A Vivian Maier Self-Portrait

[Don_ih]

An interesting photo, because it's called a self-portrait:

But it's not the typical one. It's not in a mirror. If it's using a tripod, it's a strange setting for one. Also, it would be a miracle to get that kind of focus using a tripod to take a self-portrait up-close like that.

I don't see how it can be a self-portrait.

 

[koraks]

I don't see how it can be a self-portrait.

Me neither. I can easily see how it's mislabeled as such, though. Especially if it happened to have been found among her own film. Maybe someone used a camera of hers to take her portrait? Maybe someone took some snaps of her and handed her the roll of film? Who knows.

I find the dodging around the mouth somewhat unpleasant, btw.

 

[Kino]

Self timer, shot into a mirror and reoriented on the enlarger easel?

Still doesn't look like a self portrait for some vague reason.

 

[gordonrgw]

Rollei balanced on something and a cable release? Vivian playing around??

 

[Don_ih]

I find the dodging around the mouth somewhat unpleasant, btw.

So do I.

 

[Don_ih]

Self timer, shot into a mirror and reoriented on the enlarger easel?

Possible. I don't know that there are any photos of her with two cameras, though. She doesn't appear to be carrying a bag. Would she have two cameras dangling from her neck? She's out in public.

More likely someone else was with her. Could be one of the kids she looked after.

 

[loccdor]

You can do self portraits using a yardstick, ruler, or length of string that you put near your eye and remove when you take the picture. You don't necessarily need a tripod, sometimes a windowsill or the top of a wall can suffice.

It doesn't appear she's in perfect focus, if it's a self portrait she may have estimated focus.

I've gotten my eye in perfect focus using a ruler to the film plane and a 28mm lens with the camera resting on a window. The portrait didn't look that good because it was a wide angle, but the focusing worked.

 

[MattKing]

I wonder if @Carnie Bob saw the associated negative, or even printed it?
Self-portrait focusing also works if there is a prop in or near the frame, a self-timer, and the ability to place oneself the same distance away from the camera as the prop.
That is how I did this one:

 

[pentaxuser]

Must be my naivety but isn't the definition of a self portrait a portrait of oneself taken by oneself. Anything that involves another party taking it is a portrait not a self portrait, isn't it? So either she did it herself but we are curious about how she managed it or she didn't and someone has at the very least "stretched" the definition of self portrait

There appears to be enough evidence being supplied here to support it being a self portrait, isn't there?

pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

If it is a self portrait, it's not a very flattering picture, in terms of lighting, composition, perspective and angle. Also the strap of the Leica is all twisted.

 

[MattKing]

Must be my naivety but isn't the definition of a self portrait a portrait of oneself taken by oneself. Anything that involves another party taking it is a portrait not a self portrait, isn't it? So either she did it herself but we are curious about how she managed it or she didn't and someone has at the very least "stretched" the definition of self portrait

There appears to be enough evidence being supplied here to support it being a self portrait, isn't there?

pentaxuser

If it was taken at her direction, and on her own camera, I'm prepared to consider it a self-portrait.
Of course, using that definition, it means that our wedding pictures sort of include a bunch of self portraits, because our photographer friend borrowed my camera for the purpose .

 

[pentaxuser]

If it was taken at her direction, and on her own camera, I'm prepared to consider it a self-portrait.
Of course, using that definition, it means that our wedding pictures sort of include a bunch of self portraits, because our photographer friend borrowed my camera for the purpose .

I'l use that quote, Matt, when I am Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men as an example of why I have doubts on the initial 11 to 1 guilty verdict

pentaxuser

 

[jeffreyg]

I noticed that her eyes appear to be looking towards her right and slightly up if that’s of any significance. I would think if she had set up a camera to make a self portrait she would probably be looking at the camera. ???

 

[Citsmith]

Isnt her coat closure backwards for a woman? Perhaps it is taken by her Leica on self timer?

 

[MattKing]

Isnt her coat closure backwards for a woman? Perhaps it is taken by her Leica on self timer?

It wouldn't be at all surprising to learn that she wore a man's overcoat. That particular one isn't exactly highly tailored.
And I doubt this is a mirror image - considering some of the posters on this thread, I would suggest that the chance that no-one here has noticed a mirror image Leica rangefinder is pretty close to zero!

 

[Don_ih]

The Leica is oriented the correct way. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of the shot being in a mirror, since the negative could be flipped over to right the orientation of the Leica (and her coat).

I'm sure she was ashamed the strap of the Leica was twisted, @cliveh .

The Leica could not take the photo. The angle is wrong and there's no self-timer on the Leica.

She appears to be talking. That her eyes are not on the camera is less of an indication it's not a self-portrait than that is. But maybe she just had an awkward facial expression.

She didn't seem inclined to screw around with bits of string or rulers. She is in very good focus for someone who appears to be slightly moving (talking).

No idea what the negative is - so what the camera is. 35mm or medium format? no idea.

 

[MattKing]

What Don says, although if the negative was flipped, it would have flipped both the Leica and the coat - I think it is a man's coat.

 

[Don_ih]

What Don says, although if the negative was flipped, it would have flipped both the Leica and the coat - I think it is a man's coat.

She was known for wearing men's overcoats.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What Don says, although if the negative was flipped, it would have flipped both the Leica and the coat - I think it is a man's coat.

It wasn't flipped. She parts her hair on the right. (see another sample below) The fact that the picture is square points to her Rolliflex and cable released by her own hand out of the picture. If it was the Leica and the picture was cropped square, why leave that guy in on the left?

https://hyperallergic-newspack.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2013/12/59-1205.jpg

 

[MattKing]

It wasn't flipped.

The issue around "flipping" arises from the question of whether or not this was similar to many of her self portraits, where she photographed her own reflection on more than one occasion. This seems not to be like that.

 

[Don_ih]

It wasn't flipped. She parts her hair on the right.

If the photo had been taken in a mirror, her hair would be parted the other way. More importantly, the Leica would be laterally inverted. You can rectify that by flipping the negative over when you enlarge it.

The distance seems too close for a mirror, anyway.

 

[dpurdy]

Well she could have propped her camera up on a window sill or something and used the self timer and the print could be cropped, but the question I have is why would she choose that spot for a self portrait?

 

[Carnie Bob]

I wonder if @Carnie Bob saw the associated negative, or even printed it?
Self-portrait focusing also works if there is a prop in or near the frame, a self-timer, and the ability to place oneself the same distance away from the camera as the prop.
That is how I did this one:
View attachment 383141

The image in question is from the Maloof collection, I print from the Goldstein collection and have printed from the O'Conner collection

 

[Helios 1984]

Or, hear me out, she handed a camera to someone in the street and as

Possible. I don't know that there are any photos of her with two cameras, though. She doesn't appear to be carrying a bag. Would she have two cameras dangling from her neck? She's out in public.

More likely someone else was with her. Could be one of the kids she looked after.

I doubt she’d bring kids with her, she was very protective of her alone time. When she clocked out, she clocked out.

 

[Vaughn]

Perhaps someone talked her into letting them see and hold her camera and they accidentally clicked the shutter...and she loved the randomness of it all.

Every image by a photographer is a self-portrait in some sense!