Yesterday I commented on a picture in the gallery. And it was met with some derision, hurt feelings and of course Clive's usually outrage which I guess could be explained by his Grumpy Old Man thread. It was also met with a thoughtful response by Ken.
But it brings up a larger issue I see on this site, which sort of makes sense because this is not a professional site and many people here have no real contact or exposure to photography as a profession. When many here see a picture of a person, to them it's a portrait, and they either like them, dislike them or are indifferent. But the problem with that thinking is that it's sort of naive to see things in that way. A picture of a lingerie ad, is different than a boudoir picture. An art nude is different than a porno picture. A face in a commercial beauty shot is different than a studio portrait photographer's shot. A photojournalists shot of a person is different than both those two. And where does a snapshot fit in?
As I've said before every genre of photography has different parameters, objectives and "rules". Migrant mother had different parameters than Karsh's Churchill, and different parameters than an executive portrait and different parameters than your picture of your daughter and different parameters than Leibovitz's celebrity stuff. That's not to say the photographers of all of these can't do the other, it's just the mindset they have when they do them. One is documentary with a message, one is unpaid portrait of a world leader, one is glorifying an executive, one is enhancing your beautiful daughter and one is basically promoting a product/person to sell something. There are different goals in all of them. Should they be judged the same.
When I was choosing which avenue to follow in photography, I ended up picking the one, that in my opinion was the most important. To most people here, it's probably the least important because they've seen all those photojournalist icons, celebrity photographer icons, street photographer icons and said, man that stuff is so great, and so important it's like art. To me it sort of is like art, although like art, it's also not so important. My thinking was, which genre means the most to people, which would they hang in their home forever, which would they look and glance at every day, which could make them cry. And also added into the mix, is which could I actually do for a living. Photojournalists, have a short span usually, celebrity photographers are much like celebrities, and they fall out of favor. So my choices were commercial photographers who work for advertising agencies, usually out of big cities and deal with that lifestyle, or do what I did and opened a downtown studio.
The bottom line on all this is, who pays. And whomever pays, is the client and has a direct affect on the image. In my case, my customer is the subject and the client. So that has it's obvious parameter, I need to make them look good, no Eisenstadt Goebbels here. A commercial photographer is paid by the advertising agency or the company. His parameter/goal is to make the client look good, the model is not his concern as to whether she likes her picture or not. Celebrity photographers are paid by various people, but they are essential selling a product, namely the actor/celeb, and they must make them look good. A photojournalist is paid to advance an idea, and they have to make the subject fit into that idea.
As for the picture from yesterday, the person is a incredible photographer, who uses alt process a lot and actually reminds me of my favorite photographer Mark Tucker who is a commercial photographer and is possible most famous for his Jack Daniels campaigns. Where I had a problem with the picture was the fact that when we approach people to photograph them, who is the client? Good question. The subject, the photographer, the public we show the picture to.
Well in my worldview, the photographers creed is do no harm, unless harm is what you set out to do. So my problem is that although the eyes of the subject you could drown in, the complexion of the face was affected negatively by the process so to me the picture failed. In fact I never would have shown it to her. To the author of the picture he loved the look and the affect and apparently so did his subject, and was offended by my comment.
So lets discuss it.
Do we look at pictures of people and in essence "follow the money" to get the backstory, or should the picture just stand on it's own, regardless of the outcome and whom it affects. But be careful, because pictures have power. We discussed the Sally Mann children's issues and I love her pictures. In my world, I would never embarrass a child even if it was a so called cute picture. If the subject couldn't show the picture to her new boy friend at 18 because she was embarrassed, then I failed. If someone wasn't brought to their potential by the picture, I failed. What about Avedon's white series where he went out to the hinterland to photograph the yokels. Is that fair game? Had a lot of controversy.
So what is a portrait. And what are it's responsibilities.
But it brings up a larger issue I see on this site, which sort of makes sense because this is not a professional site and many people here have no real contact or exposure to photography as a profession. When many here see a picture of a person, to them it's a portrait, and they either like them, dislike them or are indifferent. But the problem with that thinking is that it's sort of naive to see things in that way. A picture of a lingerie ad, is different than a boudoir picture. An art nude is different than a porno picture. A face in a commercial beauty shot is different than a studio portrait photographer's shot. A photojournalists shot of a person is different than both those two. And where does a snapshot fit in?
As I've said before every genre of photography has different parameters, objectives and "rules". Migrant mother had different parameters than Karsh's Churchill, and different parameters than an executive portrait and different parameters than your picture of your daughter and different parameters than Leibovitz's celebrity stuff. That's not to say the photographers of all of these can't do the other, it's just the mindset they have when they do them. One is documentary with a message, one is unpaid portrait of a world leader, one is glorifying an executive, one is enhancing your beautiful daughter and one is basically promoting a product/person to sell something. There are different goals in all of them. Should they be judged the same.
When I was choosing which avenue to follow in photography, I ended up picking the one, that in my opinion was the most important. To most people here, it's probably the least important because they've seen all those photojournalist icons, celebrity photographer icons, street photographer icons and said, man that stuff is so great, and so important it's like art. To me it sort of is like art, although like art, it's also not so important. My thinking was, which genre means the most to people, which would they hang in their home forever, which would they look and glance at every day, which could make them cry. And also added into the mix, is which could I actually do for a living. Photojournalists, have a short span usually, celebrity photographers are much like celebrities, and they fall out of favor. So my choices were commercial photographers who work for advertising agencies, usually out of big cities and deal with that lifestyle, or do what I did and opened a downtown studio.
The bottom line on all this is, who pays. And whomever pays, is the client and has a direct affect on the image. In my case, my customer is the subject and the client. So that has it's obvious parameter, I need to make them look good, no Eisenstadt Goebbels here. A commercial photographer is paid by the advertising agency or the company. His parameter/goal is to make the client look good, the model is not his concern as to whether she likes her picture or not. Celebrity photographers are paid by various people, but they are essential selling a product, namely the actor/celeb, and they must make them look good. A photojournalist is paid to advance an idea, and they have to make the subject fit into that idea.
As for the picture from yesterday, the person is a incredible photographer, who uses alt process a lot and actually reminds me of my favorite photographer Mark Tucker who is a commercial photographer and is possible most famous for his Jack Daniels campaigns. Where I had a problem with the picture was the fact that when we approach people to photograph them, who is the client? Good question. The subject, the photographer, the public we show the picture to.
Well in my worldview, the photographers creed is do no harm, unless harm is what you set out to do. So my problem is that although the eyes of the subject you could drown in, the complexion of the face was affected negatively by the process so to me the picture failed. In fact I never would have shown it to her. To the author of the picture he loved the look and the affect and apparently so did his subject, and was offended by my comment.
So lets discuss it.
Do we look at pictures of people and in essence "follow the money" to get the backstory, or should the picture just stand on it's own, regardless of the outcome and whom it affects. But be careful, because pictures have power. We discussed the Sally Mann children's issues and I love her pictures. In my world, I would never embarrass a child even if it was a so called cute picture. If the subject couldn't show the picture to her new boy friend at 18 because she was embarrassed, then I failed. If someone wasn't brought to their potential by the picture, I failed. What about Avedon's white series where he went out to the hinterland to photograph the yokels. Is that fair game? Had a lot of controversy.
So what is a portrait. And what are it's responsibilities.
