Jump to content

grahams

Members
  • Posts

    2,082
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

5 Followers

  1. grahams

    Whitby Abbey

    I like the dove on the top of the arch on the right. Well done.
  2. grahams

    Byland Abbey

    You are a maestro!
  3. grahams

    Lanercost Priory

    Nicely composed, Dennis.
  4. Superb photograph, Dennis. The perspective is unusual. Your colour treatment is spot-on.
  5. grahams

    18439267.jpg

    Bravo, Dennis. I remember standing at your shoulder when you captured this shot and I thought at the time that it would be a winner!
  6. <p >Well, this certainly has been an interesting discussion. Whether you like the work of Yousuf Karsh or not, you have to admire his work ethic and skill. He produced a prodigious body of work to a consistently high standard which, if nothing else, ensured a continuing stream of customers. As has been said, “<em>When the rich and famous started to think of immortality, they called for Yousuf Karsh!”</em></p> <p > </p> <p >Returning to my original question, the general consensus of opinion seems to be that the scowling portrait of Churchill is preferable to the smiling one. Reasons given are either due to technical factors or just personal preference. </p> <p > There has been much discussion about whether Karsh succeeded in revealing his subjects’ “inner character” or not. In my opinion, Karsh portrayed his subjects according to how they saw themselves, or wanted to be seen, at the time. He was, after all, a businessman, and I think customer satisfaction played a large part in his success and reputation. It is also worth noting that he said “<em>Within every man and woman a secret is hidden, and as a photographer it is my task to reveal it </em><strong>if I can</strong><em>. The revelation, </em><strong>if it comes at all</strong><em>, will come in a small fraction of a second ………….” </em>However, I can agree with Fred G when he wrote “Karsh's statement of his own goal to uncover the person behind the mask sounds like something cool to say and something I've heard said before and since. But it doesn't sound like it really reflects what he was doing and it rings hollow coming from his lips.”</p> <p >As for the quality of the images that I posted links to, I would have preferred to post the images of my choice here, but I was unable to obtain clarity on the status of the copyright on the Churchill, Eisenhower and Kennedy portraits. Some sources state that they are now in the public domain and others, that copyright still remains in the Karsh estate. It seems that the 70 year rule is not universally accepted or may not yet have come into effect. I therefore had to use links to images that were of suitable size and that were sanctioned by the Karsh estate, the quality of which can be problematic. I am quite sure that Karsh produced prints of both Churchill portraits to a similar high standard. As for his lighting, I agree with Dan South that Karsh lit his subjects in a way reminiscent of classic motion picture treatment and I can vouch for this because my father, who is a retired DOP of the "old school" often referred to “Karsh’s style” when lighting a set!</p> <p >Lastly, my thanks to you all for your participation and lively interest in the subject of Yousuf Karsh’s portraits of Winston Churchill. </p>
  7. http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/set/262/Photographs+by+Yousuf+Karsh This site can be viewed on a mobile device.
  8. <p>When I was asked to start the discussion this week, on an iconic photograph, I had difficulty deciding on the photograph that I would use. However, portraiture is my favorite discipline and I therefore choose to open the discussion by asking your opinion on not one, but two iconic portraits.<br /><br />Yousuf Karsh is one of my all time heroes. If I could have chosen a photographer to work for as a gopher and tea boy in my formative years, I would have chosen Karsh. When most teenagers worshipped teen idols from the silver screen or the sports stadium, I worshiped Yousuf Karsh. From very humble beginnings, Karsh had the good fortune to be sent from Armenia to live with his uncle in Canada, when he was a child. His uncle was a photographer and arranged for the young Yousf to be apprenticed to a Boston, MA portrait photographer, John Garro, in 1928. The rest, as they say, is history, because Karsh went on to become one of the greatest portrait photographers of the twentieth century. <br /><br />One of Karsh’s most iconic portrait photographs is that of Winston Churchill. Made in 1941, when Churchill was in Otttawa to address the Canadian House of Commons, it has become synonymous with the very essence of Winston Churchill as the man who led Britain to victory in the second world war. Karsh had the rare gift of being able to portray the inner character of his subjects. He wrote, “Within every man and woman a secret is hidden, and as a photographer it is my task to reveal it if I can. The revelation, if it comes at all, will come in a small fraction of a second with an unconscious gesture, a gleam of the eye, a brief lifting of the mask that all humans wear to conceal their innermost selves from the world. In that fleeting interval of opportunity the photographer must act or lose his prize." That Karsh achieved his prize is evident in his work. Look at his portrait of JFK, and one sees the visionary. Look at his portrait of Eisenhower, and one sees the determined leader. Look at Nelson Mandella and one sees the compassionate statesman with a sense of humour. <br /><br />Karsh’s portrait of Winston Churchill became an instant hit in 1941, but few realise that Karsh made two portraits, the second one has Churchill smiling at the camera. Karsh told the story of how he captured the images, in his book Faces of Our Time. He said,"He was in no mood for portraiture and two minutes were all that he would allow me as he passed from the House of Commons chamber to an anteroom. Two niggardly minutes in which I must try to put on film a man who had already written or inspired a library of books, baffled all his biographers, filled the world with his fame, and me, on this occasion, with dread." Churchill marched into the room scowling, "regarding my camera as he might regard the German enemy expression suited Karsh perfectly, but the cigar stuck between Churchill’s teeth seemed incompatible with such a solemn and formal occasion. "Instinctively, I removed the cigar. At this the Churchillian scowl deepened, the head was thrust forward belligerently, and the hand placed on the hip in an attitude of anger." Karsh captured Churchill’s mood perfectly and titled the photograph “The Roaring Lion.” As Churchill’s mood lightened, Karsh captured another image of him, smiling. Karsh himself admits that this second image is his favourite of the two.<br /><br />I show you both images here. In my opinion, the first, scowling portrait portrays the man as he is remembered, but the second, smiling portrait reveals that inner secret that few were privy to. I prefer the second. Which do you prefer, and why? Should Karsh have released both portraits?<br> Churchill Scowling: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw08607/Winston-Churchill?set=262%3BPhotographs+by+Yousuf+Karsh&search=ap&rNo=2<br> Churchill Smiling: http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw08608/Winston-Churchill?set=262%3BPhotographs+by+Yousuf+Karsh&search=ap&rNo=3<br> JFK: http://c300221.r21.cf1.rackcdn.com/yousuf-karsh-a-photographer-in-the-shadows-of-his-famous-subjects-photos-1389370147_b.jpg<br> Mandella: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9vfl7PnKAkI/ToiKaXj0jwI/AAAAAAAALKs/Bsw8VtKVpQU/s640/Nelson-Mandela-by-Yousuf-Karsh.jpg</p> <p>You can see more of the work of Yousuf Karsh here: http://www.karsh.org/</p> <p> <br /><br /></p>
×
×
  • Create New...