- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,523
- Format
- 35mm RF
Luck or Zen photography.
Luck. The idea that he timed the shot so that the woman's face in the back wasn't blocked by the foreground woman on the right is specious. Why did he block part of the face of the soldier on the right? That's not to say you don't plan shots. But when there's so much going on in a scene, it's tough to get all the elementals so none are blocking others.
Luck. The idea that he timed the shot so that the woman's face in the back wasn't blocked by the foreground woman on the right is specious. Why did he block part of the face of the soldier on the right? That's not to say you don't plan shots. But when there's so much going on in a scene, it's tough to get all the elementals so none are blocking others.
So what did you submit for the prize?
At a showing of Edward Curtis portraits, a visitor realized that one of the images, given a generic name like "Eskimo Man," was made with his uncle, and it quickly transpired that many of the people Curtis had photographed were easily identified by their families, not all of whom were thrilled about this anonymous fame. The pictures have remained contentious: Curtis seems to have been well-meaning and a collaborator with many of his subjects, but when the photos reached the world of distribution (and sometimes retouching), that connection seems to have been lost.
I rarely like portraits where the subject looks egotistical or not humble. In that regard, I think it's harder for me to appreciate portraits of famous people, unless they're a more unusual type of famous. But it also applies to non-famous professional models who project overconfidence. Though, a projection of insecurity doesn't make a good portrait either. I think there's a balance needed
When we were young and poor, my wife and I bought a photograph of a young child in a flea market. We had just taken up housekeeping in a dumpy little rental house which would could not afford to furnish, and the photo was a cheap way to make the house seem a little less bare. Over time, we were able to move into nicer houses, and buy some furniture, but for a decade or two, we kept that portrait on the wall, I'm not sure why, perhaps out of habit or nostalgia? Now, it is no longer on display, but it is probably still up in our attic.So does it matter if you have never heard of the sitter? Would you be as interested in a portrait of my wife's mother's former school teacher as in a portrait of - say - Steve McCurry or Nelson Mandela or Gwyneth Paltrow? Would you buy - indeed, have you bought? - a portrait of an unidentified sitter?
I rarely like portraits where the subject looks egotistical or not humble. In that regard, I think it's harder for me to appreciate portraits of famous people, unless they're a more unusual type of famous. But it also applies to non-famous professional models who project overconfidence. Though, a projection of insecurity doesn't make a good portrait either. I think there's a balance needed
There either someone famous or special in some way (not necessary anything great, but something you can relate to). Seems to be a need of a narrative to allow people to relate to the picture. Are people incapable of just looking at a picture of a random person and gaining their own perspective. Its like a need to know whats going on and why you should look.
Exactly what I was thinking of!
Although I also thought of Jane Bown and Samuel Beckett:
View attachment 362220
Seems to be a need of a narrative to allow people to relate to the picture. Are people incapable of just looking at a picture of a random person and gaining their own perspective.
I rarely like portraits where the subject looks egotistical or not humble. In that regard, I think it's harder for me to appreciate portraits of famous people, unless they're a more unusual type of famous. But it also applies to non-famous professional models who project overconfidence. Though, a projection of insecurity doesn't make a good portrait either. I think there's a balance needed
I think Yosuf Karsh might disagree, and he was a pretty incredible portraitist.
This is especially true in the more famous Churchill photograph, captured just a few weeks after America was thrust into WWII. England had desperately been depending on America for such aid as we could provide as a neutral country before the Pearl Harbor attack. America had desperately tried to chaperone those aid convoys partway to England. Germany had tried, with some success, in disrupting these convoys (https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/sinking-the-uss-reuben-james/). Japan and Germany shared a mutual defense treaty, requiring Germany to declare war on America. Thus, the misguided efforts of diplomats to prevent war actually required WWII to dramatically expand. Many Americans had been against involvement in Europe's war, but now it was a world war. Even to Americans, the Churchill photograph was a constant reminder of his eloquence: "We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. "The sitter is important and generally should be named, but activities, dates, events, etc, all have the potential to possess a greater gravitas in communicating that something IMPORTAINT to the photographer who took the trouble to present it to the World.
The sitter is important and generally should be named, but activities, dates, events, etc, all have the potential to possess a greater gravitas in communicating that something IMPORTAINT to the photographer who took the trouble to present it to the World.
That’s an interesting point. So does the photographer have a duty to preserve the name of the sitter along with the portrait?
To be fair to Curtis, I imagine his interest was more ethnography than portraiture in a personal way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?