Emma #2

Conventions tend to be crutches for the unimaginative. A portrait can be something that reflects the character of the subject, an exercise in deception (myth building, or destroying) and almost always a portrait is a reflection of the photographer's intent. There are countless examples of portraits that are large heads (JMC), and unflattering (Avedon, pitz). I like the fact that this and the other portrait are of a beautiful young lady in manner that does not mean to glorify her beauty. This is a better print, but the other, to my eye, is a better pose.

David:

Yes, to a point you are right, but perhaps the men's are closer to traditional portraits than the women's.

Will:

The dictionary definition is merely a verbal one. Actual portraits are something beyond merely a 'likeness'.

Nice work! I agree a little more space would a long way.

mrcallow:

I just cannot get myself to call them 'portraits'. They're interesting, in a way, but they're not true 'portraits' as such.

Conventions provide a framework for culture. They do serve a vitally important role. Certain types of photography allow remarkably little latitude, whereas others allow much more. Portraiture is one in which few really excel in 'stretching the boundaries'. On the other hand, I do see lots of dull, by-the-numbers portraits that show nothing about the person. The brutal truth is that it is exceedingly difficult to do portraiture that is dramatic and flattering. After all, portraits are intended to please the subject most of all.

Ornello you describe what you wish to see in a portrait, nothing more. Hurrell's works are as much product shots as they are portraits. If you'd like to open your horizons a bit check out M Ray, F. Pitz, L. Sterlow, Avedon or even I. Penn all produced portraits that had more substance than Hurrell. All of them (except to a degree Penn) dealt with the subject out side of the conventions you adhere to and few, if any, held as their intent the idea of pleasing the subject.

mrcallow:

The point of 'portrait' work is different, indeed, from other branches of photography. I simply think that these images are not 'portraits' in the classic sense. They do not strike me as exceptional in any other genre, either. They are basically just (technically) high-quality head shots with the light coming from in front. Since these were posted for critique, it seems that most useful thing to do is to critique them honestly. Simply getting good exposure and good focus do not constitute a good 'portrait'.

The point of including Hurrell's portraits was to show the poster what kind of lighting a real 'artist' uses, how complex it can be. The light sculpts and delineates planes and facial structures. A single umbrella cannot do such things. I hate soft-box or umbrella light for B&W, for the reasons that these images show, and Avedon's also show. I don't care at all for Avedon's work, quite frankly. It's too primitivistic. It looks like he was doing some color with umbrellas and then just was too lazy to light his subjects any differently for B&W, which quite frankly really needs to be done. You don't shoot B&W with color lighting. They are different, completely different, and require vastly different approaches. Those who grew up shooting soft-box colour never really learned B&W the way the old-timers like Hurrell, Bull, et al, did.

http://www.aprille.org/greta/bull.html

The Hurrell images all use strongly directional light (even the softish light is directional) and the angles from which the light is directed are artfully chosen to bring out what he thought was important for the subject, male or female. I think his male portraits were superior.

Ornello: your lame attempts to prove that your opinion is correct, shows a lot of inconsideration to the person who posted this image. His reason, I presume, is to get feedback on his image, not start a battle. Common courtesy should rule.

roteague:

I'm not 'blasting' the image, but trying to help, by showing how the masters of B&W portraiture did it. Simply plopping someone down in front of the camera and shoving a soft box at them does not really constitute 'portraiture'. There's much, much more to it than that. No-one learns by being catered to...or patronized.

I'm from the 'old school', where you learn from others' honest evaluation..

I should just shut up and we all should look at the beautiful images that Hurrell and Bull did, for inspiration and enlightenment. Nothing I could say (positive or negative) would help as much as that.

Perhaps with one light...

http://www.aprille.org/greta/images/bull/bull17a.jpg

Well Ornello, you finally said something I can agree with...