Here's an interesting video on portraiture

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Enjoy!

http://petapixel.com/2015/11/04/6-photographers-asked-to-shoot-portraits-of-1-man-with-a-twist/

 

[HiHoSilver]

Main, Thx for posting. 'Didn't watch the vid, but the portraits went a long way to prove their point. I'm seeking out exposure to these things that give a much needed enema to my imagination.

 

[blansky]

It's an interesting exercise, which I've always really said, that there are very rarely any true portraits of someone, because we are all multifaceted. When a photographer is deceived into think something about someone which is untrue, he then tries to bring out that aspect of the character. In reality we are, or could be all those things that were told to the photographers.

In fact I think in almost all cases the pictures could have been interchangeable.

Actually back in the 80s Playboy had a series where 6 photographers photographed one of their models. That was actually a more telling case of how each photographer "interpreted" the model, which said more about the photographer than the model. She was very early twenties and some sexualized her, other treated her like a daughter and others used her beauty while others did almost a fashion shoot.

I have photographed thousands of people, and the whole "captured their essence" thing to me is merely how other viewers, view the subject. In fact after the sessions and if more than one person comes to view the pictures, they will almost always disagree on which pictures "captured" the person.

In fact I used to play games with my subjects and ask them to "act" and say show me sadness, or hate, or love or envy etc and they would give me convincing emotions. Not mugging for the camera but actual emotions that the viewer could feel. So capturing their essence stuff never really rang true to me.

This video reminds me of that.

In fact I think a more telling example would be to use one model and have 6 different genres of photographer shoot her. The "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" theory. Each discipline in photography has a different mindset, and having fashion, portrait, photojournalist, sports, fine art/figure study, and soft porn photographers it would be far more interesting.

 

[markbarendt]

Great stuff.

This concept can be seen in lots of our own work if we think about it.

The subject person, and or the photographer, chooses what they want to portray, then the photographer goes at that task.

For example I've shot weddings where it was uncomfortable in reality. The intent of the work though was to portray a happy day and happy people.

Many landscape shooters want to portray a pristine world without evidence of humans.

The choices we make in taking photos don't necessarily ever represent reality.

 

[DannL.]

I see the same guy in 6 different poses. What I see as lacking is the atmosphere and environment that speaks for the sitter. For example, if he was a fisherman then he should have been photographed in his attire and in his environment. Otherwise you would have to put a title under the photo stating . . . "Portrait of Bob the fisherman . . . use your imagination." No wonder the photographers couldn't pull this off . . . both hands were tied.

 

[horacekenneth]

I see the same guy in 6 different poses. What I see as lacking is the atmosphere and environment that speaks for the sitter. For example, if he was a fisherman then he should have been photographed in his attire and in his environment. Otherwise you would have to put a title under the photo stating . . . "Portrait of Bob the fisherman . . . use your imagination." No wonder the photographers couldn't pull this off . . . both hands were tied.

So you think if one photographer was taken to a creek to photograph the man dressed as a fisherman and another was taken to a prison to photograph him and another taken to a top floor office etc., then the point would be better made about how a photographer brings his own bias to bear?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

So do photographers bring their emotional baggage when they get behind the camera when shooting people?

 

[blansky]

So do photographers bring their emotional baggage when they get behind the camera when shooting people?

Yes, of course. But what they really bring is themselves.

Emotional, intellectual, prejudices, moods, everything.

 

[RobC]

This David Bailey interview provides an insight into what a master of the art thinks...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQbyQgkOB9s

or put in perspective by what the duck...

View attachment 119325

 

[markbarendt]

So do photographers bring their emotional baggage when they get behind the camera when shooting people?

Without a doubt.

 

[markbarendt]

So do photographers bring their emotional baggage when they get behind the camera when shooting people?

And landscapes, and ...

 

[DannL.]

http://www.bernardvoyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/web_edmund-hillary_large.jpg

What does he resemble the most? A Plumber, a Singer, a Writer or a Mountaineer? Of course, he could be a Fisherman.

 

[jaydebruyne]

Everything is subjective when it comes to visual art. The model is under the mercy of the photographers subjectivity, the photographer under the viewers.. The model under her own and everybody else's. This is a really interesting topic though and a great article and experiment from canon and some great posts on this thread!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaydebruyne]

http://www.bernardvoyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/web_edmund-hillary_large.jpg

What does he resemble the most? A Plumber, a Singer, a Writer or a Mountaineer? Of course, he could be a Fisherman.

I'm a plumber and yes, that's how I rock up at clients houses


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mrred]

I read these posts before I watched the video. Disappointing as to me it was a fluff piece. Go plug Canon go.....

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

I think it is bogus. He looks much the same in every photo.

 

[markbarendt]

I think it is bogus. He looks much the same in every photo.

I can absolutely see that it is the same person in each photo.

Instead of bogus though, I see that the shooters worked with what they had to pigeon hole him into a context. Right or wrong we all do this with our photos.

One of the things that we need to remember about portraits though is that they don't hang in a vacuum; they are typically hung in a context that defines them. They hang on our walls, in our homes, with our junk, and our families surrounding them.

The photo here is no more indicative of the subjects job than the "fisherman" referenced above. The context around a photo, things outside a photo, always help us define the photo. In this case fame and history. Same here.

Some photos give us more hints with costume or internal context. Even with the extra hints we need more external info to understand the photo. There are lots of people alive today who would not know why these people were important.

Karsh did a good job of playing into the context his famous subjects lived in, even still they can't stand on their own, they need context.

 

[Wayne]

At first I thought it very interesting how the labels fit the guy so well!...but when I mixed up the labels they still fit! IMO it says more about the labels than the bias photographers bring.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

You're correct

And landscapes, and ...

I think our baggage what makes an artist an artist. Sometimes it's prosaic baggage and sometimes it's beautiful baggage.

 

[MattKing]

I can absolutely see that it is the same person in each photo.

Instead of bogus though, I see that the shooters worked with what they had to pigeon hole him into a context. Right or wrong we all do this with our photos.

One of the things that we need to remember about portraits though is that they don't hang in a vacuum; they are typically hung in a context that defines them. They hang on our walls, in our homes, with our junk, and our families surrounding them.

The photo here is no more indicative of the subjects job than the "fisherman" referenced above. The context around a photo, things outside a photo, always help us define the photo. In this case fame and history. Same here.

Some photos give us more hints with costume or internal context. Even with the extra hints we need more external info to understand the photo. There are lots of people alive today who would not know why these people were important.

Karsh did a good job of playing into the context his famous subjects lived in, even still they can't stand on their own, they need context.

+1

I've recently been looking at a lot of Jane Bown's work. Much of it was shot as visual accompaniment for a weekly newspaper's interview with her (frequently well known) subjects. The photographs themselves are sometimes stunning without context, but more often they are strongest when you know something about their subject. I don't think that is a weakness of portrait photography, but rather one of its strengths.

For example, Samuel Beckett:

 

[markbarendt]

She does interesting work.

 

[cliveh]

I don't get this photographers interpretation thing. Don't we just record?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Let's hope not

I don't get this photographers interpretation thing. Don't we just record?

If we just record, we're just a monkey with a finger to press the shutter.

 

[cliveh]

If we just record, we're just a monkey with a finger to press the shutter.

Then I wish to be that Zen monkey.

 

[RobC]

Then I wish to be that Zen monkey.

Granted