What is a portrait?

Michael R 1974 said:

Actually I don't think it captures anything. It's just a picture of the back of a man playing the cello. Of course once you know who the cellist was, and that it's by Karsh, oh boy that changes everything. It becomes a masterful character study, and you can even feel (?) the music. In other words, give me a break.

Click to expand...

Because someone playing a musical instrument in a confined space gives that feeling, as well as the fact the we cannot see his face, so we in essence lose the ability to see and fall back on our sense of hearing.

I often wonder why anything about photography interests you.

Michael R 1974 said:

Actually I don't think it captures anything. It's just a picture of the back of a man playing the cello. Of course once you know who the cellist was, and that it's by Karsh, oh boy that changes everything. It becomes a masterful character study, and you can even feel (?) the music. In other words, give me a break.

Click to expand...

thats the same for any portrait ...
unless you knew the musician, knew the photographer .
have a thing for people playing the cello
or you were a fan of portriat photography ...

whats the point ?

but it doesn't mean it isn't a good portrait ... does it ?

To me a good portrait is one that you look at several times on different occasions trying to work out what the story behind the image is. One of my favourite images is this one (there was a url link here which no longer exists) I stand by the comment I made then; I find this an intriguing image, and still can't work out why, but I have returned to look at it several times in the intervening years.

I don't think an image alone can ever truly reflect the person in the portrait. You either have to know the back-story first and evaluate the image against it, or invent a back-story in your imagination that works for you.

Portraits for self/family consumption are completely different because the disconnect can never be there at all.

RobC said:

How do you know it perfectly captures his character? Without being told you have no idea who the musician is. All you can say is, yes it looks like a musician. Everything else is your own own perceptions based on who you're told it is and then what you already know about him.

Click to expand...

It was instantly recognizable to me as Casals. I am a musician and a cellist, so my viewing has context that maybe your does not. That is true for all images and how we individually view them. I think the Karsh image is beautiful even if one doesn't recognize the subject, but that knowledge adds another dimension.

This idea that a photograph can portray the "essence" of a person seems off the mark.

In the case of photographic subjects who are known to the viewer (personally or publicly), the photograph will tend either to confirm or confound the impression the viewer already has.

In the case of subjects who are strangers to the viewer, then the subject is subject (sic) to all the projections associated with human psychology when we see another person - plus any extra context that the photographer might have supplied verbally.

In the case of a picture of a man playing the 'cello, you either know (or are told by the caption) it's Casals, and if you know who Casals is (or was) then you'll react in one set of ways; if you have no idea that it is Casals, then you just have a photograph of a man playing the 'cello, and you'll have another set of ways to respond. What makes the idea of the photograph interesting is the complex interplay of what the photographer has chosen to display and what the viewer brings to looking.

I tend to think that the subject of a photograph is not what or who is in front of the lens, but whoever is in front of the photograph, but that's another discussion altogether.

As for the idea that a judgment can be made - when viewing a portrait of a stranger - that the photographer has somehow "betrayed" the subject ... well, that's an interesting response, and I'm sure a true reflection of the viewer's feelings, but for me it says something more about the viewer than the photograph (sorry blansky). Not necessarily in a negative way, but the response is a strong one and indicates something about a clear and decided view of what portraiture "ought" to do or be.

pdeeh said:

As for the idea that a judgment can be made - when viewing a portrait of a stranger - that the photographer has somehow "betrayed" the subject ... well, that's an interesting response, and I'm sure a true reflection of the viewer's feelings, but for me it says something more about the viewer than the photograph (sorry blansky). Not necessarily in a negative way, but the response is a strong one and indicates something about a clear and decided view of what portraiture "ought" to do or be.

Click to expand...

I've no doubt this is true.

I once, may years ago had a lawyer call me and ask me to photograph a girl that was in car accident, and to make sure "I captured the scars", as he was using the picture for a court case.

So the girl (18ish) came in and I sort of expected a battered looking person but it was a considerable time after the accident and she looked pretty good actually. Although at various angles the scars were very visible. One thing about learning portrait lighting and how and why to use certain techniques to enhance the subject is the fact that you also know how to make them look pretty bad.

So seeing the girl has self esteem issues about the scars, and I'm sure she'd heard ad nauseum about how "bad" they were, I decided to take a bunch of pictures to make her look very good, and then a few for the lawyer to make her look very bad. I kind of wanted her to get her mojo back and see that she was still extremely attractive. So one set of pictures almost removed the scars (not with retouching but lighting) and the other set made them the dominant feature of her face and life.

So my moral to the story is, we have the ability and the responsibility, to our subjects to not trifle with their self esteem, because it matters not who you are, and what you say, your face is arguably the most important aspect of our self worth and esteem at least up until you are in your 50s and probably beyond. (Probably more so for women but men have healthy egos too.) It is your identifier of your identity and being. So when I see a technique like the photograph in question, that although interesting and with many features, also has the ability to damage the psyche of the person photographed it means a lot to me. Because in the back of people's minds is always, gee do I really look like that.

Others and the author can have their point of view, and that's perfectly fine, but when I comment on pictures, I comment on what I feel about something, not what is popular.

Michael R 1974 said:

As it should be. Just don't be surprised when the occasional shit-nado develops.

Click to expand...

I've been here a long time. We've had many iteration of WW3 here in the past that make anything we see today little more than a minor bitch slapping.

I do remember the period you went wako.. it was fun time about the time I joined, I remember Jorge trying to take a strip out of me about silver recovery along with the lady that started emulsion magazine.

It's quite different now here, good and bad .

blansky said:

I've been here a long time. We've had many iteration of WW3 here in the past that make anything we see today little more than a minor bitch slapping.

Click to expand...

Bob Carnie said:

I do remember the period you went wako.. it was fun time about the time I joined, I remember Jorge trying to take a strip out of me about silver recovery along with the lady that started emulsion magazine.

It's quite different now here, good and bad .

Click to expand...

Yeah and the political threads, soap box was not the wasteland it is now. It was like the battle of the Somme. I actually don't recall going wako, but it could be selective memory. I do recall in Toronto that some of the people like Les Maclean (sp?)were surprised that I was actually quite nice. I did write a lot of shit to stir the pot though but in my defense I blame that one inhaling too much fixer and selenium toner.

Hi Bob,

I'm not on APUG so much at the moment but it has certainly changed compared to the stormy early years... A lot of "characters" seem to have vacated, but perhaps there is also less of a distinctive community feel.

Tom

Tom Kershaw said:

less of a distinctive community feel

Click to expand...

????

Don't you mean "Clique of the self appointed"

RobC said:

????

Don't you mean "Clique of the self appointed"

Click to expand...

There are always cliques, but back a few years ago there was not digital or digital crossover. Some of the members were big time names in the photography/darkroom field as well.

blansky said:

There are always cliques, but back a few years ago there was not digital or digital crossover. Some of the members were big time names in the photography/darkroom field as well.

Click to expand...

I took a fairly long break from photography forums. I kind of realised that I had become sucked into the slanging matches and was as guilty as everyone else. Things were much better before web forums when mail lists were the order of the day. But even then certain people couldn't help themselves.

Things seem to have calmed down on web forums these days.

RobC said:

I took a fairly long break from photography forums. I kind of realised that I had become sucked into the slanging matches and was as guilty as everyone else. Things were much better before web forums when mail lists were the order of the day. But even then certain people couldn't help themselves.

Things seem to have calmed down on web forums these days.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but thanks to this particular web forum, in 2002 when I joined, it was to learn how to print high quality black and white, after doing my own color for a lot of years. The stuff I learned and in a hurry, was invaluable to me.

I am thankful to this forum for all the contacts I have made over 10 years. Also there are a lot of great leads and info , and this has continued in 2015 where I pretty much log in every day, look at threads that are
of interest and lately go to a lot of the links posted to get more detailed information.

We had the opportunity to put faces to names in 2006 here in Toronto at the APUG's first conference. Combined over 200 people attended that's where I first met a lot of the names on APUG.
I think we should do it again and I still think Bills Photostock would be the best location .

Bob Carnie said:

I am thankful to this forum for all the contacts I have made over 10 years.

Click to expand...

Same here. (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Bob Carnie said:

We had the opportunity to put faces to names in 2006 here in Toronto at the APUG's first conference. Combined over 200 people attended that's where I first met a lot of the names on APUG. I think we should do it again and I still think Bills Photostock would be the best location .

Click to expand...

I just returned from Photostock 2015.