What is a good portrait?
- Thread starter TrailsofLife
- Start date
- Status
student said:
sorry to ask, so a photograph can actually distort a fact depending on how the photographer do it right? a rascal can be made into an innocence looking boy for example :embrass:
just thinking aloud, no harm intented.
this remind me of the penpal. whereby receiving a photo of a nice gal but when meeting the real person, she is a totally different person! :sweat:
In am in-between developing 24 sheets of 4x5 negatives. Let me try to see if my view make sense.
Let me preface my reply (to Paul) by telling a story. A man brought his wife to Picasso for a portrait (apparently a true story, I may distort the story a little, but the essence is there). Picasso proceeded to paint the woman. After a while, the man was clearly agitated. Sensing this, Picasso asked the man what was the matter? The man replied, "that does not look like my wife". Picasso asked, "how does you wife look like?" Upon which the man produced a photograph from his wallet and showed Picasso. "There! That is how my wife looks like!" Thoughtfully, Picasso replied. "Small, isn't it?"
The point is, we are looking at an image at a point of time. Imagine how the image was made. Look at the variables - Time. Light. Distance. Lens. Film (sensors) Colors (or non-colors) Photographers. Can it be possible that two photographers standing next to each other photographing a model at the same time can produce the same image?
The editor of the acclaimed photo magazine "Lenswork" mentioned "THERE IS NO TRUTH IN PHOTOGRAPHY".
A lot of people had criticised Ansel Adams because when they stood where Ansel Adams stood they could not see the same image that Ansel Adams produced. Photographers had placed their tripods at the same spots as Ansel Adams and yet not produced the same photograph. Why? It is because they are not Ansel Adams. They could not visualise the scene before them the way Ansel did. Hence they could not tell the story Ansel Adams want to tell. Any surprise that the images are different?
When you look at the image of a person, are you looking at the person, or looking a a piece of paper? The image on the paper is not the person. But a two dimensional image made with all the variables thrown in. You can see an image of a woman and say "sexy". I could see "Strength". If our skills are up to it (again another variable) you make an image that shows "sex" and I make an image that shows "strength" . Whose is right?
Agency VII, headed by Antonin Kravtochil (right spelling?- never could get it right! Damn!) was assigned to photograph the invasion of Iraq. He had another colleague, a guy called Christopher. The images made by these two very excellent photographers were as different aas east is from the west. Christopher showed the triumphant march of the American forces and the jubilant welcome of the "lbierated" Iraqis. Antonin show the American forces killing the Iraqis and the fear and bewilderment of the Iraqis. Truth? Which one? In truth, each was making the stories they are trying to tell.
When you look at an image, you are looking at an image. True, the image conveys a certain emotional response. And sometimes powerfully. Example of Karsh's Winston Churchill. When the Germans saw the glowering image of Churchill, it was reported that they remarked "if this was what the Allied leaders are, can we win this war?" Have you seen images of Marilyn Monroe? Sexy. Men's dream. But have you seen the image of Marilyn Monroe in Avedon's book "portraits". Which is the REAL Marilyn? A few months ago, in our very own Straits Times, Cindy Crawford was quoted as saying "Those pictures you see of me - they are not me!"
So an image is an image. It is not truth. It is only the story that the photographer wants to tell. And the more accomplished the photographer is, the better he can tell the story.
And I think this is the gist of all great art. Whether Picasso, Rembrandt, Matisse, Zhang Ta Chien, Zhu Pei Hung. They are masters at telling stories, using the medium they chose to tell the story.
Let me preface my reply (to Paul) by telling a story. A man brought his wife to Picasso for a portrait (apparently a true story, I may distort the story a little, but the essence is there). Picasso proceeded to paint the woman. After a while, the man was clearly agitated. Sensing this, Picasso asked the man what was the matter? The man replied, "that does not look like my wife". Picasso asked, "how does you wife look like?" Upon which the man produced a photograph from his wallet and showed Picasso. "There! That is how my wife looks like!" Thoughtfully, Picasso replied. "Small, isn't it?"
The point is, we are looking at an image at a point of time. Imagine how the image was made. Look at the variables - Time. Light. Distance. Lens. Film (sensors) Colors (or non-colors) Photographers. Can it be possible that two photographers standing next to each other photographing a model at the same time can produce the same image?
The editor of the acclaimed photo magazine "Lenswork" mentioned "THERE IS NO TRUTH IN PHOTOGRAPHY".
A lot of people had criticised Ansel Adams because when they stood where Ansel Adams stood they could not see the same image that Ansel Adams produced. Photographers had placed their tripods at the same spots as Ansel Adams and yet not produced the same photograph. Why? It is because they are not Ansel Adams. They could not visualise the scene before them the way Ansel did. Hence they could not tell the story Ansel Adams want to tell. Any surprise that the images are different?
When you look at the image of a person, are you looking at the person, or looking a a piece of paper? The image on the paper is not the person. But a two dimensional image made with all the variables thrown in. You can see an image of a woman and say "sexy". I could see "Strength". If our skills are up to it (again another variable) you make an image that shows "sex" and I make an image that shows "strength" . Whose is right?
Agency VII, headed by Antonin Kravtochil (right spelling?- never could get it right! Damn!) was assigned to photograph the invasion of Iraq. He had another colleague, a guy called Christopher. The images made by these two very excellent photographers were as different aas east is from the west. Christopher showed the triumphant march of the American forces and the jubilant welcome of the "lbierated" Iraqis. Antonin show the American forces killing the Iraqis and the fear and bewilderment of the Iraqis. Truth? Which one? In truth, each was making the stories they are trying to tell.
When you look at an image, you are looking at an image. True, the image conveys a certain emotional response. And sometimes powerfully. Example of Karsh's Winston Churchill. When the Germans saw the glowering image of Churchill, it was reported that they remarked "if this was what the Allied leaders are, can we win this war?" Have you seen images of Marilyn Monroe? Sexy. Men's dream. But have you seen the image of Marilyn Monroe in Avedon's book "portraits". Which is the REAL Marilyn? A few months ago, in our very own Straits Times, Cindy Crawford was quoted as saying "Those pictures you see of me - they are not me!"
So an image is an image. It is not truth. It is only the story that the photographer wants to tell. And the more accomplished the photographer is, the better he can tell the story.
And I think this is the gist of all great art. Whether Picasso, Rembrandt, Matisse, Zhang Ta Chien, Zhu Pei Hung. They are masters at telling stories, using the medium they chose to tell the story.
snowspeeder
Senior Member
Truth and photography can be miles apart. Many people think the two are the same. Probably they only perceive photography as simply holding the camera, looking thru the viewfinder, abiding by proper techniques, and then the shutter click.
What they fail to see is that even a point & shoot tells a story. It says something about the image (which may depart from reality) and it also tells a story about the photographyer himself.
What they fail to see is that even a point & shoot tells a story. It says something about the image (which may depart from reality) and it also tells a story about the photographyer himself.
Feinwerkbau
Deregistered
Ahh...this leaves me in no doubt as to who actually is the 'Master' and who is the 'Student'! 
I don't know if Student has actually already said it, and I may say it in a slightly different manner ... but to me, a portrait is
... a take...a moment ... an instant of a million facedes of a person, or subject.
We can portray just about any subject, and if anyone remembers the article in Psychology Today, an experiment about 'intepretation' was an experiment where six of the world's greatest living painters including Dali (can;t remember the rest) were asked to reproduce a street scene from a photograph. All six painters were the most revered and respected; their skills and depth and visions beyond question.
When the results were viewed, ALL SIX WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT! Not just slightly different, ENTIRELY different!
For the sake of simplicity, let's talk about portraiture with respect to 'people'.
Without going into a long discourse about psyche and relationships, I think a truly good portrait is one of many things, but most tacitly, an inward identification and understanding that a painter or photographer has of his or her subject, and his promulgation of that intepretation coupled with whatever mental, psychological, political, artistic and emotive forces that are affecting the artist/photographer at a certain point of life. Of course, outside forces also come into play, as these would obviously affect the photographer.
In another words, what a photographer sees and understands of his subjects through his own life and experiences, and how that shapes the way he sees and projects the subject.
Sometimes, it's amazing what an artists' / photographer's work reveals about the person. It's a lot more than telling a storey, IMHO. No offence Student.
SHOOTS! This already sounds like psycho-gobbledeegook! Sorry.
I don't know if Student has actually already said it, and I may say it in a slightly different manner ... but to me, a portrait is
... a take...a moment ... an instant of a million facedes of a person, or subject.
We can portray just about any subject, and if anyone remembers the article in Psychology Today, an experiment about 'intepretation' was an experiment where six of the world's greatest living painters including Dali (can;t remember the rest) were asked to reproduce a street scene from a photograph. All six painters were the most revered and respected; their skills and depth and visions beyond question.
When the results were viewed, ALL SIX WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT! Not just slightly different, ENTIRELY different!
For the sake of simplicity, let's talk about portraiture with respect to 'people'.
Without going into a long discourse about psyche and relationships, I think a truly good portrait is one of many things, but most tacitly, an inward identification and understanding that a painter or photographer has of his or her subject, and his promulgation of that intepretation coupled with whatever mental, psychological, political, artistic and emotive forces that are affecting the artist/photographer at a certain point of life. Of course, outside forces also come into play, as these would obviously affect the photographer.
In another words, what a photographer sees and understands of his subjects through his own life and experiences, and how that shapes the way he sees and projects the subject.
Sometimes, it's amazing what an artists' / photographer's work reveals about the person. It's a lot more than telling a storey, IMHO. No offence Student.
SHOOTS! This already sounds like psycho-gobbledeegook! Sorry.
Feinwerkbau
Deregistered
student said:hey! my body is half century!
but my photography barely out of infancy!
My bod's not far behind C and my photography has not been conceived yet!
FiveIronFrenzy
New Member
When I see a portait that makes me really look, to think about what the person in the picture might be feeling the moment the image was captured and in a strange way begin to feel for him/her (i.e. to care), to believe (even if I'm wrong) that I can understand why they look the way they look, then I tell myself 'This is a good portrait' and feel very happy.
A good portrait to me is a picture of a person that triggers an emotional response when I see it. Make any sense to anybody? :sweat:
A good portrait to me is a picture of a person that triggers an emotional response when I see it. Make any sense to anybody? :sweat:
TrailsofLife
Senior Member
I just did some portraits. Put it at the Portraits forumDun be too cruel hor
Can comment & discuss here.
Can comment & discuss here.
Zeckson Chow
Senior Member
student said:
Thanks, Student. You know? Your PM made me think a lot on shooting portraits. Will definitely keep your words in mind when I have the chance to do so. Thanks a lot for encouraging me that time.
to what i notice. Portraits in CS is mainly "nose bleed man.." "chio" "pretty"
when negative criticism comes in, some are always ready to defend their pictures.
I've given up looking at pretty babes in the portraits section. Many photog in here under the pretence of portraiture photography are actually "following their instincts as a man attracted to beautiful women" and later on a thread:"have you fallen for your model" will pop up in kopitiam or somewhere. What I'm trying to say is that with the induction of more and more new members, the Portraits section is becomnig more and more chioeves or sggirls alike. I'm starting to wonder is it becoming a dating forum as well..
These are just my personal opinions/impression I have of the CS portraits forum.
when negative criticism comes in, some are always ready to defend their pictures.
I've given up looking at pretty babes in the portraits section. Many photog in here under the pretence of portraiture photography are actually "following their instincts as a man attracted to beautiful women" and later on a thread:"have you fallen for your model" will pop up in kopitiam or somewhere. What I'm trying to say is that with the induction of more and more new members, the Portraits section is becomnig more and more chioeves or sggirls alike. I'm starting to wonder is it becoming a dating forum as well..
These are just my personal opinions/impression I have of the CS portraits forum.
Max 2.8 said:
My apologies! A little busy today! Just came back from a meeting. Will look through those images later.
Meanwhile, here is a link to some images on people which I really like. I think these are images that most of us can aspire to.
www.stefan-rohner.com.
His other images are also very good.
TrailsofLife
Senior Member
student said:
Wa....damn nice man! This link page also got some nice picture from other photographer
- Status
Similar threads
