll just tell myself I've gone colorblind. If it were both of those things, it would remind me of a photographer whose name I can't remember. What an ultra informative post this was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:This with the 5DII I sent ya? of course. Hopefully i'm doing it justice, at least a little also, didn't want to clog up this thread with HELP ME posts but i did another shoot the other day - i think it's improved over the previous. She designs and makes her own clothes and wanted me to shoot a fashion portfolio for her. i've never shot someone with the intent of showing what they're wearing (which is why a few of the shots are, admittedly, boring) rather than who they were, so it was interesting. here's the rest of the set.   really hate that i cut the feet off that one, but i couldn't get up any higher than i already was and didn't want to sacrifice headroom whereismyshoe fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jun 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:If this were a candid or street photo, and if it were in color, I would love it. In fact, I'm just going to tell myself that it is. I'll just tell myself I've gone colorblind. Heyo all the above posts were a troll. It IS a candid or a street photo!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
I understand that she is a bigger girl but when you are shooting at that angle in the first, you should go higher or lower. That current angle makes her look humongous with bad posture. Make up/hair looks great here though! The second is not bad. I kind of like the one in red in front of the foliage in the set, just wish you shot that lower. I would recommend removing the photos of her in the waffle-cotton-dress thingy, that thing is... like... terribly unflattering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
I've done a lot of studio stuff, but I don't really do a lot of headshots. I kind of find them boring to be honest. I know that's dumb to say (then honestly, why do them right?) but I do enjoy the challenge. I did my best but it just feels.....flat to me. He's my cousin, he doesn't have any experience in front of a camera. I tried to loosen him up but I could tell he was uncomfortable in front of the camera. Do you have any advice or suggestions? Here's the shot. david by francography, on Flickr I had him lean forward a bit and turn his body so he wasn't so stiff. Anyway, would really like some thoughts, we're going to retake them soon (he doesnt like his long hair, and he wants to redo them when he gets a haircut) Also, I really enjoyed the discussion in the last page or so. Mad McCow is really great at posing his models, so I know it's not just bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
Fun session with a friend, trying some various things.  IMG_1740 by David Childers Photography, on Flickr  laney 2 s by David Childers Photography, on Flickr  IMG_1943 by David Childers Photography, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 08:10
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Fun session with a friend, trying some various things. The first two are really really good so I'm going to focus on tearing them to bits. The first one has the posing and lighting down to a tee. Perhaps it is personal preference but I feel it could have been heightened with a more distant, centred composition. Employing a little of that form over essence Reichstag was speaking of. However you would have perhaps lost the sense of intimacy and the audience's involvement in the piece. Someone will bring up the ankle crop, frankly I only noticed because I'm looking for it. The second only falls down slightly on her face and her posing. She looks disinterested and not in a positive or engaging fashion. Her face says nothing and because of that I feel nothing. Again, theatre/film background vomiting here but try and set an overall tone for your shoots and ensure that it carries through. On a technical note: Is that just a bare flashbulb you're using? Also how in the world did you avoid motion blur in the first shot at 1/50th shutter? I understand the light fires much faster than that but I'm not seeing any ghosting. reichstag posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
Life got crazy and I had to slow down and focus on my day job, but I've got a new camera and new motivation. So I'm starting to shoot more lately and try to get back into a mojo. Ericka-1-2 by zachary.spradlin, on Flickr  Ericka-1 by zachary.spradlin, on Flickr While they were kind of practice shots, I like them and I'd like to hear some criticisms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I've done a lot of studio stuff, but I don't really do a lot of headshots. I kind of find them boring to be honest. I'm not a headshot expert by any means, but I'll offer my two cents. The image might feel flat because the lighting is very even on both sides. I don't really see any shadows. I don't know if that's what you were going for, but your main and fill seem to be on equal power. The light also seems very soft, which is perhaps more appropriate for a female. I've always read that it's okay to use harsher light for males to define their face a little more. I wouldn't go bare flash bulb, but perhaps a smaller relative light source. At least in this particular shot, he doesn't seem that uncomfortable to me. His expression seems okay. His head does seem very large; that could be because of the way he's leaning into the shot. I think turning the shoulders is a good idea and pretty standard, but I'd have his back straight. These are all fairly minor things. The exposure looks perfect. I think you're pretty close. Hope some of that was useful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:I'm not a headshot expert by any means, but I'll offer my two cents. The image might feel flat because the lighting is very even on both sides. I don't really see any shadows. I don't know if that's what you were going for, but your main and fill seem to be on equal power. The light also seems very soft, which is perhaps more appropriate for a female. I've always read that it's okay to use harsher light for males to define their face a little more. I wouldn't go bare flash bulb, but perhaps a smaller relative light source. Yup, very! Thanks so much. Haha, yeah I work mostly with females and I'm so used to soft lighting I didn't think of doing it any other way. Whoops. I didn't really intend for it to be so even, but headshots are all about the eyes, and I wanted as much light in them as possible so I had a light on each side. Is there any other way to bring light into their eyes without shooting an actual strobe into them? Kinda stumped there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Also, I really enjoyed the discussion in the last page or so. I did too, and I'm glad it remained reasonably civil. After talking to Reichstag in irc, I did want to clarify something. I didn't want to give the impression that I think all portraits need to be narrarative. I also have no problem with people as aesthetic subjects in portraiture, as I love fashion photography, and Reichstag provided some great examples. The only thing I was taking issue with in LargeHadron's shots as unsuccessful was the placement of the model as an object with no intended effect on the picture. And I still maintain that if something isn't supposed to effect a picture, there's no reason to include it. Hopefully that explains things a little better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:And I still maintain that if something isn't supposed to effect a picture, there's no reason to include it. Basic tenet of minimalism that ought to be applied to everything. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I've done a lot of studio stuff, but I don't really do a lot of headshots. I kind of find them boring to be honest. I know that's dumb to say (then honestly, why do them right?) but I do enjoy the challenge. I did my best but it just feels.....flat to me. He's my cousin, he doesn't have any experience in front of a camera. I tried to loosen him up but I could tell he was uncomfortable in front of the camera. Do you have any advice or suggestions? Here's the shot. This guy makes it look fun and easy. What a jerk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpKsuP0NlzI
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
I took a photo of a baby. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:08 |
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:This guy makes it look fun and easy. What a jerk. He has access to around $10 000k worth of Kinos, so frankly he should spend everyday with a smile a mile wide plastered to his face.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2012 01:44
|
|