Deadpan

Shawn Dougherty · Aug 7, 2015

It's an interesting question, one I've wondered about myself. Sometimes 'deadpan' in a more environmental portrait or when engaged with another person can be interesting but I rarely find them appealing otherwise.

Celebrities, especially actors, with whom we are familiar can occasionally be interesting to me in the deadpan style. I've always assumed it was because I've grown accustomed to seeing them acting a certain way or ways and the deadpan affords an opportunity to assess them more naturally. Even these exceptions are rare for me, however.

DREW WILEY · Aug 7, 2015

It's become a cliche. And I find those blank backgrounds, esp white, to be distracting. I know.. Avedon did something creative with his cookie
cutter people silhouetted against blank white, all Tri-X gritty in front. That was half a century ago. Stuck record. If someone is trying to be
artsy, try something actually new, please!!! I'm so damn sick of white backgrounds and filed negative borders.

dpurdy · Aug 7, 2015

I don't think neutral faces have anything to do with being dead or blank or being non expressive. I also think they have nothing to do with white backgrounds and high contrast. To hate composed neutral faces because some people have put them on a white background is a bit up the wrong tree.

blansky · Aug 7, 2015

Just to clarify, I find there is also a great deal of room between deadpan, and a toothy smile.

All the other expressions I mentioned in the OP don't equal deadpan. Deadpan is when you are essentially expressionless.

There are a myriad of expressions, which don't include "smiling" with teeth showing.

The examples I provided, in almost all cases I'd argue they are in fact deadpan.

Perhaps an equivalent word would be unengaged.

pentaxuser · Aug 7, 2015

Frankly what I see in several portraits is made up of a lifetime of experiences of seeing or thinking I saw those expressions in a myriad of situations.

Like the rest of the human species I am conditioned by a lifetime of experiences which may be similar enough to others' experiences such that we have a modicum of agreement on various "obvious" expressions, extreme anger, joy or sadness, but there will always be expressions that one presenter describes as "deadpan" which another person will see as indicating something which isn't neutral or unengaged.

pentaxuser

MattKing · Aug 7, 2015

This thread makes me think of Disfarmer.

rbultman · Aug 8, 2015

blansky said:
So my question is, why do people look at a particular deadpan picture, rather emotionless and neutral and add their own narrative to it.

I almost always add a narrative to any picture period, even ones without people in them, except for abstracts.

As for the deadpan images here, I don't think they all equal emotionless. Getting a truly emotionless image is probably very difficult, like trying to balance a top that is not spinning. Of the ones that have been posted in this thread, the one of Kate Winslet (?) is the most neutral to me. The one of Jeff Bridges (?) looks angry to me. Others look bored or annoyed.

For me, the portraits by Arnold Newman (http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/arnold-newmans-incredible) are great examples of "low emotion" portraiture. Granted they mostly contain environmental elements and are more interesting to me because of that. In that sense they are also completely different from the DMV-style photos although they are largely expressionless none the less.

I'm not sure it is possible to be entirely expressionless, except in "final repose." Attempts to look expressionless come off as bored, slightly angry, or deer-in-the-headlights, none of which are terribly interesting to me.

As for selfies (as opposed to clear self portraits) I think you have two kinds. The first is the "look how much fun I'm having ain't my life great" face book selfie. The second is this kind of pained "I'm operating the camera and trying to make this portrait" kind of thing. Here is a bad example of the latter. It's pretty expressionless, and pretty bad. https://flic.kr/p/p9X4fG.

Regards,
Rob

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

blansky · Aug 8, 2015

pentaxuser said:
Like the rest of the human species I am conditioned by a lifetime of experiences which may be similar enough to others' experiences such that we have a modicum of agreement on various "obvious" expressions, extreme anger, joy or sadness, but there will always be expressions that one presenter describes as "deadpan" which another person will see as indicating something which isn't neutral or unengaged.

pentaxuser

An interesting point. When I was a kid and walking around grumpy, my mother would say "it'll stay that way", meaning my face.

And in reality the muscles in our faces can/do form in accordance with our life experience to some extent. But on the other hand, as we age our faces also form from wrinkles and sagging which can give the look of a difficult life when in fact we maybe be happy go lucky people. And when we engage, our faces light up as compared to someone who indeed did have a hard life and whose faces never seems to light up.

So while you look at a certain picture of a face we may be adding things that we may perceive but in reality aren't there, such as sadness or despair and are only showing up because of aging skin.

When I was photographing models, years ago, you'd find that models mouths never go down on the corners, like some people's do. And the really great ones rarely squint when they smile. They're eyes stay large no matter how large their smile is. Peoples facial muscles are different and we can be fooled by perception of what we are accustomed to reading in them.

But the bottom line is, in my opinion, is that when reading faces, it's all in the eyes. They are the real indicator of what is going on. Not the eye itself but how the muscles around them are activated. And when photographing them, the type of lighting equipment we use can have an effect by how the catchlights interact with our perception.

Most of my commercial photography is done, like I mentioned in the OP by slightly popping the corners of the mouth up. Very slightly. Because it lifts the corners AND causes a very minor squint which can be interpreted as laughing eyes. Not the insipid Mona Lisa grin, but just a slight lift. I teach kids as young as 3 years old to do it.

cliveh · Aug 10, 2015

blansky said:
An interesting point. When I was a kid and walking around grumpy, my mother would say "it'll stay that way", meaning my face.

And in reality the muscles in our faces can/do form in accordance with our life experience to some extent. But on the other hand, as we age our faces also form from wrinkles and sagging which can give the look of a difficult life when in fact we maybe be happy go lucky people. And when we engage, our faces light up as compared to someone who indeed did have a hard life and whose faces never seems to light up.

So while you look at a certain picture of a face we may be adding things that we may perceive but in reality aren't there, such as sadness or despair and are only showing up because of aging skin.

When I was photographing models, years ago, you'd find that models mouths never go down on the corners, like some people's do. And the really great ones rarely squint when they smile. They're eyes stay large no matter how large their smile is. Peoples facial muscles are different and we can be fooled by perception of what we are accustomed to reading in them.

But the bottom line is, in my opinion, is that when reading faces, it's all in the eyes. They are the real indicator of what is going on. Not the eye itself but how the muscles around them are activated. And when photographing them, the type of lighting equipment we use can have an effect by how the catchlights interact with our perception.

Most of my commercial photography is done, like I mentioned in the OP by slightly popping the corners of the mouth up. Very slightly. Because it lifts the corners AND causes a very minor squint which can be interpreted as laughing eyes. Not the insipid Mona Lisa grin, but just a slight lift. I teach kids as young as 3 years old to do it.

But that is an instruction for a specific pose. Where is the natural look of the subject?

Sirius Glass · Aug 10, 2015

blansky said:
An interesting point. When I was a kid and walking around grumpy, my mother would say "it'll stay that way", meaning my face.

And in reality the muscles in our faces can/do form in accordance with our life experience to some extent. But on the other hand, as we age our faces also form from wrinkles and sagging which can give the look of a difficult life when in fact we maybe be happy go lucky people. And when we engage, our faces light up as compared to someone who indeed did have a hard life and whose faces never seems to light up.

So while you look at a certain picture of a face we may be adding things that we may perceive but in reality aren't there, such as sadness or despair and are only showing up because of aging skin.

When I was photographing models, years ago, you'd find that models mouths never go down on the corners, like some people's do. And the really great ones rarely squint when they smile. They're eyes stay large no matter how large their smile is. Peoples facial muscles are different and we can be fooled by perception of what we are accustomed to reading in them.

But the bottom line is, in my opinion, is that when reading faces, it's all in the eyes. They are the real indicator of what is going on. Not the eye itself but how the muscles around them are activated. And when photographing them, the type of lighting equipment we use can have an effect by how the catchlights interact with our perception.

Most of my commercial photography is done, like I mentioned in the OP by slightly popping the corners of the mouth up. Very slightly. Because it lifts the corners AND causes a very minor squint which can be interpreted as laughing eyes. Not the insipid Mona Lisa grin, but just a slight lift. I teach kids as young as 3 years old to do it.

Sirius Glass · Aug 10, 2015

blansky · Aug 10, 2015

cliveh said:
But that is an instruction for a specific pose. Where is the natural look of the subject?

There is no "natural look" for anyone.

Our moods, expressions, feelings and or attitudes change by the second, or millisecond.

No picture captures us. You as a viewer may say that such and such a look captures someone, but it doesn't.

You're merely projecting.

In my case I get their " natural look" when I'm talking to them and interacting with them, and during that time I'm photographing them. But I also do what I described in the previous post as well, because that is my money shot. In any session there will be 20 or more pictures to choose from out of perhaps 60 taken.

removed account4 · Aug 10, 2015

MattKing said:
This thread makes me think of Disfarmer.

sure does !

and he was NOT a farmer

http://www.disfarmer.com

cliveh · Aug 11, 2015

blansky said:
There is no "natural look" for anyone.

Our moods, expressions, feelings and or attitudes change by the second, or millisecond.

No picture captures us. You as a viewer may say that such and such a look captures someone, but it doesn't.

You're merely projecting.

In my case I get their " natural look" when I'm talking to them and interacting with them, and during that time I'm photographing them. But I also do what I described in the previous post as well, because that is my money shot. In any session there will be 20 or more pictures to choose from out of perhaps 60 taken.

But if you are slightly popping the corners of their mouths up, the image is contrived. Regardless of whether you are asking them to do this or by using the software of something like Portrait Professional (which would probably be an easier way of doing it).

blansky · Aug 12, 2015

cliveh said:
But if you are slightly popping the corners of their mouths up, the image is contrived. Regardless of whether you are asking them to do this or by using the software of something like Portrait Professional (which would probably be an easier way of doing it).

Nice try.

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 12, 2015

blansky said:
There is no "natural look" for anyone.

How is it then that we are able to recognize a familiar face in a crowd of strangers?

Ken

blansky · Aug 12, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
How is it then that we are able to recognize a familiar face in a crowd of strangers?

Ken

Like dogs, we have a wonderful sense of smell.

MattKing · Aug 12, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
How is it then that we are able to recognize a familiar face in a crowd of strangers?

Ken

Because they always have the same look of dismay when they see us?

Ken Nadvornick · Aug 12, 2015

MattKing said:
Because they always have the same look of dismay when they see us?

But we digress...

If a tree is photographed using a tripod while that tree is perfectly still, then a strong wind blows through, then after the wind subsides completely the tree is immediately re-photographed as a multiple exposure on the same frame, the two images will be in perfect registration on the negative.

This is because all of the leaves on the tree have, in the absence of any external force such as wind, already attained a minimum energy state of orientation. Every branch and every leaf has individually and spontaneously arranged itself into a natural state of repose whereby its resting position is determined solely by the perfect balancing of its own internal forces.

This state is not contrived artificially by the photographer subtly twisting and turning the leaves in an attempt to make them look natural. It is reached by simply allowing the leaves to naturally arrange themselves according to their own internal behaviors and attributes.

It occurs to me that if a natural look is desired, it may be best to simply allow that look to happen naturally?

(See my current signature line below...)

Ken

Nodda Duma · Aug 13, 2015

Interesting discussion. blansky you ever play a serious game of poker? There's a lot going on in a poker face.

I can't speak to deadpan as an artistic expression, but I am familiar with the look. deadpan is pretty common in the poor parts of the country like where I grew up because life is hard there. Harder than you'd think. With a hard life comes a hard look. You see that look in the time someone there takes to size you up. They need that time to decide if they can let you into their life without harm.

Johnny Cash had that look. He understood that type of life and celebrated it in song.

Clint Eastwood and John Wayne could do it to....acting out the looks of hard living. They're actors, but they had a lot of fans out in the country. They reflected each other, those folks who can relate to those personalities, and the actors who know what those folks understand.

But once you're checked out, the hard look is replaced with warmth as you are let into their honest simple lives.

So I suppose there's honest deadpan -- earned the hard way -- and a blank expression. I think the former more interesting.

removed account4 · Aug 13, 2015

cliveh said:
But if you are slightly popping the corners of their mouths up, the image is contrived. Regardless of whether you are asking them to do this or by using the software of something like Portrait Professional (which would probably be an easier way of doing it).

hi clive

isn't every photograph contrived whether it is a still life, or a portrait or an architectural image ?
the photographer is the director, s/he arranges things photographs from a certain perspective presses the button at the right time.
whether it is having an actor/performer look a certain way for the portrait ... or getting a kid
or a 80 year old to look a certain way its all direction and all contrived. and in the end its the photograph that matters, not the
telling silly jokes to get laugh lines and crows feet, or pulling the cigar out, or telling a kid to look like someone stole his lollipop
or having someone close their eyes as you arrange the composition ( so they can relax ) have them open them again to make sure their eyes are in focus,
have the reflector uncoil and smack you in the face so your goofyness makes a tough sitter smile (barely) so you can take their portrait ...
its all an act and both the photographer and the sitter are involved with it. i think avedon said it was a dance ... either way, same thing.

jeffreyg · Aug 13, 2015

An interesting discussion. I have the Avedon book that picture number 3 is in and wondered if it was the big city, high profile famous fashion photographer taking a break from the glitz and documenting his vision of people far removed from his world.

Just for fun (I know this should be in DPUG) but not long ago I was looking through some family photos and ran across a picture of one of my
granddaughters and noticed a strikingly familiar expression. With some digital magic ---

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

cliveh · Aug 13, 2015

jnanian said:
isn't every photograph contrived whether it is a still life, or a portrait or an architectural image ?
the photographer is the director, s/he arranges things photographs from a certain perspective presses the button at the right time.

I would suggest their are degrees of contrivance. If you are just framing a scene, you are not altering anything in it, but merely acting as a passive observer.

removed account4 · Aug 13, 2015

cliveh said:
I would suggest their are degrees of contrivance. If you are just framing a scene, you are not altering anything in it, but merely acting as a passive observer.

i guess so, but just the same, the act of framing a scene, cropping things out ... camera angle, focal length, printing methods ( like the magazine cover where
they printed down OJ simpson's portrait to make him seem like more of a " menacing and scary black man ", choice of aperture shutter speed ... these are all contrivances ..
news broadcasts used to always use the zoom in to a small gathering trick to make it seem like a mob scene ... its the same thing.
and to me at least, coaxing an expression, neutral or something else is the same thing ... YMMV

blansky · Aug 13, 2015

Nodda Duma said:
Interesting discussion. blansky you ever play a serious game of poker? There's a lot going on in a poker face.

I can't speak to deadpan as an artistic expression, but I am familiar with the look. deadpan is pretty common in the poor parts of the country like where I grew up because life is hard there. Harder than you'd think. With a hard life comes a hard look. You see that look in the time someone there takes to size you up. They need that time to decide if they can let you into their life without harm.

.

Is suspicion not an expression? Is it really deadpan?

And just for the sake of argument, a hard life doesn't necessarily have to do with financial circumstances. Humans very often create their own reality, and one aspect of that is unhappiness. Rich people are very often unhappy and unfulfilled, especially probably the wives. People of any income bracket with depression are unhappy. Lots of very poor people are perfectly happy and joyous. So I'd argue that unhappiness/hard life is not necessarily tied into financial resources.

In your example you're talking about outsiders, and how a xenophobic or isolated person first interacts with them, and I'd argue that the expression on their face is suspicion, which is not deadpan. Deadpan is more probably like indifferent.

As for a poker player, he is much like an actor. He manufactures a look. So one has to decide I guess, is a manufactured look a real facial expression, because it doesn't really have the involuntary muscles and emotion behind it or tied into it.

Deadpan

Shawn Dougherty

DREW WILEY

dpurdy

blansky

pentaxuser

MattKing

Moderator

rbultman

blansky

cliveh

Sirius Glass

Attachments

Sirius Glass

Attachments

blansky

removed account4

cliveh

blansky

Ken Nadvornick

blansky

MattKing

Moderator

Ken Nadvornick

Nodda Duma

removed account4

jeffreyg

cliveh

removed account4

blansky

Deadpan

Moderator

Attachments

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency