Capturing Essense

It is often spoken of how good portraits capture the essence of a subject.

1. What does 'essence' mean to you in relation to a photographic subject who

are complete strangers to you.

2. How do you tell if you have captured it or not?

3. And lastly is it possible to capture this in a posed setting?

You kind of know it when you see it. I've photographed some great looking models that just didn't look good in the final image, while some that I was reluctant to shoot looked stunning. I'm not sure if that's essence, but I think so. Posed? Yup. It doesn't matter. It's what the model or person is willing to give you.

I agree a bit with Michael above. I think the answer is that if you feel you know something important about a person after examining the portrait, you've succeeded. And if you already know the person, then perhaps it is possible to reveal a little something that you did not know before -- or something the person being photographed did not know!

It is nearly impossible not to capture the essence of a subject in a photograph; although it isn't always flattering. Relating this to your previous thread about the relationship between the subject and the photographer; it is incumbent on the photographer to demonstrate a connection to the subject and the photograph will reveal the nature of that connection. For instance, if I am on my game and I think my subject is beautiful, then the photograph will convey that beauty.

I tend to find essense in my sitter's eyes. It starts from there and once you have established a connection with their eyes, the rest of the sitter's body language will flow naturally. I think it is Annie Leibovitz that said something to the effect of not being afraid to fall in love with the subject. Scary, but so true. :)

I am sure you mean "photographic essence" because the essence of a person is not visible.

I meant 'essence' to the extent that could be captured by the photographic media.

I like Anthony's idea. In order to capture the "essence" you have to know what it is you are after, then you can track it down. You have to define it first or else your photography is just random effort.

 

If it is courage, strength, beauty, fragility, gentleness, generosity, kindness, arrogance, faith, trust, confusion, whatever the "essence" of that person/animal/thing is, once you have defined it you can try to capture it in a portrait. Unless you know what you want, you wont get it except by chance.

Rosmini, thanks for your clarification about the word "essence." I'm sure most of us

understood just what you meant to begin with. With my own portraits, and I'm relatively

new, I think of it as capturing an essential moment. I'm not sure people have "an essence"

that can actually be pinned down in one shot, but I think we do have unique expressions,

moods, tilts of the head, etc. that can convey a lot about ourselves. What works for me is,

even with a person I'm shooting who I have not met before, talking to them and doing it

while I'm shooting, putting the camera aside at times and picking it up when I get the

sense they are most being themselves. I also think a good photographer may sometimes

come up with something that doesn't really convey an "accurate" picture of who the model

is, but nevertheless seems spontaneous and very real. Not sure what to call that.

We do need to define 'essence' before we say we can 'capture' it. I would argue that even if we managed to define 'essence', what we would have is only a photographic 'representation' of it.

WE (the viewer) imbue the photograph with meaning and identity not the other way round.

Essence (when used in the context of a human being) is often described as something that is the irreducible core of a person, their 'authentuc self'. But philisophically this is a contentious

issue. For us to talk of 'capturing the essence of a person' is non-sensical, especially when combining it with the concept of beauty.

 

As photographers we make photographs by recording reflected light.As viewers we bring our understanding TO the photograph and decipher its visual signs. Applying the quasi-religio-spiritual concept of 'essence' to photography seems a little absurd when viewed in this context.

 

x pete

I disagree that a photograph can be explained by the reductionist pure physics explanation. Steve McCurry's photo of the Afghan girl was far more than just physics. He captured something that everyone who saw the image could see. What people perceived was at least part of the "essence" (I don't like that word, really) of that young woman's being, at a far more complicated level than just recorded light. There are dozens of other images that people know well enough to remember precisely because they saw more than a physical reproduction of some photons. (Even photons, by the way, have a very complicated "essence" that no physicist can talk about without sounding all "quasi-religio-spiritual")

 

I think it is absolutely true that a photographer can capture more than the physical appearance of a scene or person. Aspects of character and even more "spiritual" aspects of a person or scene can be deliberately revealed in photography, painting, sculpture, any form of art.

 

My point is just that an artist should have in his mind what he is trying to illustrate before he begins. It is still possible to have something happen serendipitously, but that's like trying to take credit for the fact you are tall.

But we must remember that we are dealing in symbols. We represent. There are many dilemmas when representing. For instance, Larry said "Steve McCurry's photo of the Afghan girl..." when referring to the photograph BY Steve of HER. Who is she? She is an IDEA. 'She' represents, THE war, a war, a child, suffering, the other, foreign, girl, my younger sister etc...many things, but yet, whether her 'essence' has been caught doesn't matter if we don't even know her name.

Disagree again.

 

She was not just an idea. She was a real person whose image contained a kind of summation of her circumstances that revealed truth about her life (let's not use "essence") that most people recognized instantly. It is symbolic, but that is exactly what we do when we capture in a still photo something that is more than the sum of the photons. That's why it is so famous. While it is not (as some cultures have believed) her soul captured in the camera, the image does contain information about who she is that is profoundly important.

 

The fact we didn't know her name until very recently, is proof that her name was irrelevant. She DID matter in spite of her anonymity. The image does not represent all of her life, but there was something of her most private self revealed in that moment. Everyone can see it.

 

I don't know how many will remember Bruce Dale's photo of Terry Denton swimming in a natural pool that was published in Nat. Geog. He wrote an article called "Behind the Smile of the Woodcarver's Daughter": Be Ready for Serendipitous moments that Capture the Essence of Your Subject. It was published in March/April edition of PCPhoto. I can't find a link.

 

She is radiant. The shot reveals an internal and external beauty that is obviously a part of her life. It did not reveal the internal turmoil that led to depression and eventually a tragic death at 35 from an overdose of her medication. But as Mr. Dale suggests, there is something revealed in that portrait that goes beyond just a record. His capture was serendipitous as his story reveals, but the image stunning because of its revelation of at least part of her character.

 

Is that not "essence" as used by the OP?

 

Take a look at the Karsh photo of Winston Churchill that was achieved when Karsh snatched the cigar from Churchill's mouth and then snapped the photo of his reaction. That was a deliberate act to evoke the expression of part of Churchill's character by a master portrait photographer. http://nationalgallery.gov.au/Exhibition/KarshShmith/Detail.cfm?IRN=49449

<i>She was not just an idea. She was a real person whose image contained a kind of

summation of her circumstances that revealed truth about her life</i><p>

Methinks you are confusing a powerful impression with veracity.<p>

MEthinks you are mistaking brevity with insight.

Larry, the photograph in question cannot speak of the subject. Without surfing the net for commentary, what can you tell of the subject's life? You can tell that she has the recessive geen for green eyes, and then speculate upon which ethnic influence it came from but that's all. The photograph tells us nothing about the real person.

 

I am not saying that's a deficiency in the photographer's work, but just the way it is.

Surely you are not suggesting that portraits like the one of Churchill do not reveal anything about the person other than physical traits.

 

Portrait photography is nothing more than passport photos with nice light?

 

Every glamor photographer, portrait specialist, fashion photographer, product and advertising specialist will tell you that it is quite possible to create with an image an impression of far more than just physical properties. A good portrait photographer will deliberately "examine" his subject for those elements he thinks are important to illustrate, and then make careful choices of pose, light, and time to trip the shutter to create that illustration. A good landscape photographer actually does the same thing when he waits for light that creates the mood of the place that he wants to show us. In fact, all photographers do the same thing with every image they take.

 

It is revelations of that type that separate photographic art from snapshots.

Interesting question, can we capture it? YES.

 

But defining what is the essence actually defines the photographer, and we see something like that happening right here. :D

<i>Surely you are not suggesting that portraits like the one of Churchill do not reveal anything about the person other than physical traits. </i><p>

Let's not equivocate. Tell me what the photograph of Sharbat Gula tells you about her, or her "essence"?

Ah, I see that third essence being discussed here, if we take the risk to talk about the essence of a photo, could that be:

 

essence of the subject + essence of the photographer + essence of the viewer? I use the term essence losely.

 

Let's imagine a matchmaker took Steve McCurry's photo to an afghan boy, what does the young man see? Same essence as seen by those living in North America?

<i>essence of the subject + essence of the photographer + essence of the viewer? I use the term essence losely. </i><p>

That translates to zero + p + v.<p>

There is no essence of the subject outside of words required to create it.

Rosmini, perhaps the best example is Karsh (Churchill, Kruschev, Trudeau portraits). He studied his subjects and create whatever was necessary, using props (like with Ernest Hemingway mariners sweater portrait, Chutchill<s cigar whipped from his mouth to get a defiant expression, Krustchev's bear costume, etc.) or his analytical intelligence. A master worth studying.

The photo does not directly capture anyone's or anything's essence but the subject can be manipulated via the photograph to convey whatever essence you want. So the steps are (1) decide what [you think] the essence is and (2) rig things so that the photo communicates, in its visual language, what you decided. If people agree with your decision in #1 and if you have done #2 competently, people will say you have captured the essence of the person.

 

Churchill example. Photographer decides that the essence of WC is to be pugnacious, indignant, ticked off. So he needs a ticked-off expression. Problem is that WC is puffing contentedly on cigar. Solution; grab cigar, press trigger. A bit more creative than telling a model to think of something sad, but same basic idea. For those familiar with WC's life, it seems to capture his essence. For those who had never heard of him, it might not do so any better than a photo of him smiling and puffing away.

 

Sharbat Gula. Maybe she was a cheerful girl who, even in the middle of a war zone, spent all her time grinning and playing hopscotch with her friends. Her friends might not recognize this haunted image as like her in any way. Shooting for the NatGeo audience the photographer gets to decide whatever essence he wants. He decides on hurt and haunted and does a great job of it. Maybe we were fooled into thinking this was the real essence of the girl. Maybe we wanted to be.

 

Did seeing the photos of her all grown up in some way diminish the original picture for you? It did for me.

Of course photographers choose to manipulate what the photograph illustrates. That is what the process is all about. Sometimes, as in advertising, the "message" is highly manipulative. Always the message is only one choice of many available. Churchill's character would, of course, be just as revealed if Karsh had chosen to show us the amiable side (I'm assuming he had one).

 

My original post suggests you should have made that decision before you start to photograph, otherwise you are just hoping something meaningful will appear and that is not very efficient, but, to be called a portrait, I think it must have more than just a physical resemblance to the person, place, or thing being photographed.

 

Ray is absolutely correct too. All photographs reveal as much about the photographer as they reveal about the subject. And that is undoubtedly what is happening here. At least a bit.

 

Well......... maybe a lot.

Churchill did have a pleasant side, of course. All positive and great mnen do. But what Karsh needed was a visual statement related to his character, which allowed him to make a significant portrait of a man who came out of retirement to (help) save his country from imminent destruction. By understanding his subject, K was able to capture what was most significant. The recent film "Churchill" apparently shows him in his relaxed side, with family, as he prepares (in c1933) to retire from public life and enjoy his family and very likely what became his eventual hobby of painting. It is disappointing that someone so stunning as the Afghan girl with green eyes should have received nothing but misery throughout her life. We of the complascent west commandeered her portrait for our own purposes (aesthetic) and forgot about the need.

 

But it all boils down to getting to know your subject. Simply photographing interesting or weathered facial features, or exhibiting superb lighting control does not a good portrait make.