Does the identity of the sitter matter?

[cliveh]

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 or Zen photography.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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.

The better part of “luck,” to me, is putting yourself in a place where Fortune can smile upon you. I imagine HCB peering through the rangefinder, seeing various elements that matter to him. And he takes a number of shots, moving slightly, keeping the camera square, seeing various elements as they move through the field. And then he goes home and looks through the contact sheet. Did he wait for the precise moment the woman in back was visible? Probably not — she was not important as he first framed the image. But something must’ve clicked when she came into view, and he shot. Luck?

 

[snusmumriken]

So what did you submit for the prize?

Haha, not my scene. I don’t have the engaging personality to be a portrait photographer. Wish I had. Even my family refuse to be photographed.

The annual selection of the TW prize winner is a mystery to me, hence my OP.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

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.

 

[loccdor]

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

 

[Pieter12]

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

But what if the subject is egotistical and not humble? The portrait would be true to the subject. I seems that you do not like those people. Which is OK, but don't knock the portraits.

 

[awty]

I look at the national portrait gallery photograph competitions past finalists and all the pictures run a narrative. 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.

 

[runswithsizzers]

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?

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.


Today, I would not hang a portrait of a famous person on my wall. But I still like to look at the work of some A-list photographers. Recently, we got to see an Annie Leibovitz exibition at Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas (now ended). Most of her portraits were of very famous people <example>.

I enjoyed looking at them in the museum, but if someone gave me one of Annie Leibovitz's portraits of some famous film star, or artist, or politician, it would go up in my attic with the portraits of the little girl and Jesus.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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

Winston Churchill

1941 © Yousuf Karsh

karsh.org

 

[awty]

Winston Churchill

1941 © Yousuf Karsh

karsh.org

Some get to write their own narrative and can alter the parts they don't like.

 

[MattKing]

Winston Churchill

1941 © Yousuf Karsh

karsh.org

Exactly what I was thinking of!
Although I also thought of Jane Bown and Samuel Beckett:

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Exactly what I was thinking of!
Although I also thought of Jane Bown and Samuel Beckett:
View attachment 362220

I love that photo. Sam Beckett was notoriously camera-shy, and yet the few portraits that survive present him as an imperious old presence. Cartier-Bresson and Bruce Davidson also managed memorable portraits:

Samuel Beckett: the elusive writer fleetingly captured in the Magnum Archive • Magnum Photos Magnum Photos

On the 30th anniversary of his death we look at the author and playwright's image, captured in the Magnum archive

www.magnumphotos.com

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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.

1. I agree with you that a successful portrait engages the viewer in a narrative of some sort.

2. To me, that is a fairly low bar. For awhile, I collected albumen CDV portraits of anonymous sitters. I found them engaging because the portrait, in the late 1800s, was a Big Deal, and seeing how people presented themselves was fun.

3. In the same vein, I find the portraits of Mike Disfarmer moving.

www.disfarmer.com

4. Sometimes the hook is not that the subject is important to me, or important to the world -- sometimes the portrait engages because the subject was important to the photographer. I admire the prints made by Ray Bidegain. I would be happy to have his photogravure of his daughter Emogene on my wall.

Polymer plate photogravure by Ray Bidegain

Ray Bidegain is owner and printmaker at Cascabel press. specializing in polymer plate photogravure fine art prints. subjects include, landscapes, portraits, still life and the nude. Mentoring/workshops are available in printmaking and photography, collect art and study photography located in...

cascabelpress.com

 

[Sirius Glass]

Portraits of people with interesting faces need not be famous to be enjoyed.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

 

[MattKing]

I think Yosuf Karsh might disagree, and he was a pretty incredible portraitist.

And a great raconteur .
I had the privilege of being just a few feet away from him while he shared with a crowd at a massive auditorium and lecture hall the details of the Churchill session - as well as many others.
I was photographing the talk, but the ambient light was so dreadful there that nothing worthwhile came of it.
He did wink at me though

 

[awty]

View attachment 362232

He has nice well kept hair, vulnerabilities around his mouth, a cold stare like he's not going to give into you without a fight. It looks to be taken around the 30's, but I've seen similar look from young men who have done it tough at different time periods.
To me a good portrait should not have a written narrative, every thing should be in the portrait. People should read people, even if they get it wrong, you should at least try.
Great portrait, have no idea about the person and don't want to know the facts.

 

[loccdor]

Winston Churchill

1941 © Yousuf Karsh

karsh.org

Indeed, point taken. I said rarely, not never.

I think that a good portrait can be expressive enough to tell you a lot about a person who you know nothing about.

 

[choiliefan]

Circa 1890s New Zealand. "Carte de visite portrait, Maori woman and child from Hawkes Bay." Glass negative, Samuel Carnell studio, Napier.

Can We Go Home Now?

Circa 1890s New Zealand. "Carte de visite portrait, Maori woman and child from Hawkes Bay." Glass negative, Samuel Carnell studio, Napier.

www.shorpy.com

 

[cowanw]

It is worth saying though, for the purposes of the thread that he and his family preferred the second photograph.

 

[eli griggs]

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.

 

[Jim Jones]

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.

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. "

 

[Pieter12]

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.

Vivian Maier did not document her work or even present it to the world. But she left us with some impressive street portraits.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

Considering Curtis to be an ethnographer is problematic - while he was photographing the embers of a fading way of life, he often put people in "traditional" costumes that had little to nothing to do with their own specific culture/history, in the name of a more interesting photo.