Sometimes a picture is just a picture
- Freud (paraphrased)
- Freud (paraphrased)
Sometimes a picture is just a picture
- Freud (paraphrased)
To quote an extract from Fox Talbots The Pencil of Nature - But when the sensitive paper was placed in the focus of a Camera Obscura and directed to any object, as a building for instance, during a moderate space of time, as an hour or two, the effect produced upon the paper was not strong enough to exhibit such a satisfactory picture of the building as had been hoped for. The outline of the roof and of the chimneys, &c. against the sky was marked enough; but the details of the architecture were feeble, and the parts in shade were left either blank or nearly so. The sensitiveness of the paper to light, considerable as it seemed in some respects, was therefore, as yet, evidently insufficient for the purpose of obtaining pictures with the Camera Obscura; and the course of experiments had to be again renewed in hopes of attaining to some more important result..
Only God is Truth.
even straight forward documentary photography isn't really what's there.
while it can be called evidence or and artifact it isn't, its just an illusion, a reflection, a light-shadow.
its not the kind of illusion that vanishes ( but it really is ) it can't reappear
somewhere else ( but it can ) and it is more based in "reality" than painting and drawing
( not really ) ... color negatives or diapositives aren't true to life, black and white images even less
with the ephemeral quality the materials we are all fooling ourselves with it all just like chalk on the sidewalk ?
what do you do with the illusions you make, and do you even suggest that they might not be "real"
You dropped your mind or you dropped the object? (be careful of your toes)
Only physics is truth.
Actually both require a leap of faith to get there.
sometimes i take portraits of people ...
the close friends, even the person who i took the portrait of says " who is that ?!'
it doesn't look like or resemble them at all. it wasn't me, i just pushed the button ... it was the camera.
it isn't hard to create a new reality with a camera, based of the shimmer of our own reality
This has been a regular occurrence in my work too, one I even cultivate.
I think part of it is that the way we are, and the way we think we are, and the way the photographer wants to portray us; doesn't normally match. A portrait is many times a struggle of wills.
http://www.karsh.org/#/the_work/portraits/winston_churchill
Karsh's portrait of Churchill is a case in point. Churchill wanted one thing, Karsh another, Karsh won.
Several years after my mom died my dad married a nice lady named Mary. Getting a good portrait of Mary was a real struggle, she had the weirdest "say cheese face" that she instantly put on any time a camera was pointed her way, and she was good at spotting any camera. I did finally get a good one of her and my dad during the festivities around my son's wedding. Surprisingly it happened in my studio as the primary subject, surrounded by a full studio kiting set during the rehearsal party. I had my dad spin her as if they were dancing and for once she was caught as most around her saw her.
Fun story, this is when a fast camera is needed... when people change faces on you, you have to have a quick shot before they catch you... So difficult.
This has been a regular occurrence in my work too, one I even cultivate.
I think part of it is that the way we are, and the way we think we are, and the way the photographer wants to portray us; doesn't normally match. A portrait is many times a struggle of wills.
http://www.karsh.org/#/the_work/portraits/winston_churchill
Karsh's portrait of Churchill is a case in point. Churchill wanted one thing, Karsh another, Karsh won.
Several years after my mom died my dad married a nice lady named Mary. Getting a good portrait of Mary was a real struggle, she had the weirdest "say cheese face" that she instantly put on any time a camera was pointed her way, and she was good at spotting any camera. I did finally get a good one of her and my dad during the festivities around my son's wedding. Surprisingly it happened in my studio as the primary subject, surrounded by a full studio kiting set during the rehearsal party. I had my dad spin her as if they were dancing and for once she was caught as most around her saw her.
Had you only ever read or heard of Churchill, but never seen a picture of him before that one, would he have been instantly recognisable?
maybe it has to do with perception of who we THINK someone is, who we THINK we are and how we are supposed to be / act
Had you only ever read or heard of Churchill, but never seen a picture of him before that one, would he have been instantly recognisable?
I think that is a big chunk of it John.
That is an expression of the thought that a portrait is always a portrait of two people; the subject and the photographer.
This was an idea that took me a long time to understand/get used to/get comfortable with.
Essentially, if you and I are given the same subject to photograph and we are allowed to get to know it/them and photograph it/them separately as we please, it is IMO almost a given that we would end up with very different results.
but the sitter ( and friends/family ) not even recognizing him/herself ...
maybe that is a bit drastic ...
Were it not for photography nobody would know what they themselves look like. The nearest most people get is the image in the bathroom mirror. But, hey, that's left to right (more correctly mirror) reversed. A photographic portrait is not mirror reversed and looks somehow "wrong" to the sitter. I always make one portrait proof with the neg flipped in the enlarger to show the effect to my portrait subject.sometimes i take portraits of people ...
the close friends, even the person who i took the portrait of says " who is that ?!'
it doesn't look like or resemble them at all. it wasn't me, i just pushed the button ... it was the camera.
it isn't hard to create a new reality with a camera, based of the shimmer of our own reality
I think of them as pod people which they will probably not understand either.
Were it not for photography nobody would know what they themselves look like. The nearest most people get is the image in the bathroom mirror. But, hey, that's left to right (more correctly mirror) reversed. A photographic portrait is not mirror reversed and looks somehow "wrong" to the sitter. I always make one portrait proof with the neg flipped in the enlarger to show the effect to my portrait subject.
Now, portraits made as reflective camera-original material (direct positives, tintypes, ambrotypes, daguerreotypes) do exhibit the mirror-flip and seem to be most acceptable to those lucky enough to be thus portrayed.
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?