Subjects not looking like themselves: Has this ever happened to you?

[R Paul]

About a month ago I finally got a chance to shoot a 4x5 wetplate of my mom. Sat her down outside, got her and the camera posed,poured the plate,got it in the fixer and IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE HER. It was technically good ,but it did not resemble her at all. If I had not taken the picture myself , I would have called the photographer a liar. Thing is after a day or two ,it did look more and more like her, and now , it seems to be perfectly ok.
Was this an effect of the wet plate process distancing the way my mom really looks from how I see her, because if it was ,Jeez. I have never been so disturbed by a photo before. I almost didn't want her to see them- but they didn't bother her. I've taken other pictures of mom with film and while I got a twinge of something ,it wasn' t anything like this was

Has anybody out there ever had something like this happen to them, or should I take up cutting out paper dolls or fingerpainting
Think I better go with fingerpainting-- they won't let have any sharp objects

Rob

 

[Sirius Glass]

Take up making paper doilies.

Playing tiddlywinks with manhole covers.

 

[bvy]

You know, it's funny you mention this. I made a studio dry plate of my wife last weekend. Kinds of up close, used flash. Developed it. And she looks like a man. Totally unflattering. Doesn't look like her at all. I haven't had the heart to show it to her...

 

[summicron1]

cameras capture souls, not just images.

nuf sed?

 

[pbromaghin]

You know, it's funny you mention this. I made a studio dry plate of my wife last weekend. Kinds of up close, used flash. Developed it. And she looks like a man. Totally unflattering. Doesn't look like her at all. I haven't had the heart to show it to her...

smash it.

 

[gone]

It's happened to me too. Below see shots of the same woman, all taken within a short time period of each other. She's always fooling w/ her hair, so that part is actually different in some photos, but the rest? None of these are "her", they're photos of her, which are arbitrary and artificial representations of objects, but still. As bvy pointed out, you gotta be careful what you show the wife, and I have my "man" shots below too.

It MIGHT be explained by saying it's about the angle of the shot, lighting, lens, film, printing, etc, but the message to me is that no two moments are the same, they're unique instances in time, and we all look different from one moment to another. It can be perceived if we pay attention and see instead of look. Nothing in the universe is the same moment to moment, ever. It's always in flux, always becoming, never fixed. Nothing is what we think it is, which explains a lot of confusion and suffering. We all get little wake ups of this throughout our brief lives, then right back to the suffering :]

 

[Jeff Kubach]

This happen every once in a while to me.

Jeff

 

[R Paul]

I feel better now- for a little while I thought I'd gone off the deep end. Being able to be surprised by your work make taking pictures well worth the effort.
Rob

 

[David Lyga]

momus, numbers two and four are utterly gross. The others, OK. The last: the best and warmest.

Actually number one would be the best if it were not for the damn, distracting background. - David Lyga

 

[bvy]

smash it.

It's tin. I'll douse it in hot water and reclaim the plate. Or maybe I'll pull it after the image gets all melty and offer it up as a Halloween piece.

 

[summicron1]

a more serious answer than my previous -- and i suspect this is something you are still learning -- is that a HUGE part of the art of photography is being able to see what the final image will look like before you take it, or while you take it, and adjusting light, composition, angle, subject, etc etc etc, to get that final outcome that you will agree is what you are looking at.

The camera is only a tool. You must learn to use that tool. And remember, when all else fails, toss it --

Ansel Adams only showed people his good stuff. He had a very large and well-used garbage can.

 

[bvy]

a more serious answer than my previous -- and i suspect this is something you are still learning -- is that a HUGE part of the art of photography is being able to see what the final image will look like before you take it, or while you take it, and adjusting light, composition, angle, subject, etc etc etc, to get that final outcome that you will agree is what you are looking at.

The camera is only a tool. You must learn to use that tool. And remember, when all else fails, toss it --

Ansel Adams only showed people his good stuff. He had a very large and well-used garbage can.

In general I agree, but I don't adhere to that religiously. Sometimes what you get is a nice surprise -- much more interesting than what was envisioned or intended. In fact, it's one of the reasons I prefer film and analog processes over digital.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I avoid mirrors for this very reason.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Could the problem be that the focal length is too short and the distortion makes the image unflattering?

 

[BrianShaw]

I've noticed in my own photography a consistent correlation: the longer I need to fiddle with equipment and associated processes, the lower the probability of getting a good portrait. Most sitters don't seem to have the ability/patience to sit around waiting for the camera to be focused, etc, etc. As that prep time goes down, the probability of good portraits goes up.

But I really resonate with the comment about Ansel's trash can.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I think its also the color sensitivity of the wet plates. Tones get thrown out of whack. Or maybe you captured their soul. Spooky.

 

[removed account4]

people have a "good side" and a "bad side"
you just got their bad side

 

[Sirius Glass]

Both of my sides are bad.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Isn't it simply that when you look at someone, your brain is producing a 3-D image from both eyes and also you are constantly looking at different areas of a person's face (unconsciously focusing on what you like).

No way can a 2-D static image really capture that.

 

[removed account4]

when i used to do portraits for a newspaper i'd photograph people and the
reporter who interviewed the subject wouldn't even recognize them
"who is this" they would ask ... was pretty strange

 

[R Paul]

Isn't it simply that when you look at someone, your brain is producing a 3-D image from both eyes and also you are constantly looking at different areas of a person's face (unconsciously focusing on what you like).

No way can a 2-D static image really capture that.

I'd go with that but when I took pictures of my daughter they were fine,looked just like her ,no surprises at all.
I'm starting to lean towards the soul capture theory.
Next time I'll take a shot of the lottery number page--maybe I'll get the next days numbers instead
Rob

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Next time I'll take a shot of the lottery number page--maybe I'll get the next days numbers instead
Rob

Be careful: you remember what that camera did in Twilight Zone, don't you?

 

[cowanw]

Orthochromatic images can be very different given a subjects skin tone. We had Dags done and my wife came up much darker than I.

 

[Truzi]

Be careful: you remember what that camera did in Twilight Zone, don't you?

LOL. Speaking of which, Sci Fi (I think) has it's Twilight Zone marathon on New Years eve.

 

[R Paul]

LOL. Speaking of which, Sci Fi (I think) has it's Twilight Zone marathon on New Years eve.

Great tv, that
Rob