Jump to content

Portraits (2)


jc1305us

Recommended Posts

I RARELY if ever have asked strangers for a portrait, but I felt these were too good to pass up, and shooting with the Rolleiflex seems to lend itself to talking to strangers! lol. Rolleiflex 2.8f, Kodak Tri-X 400. August 2020, Ocean City, NJ.Thanks in advance!

Jonathan

 

 

 

 

Image-1-web.thumb.jpg.a410704657dd4d81b8e3c5881d47f8e4.jpg

 

Image-2-web.thumb.jpg.7593a47f34415b674babef2d23397c0f.jpg

Edited by William Michael
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears you are using the central focusing aids on your focusing screen - which results in the heads of your subject being central in the frame with a lot of empty space above. You need to either use focus and recompose or compose with the heads higher in the frame and focus with that area of the focusing screen (assuming there's a matte screen in your camera). Also, in both images, the subject is cut off at the knees - never ever cut people images at joints (there's plenty of literature out there to show where to cut and where not to).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears you are using the central focusing aids on your focusing screen - which results in the heads of your subject being central in the frame with a lot of empty space above. You need to either use focus and recompose or compose with the heads higher in the frame and focus with that area of the focusing screen (assuming there's a matte screen in your camera). Also, in both images, the subject is cut off at the knees - never ever cut people images at joints (there's plenty of literature out there to show where to cut and where not to).

Yes, the 2.8f I have has one of those damn split prism finders installed. My 3.5e has a full focus screen, and it’s easier to use. Good to know, about the cut offs. I’ll definitely look into it. Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, in both images, the subject is cut off at the knees - never ever cut people images at joints (there's plenty of literature out there to show where to cut and where not to).

A good general guideline to keep in mind in many/most instances. But, as with a lot of general guidelines, there are times when they can be broken to great effect. Conscious and deliberate challenges to such guidelines can be fun to watch for.

 

HELMUT NEWTON, ARENA-MIAMI-1978

  • Like 2

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are times when they can be broken to great effect. Conscious and deliberate challenges to such guidelines can be fun to watch for.

I think Newton's image would greatly benefit from him taking a step back (and possibly a few to his right). Cutting her off at the knee is made tolerable by the inclusion of the guy's head in the lower right - sticking the diving board through her neck is almost as bad though (especially taken together with the person on said board touching the woman's face). I have to assume that this was a "snap shot" and not the result of some careful planning. As it is, there's almost no choice as to cut her at the knees - stepping back puts the cut in the shins - better but not ideal (though the overall image would include the diver fully (and not with cut-off feet); not sure what having more than the guy's head in the image would do though). Cutting above the knees decapitates the guy - not good either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to assume that this was a "snap shot" and not the result of some careful planning.

I don't assume that. I think if Newton had wanted to take a step back he would have. He's a very deliberate photographer and does things all the time like those you've noticed which gives his work an offbeat and edgy character, pretty much throughout his career. The cutoff limbs in this photo as well as the diving board situation and the guy's head cut off where it is give what is an intentional photo a feel of spontaneity and draws me in much more than had everything been "neatly" included in the frame or more traditionally composed.

 

I any case, as this is a critique forum, I offered the photo to the OP as an example of how and why guidelines can be broken and it will be up to each of us when and how we might want to do that and when it's best to stick to tradition.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how and why guidelines can be broken and it will be up to each of us when and how we might want to do that and when it's best to stick to tradition

Understood and accepted - I am the last person to stick to "rules" and "norms". But one should know those in order to make a determination as to when to follow them and when to break them.

 

I don't assume that. I think if Newton had wanted to take a step back he would have.

I have never been in his presence, so I can't know how he approaches his shooting. I strictly go by what I see in the result. Wouldn't be the first time that a "big name" gets the benefit of the doubt whereas the same "mistake" made by a bloody beginner would earn nothing but ridicule.

 

give what is an intentional photo a feel of spontaneity

That doesn't contradict what I said - just the opposite: if that was indeed the intention he completely succeeded in giving me that impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these are both very good photos. Strong casual captivating portraits. I do not think your post work has discovered the potential.

I don't recall if you have mentioned your pp experience in the past..? Film darkroom or digital darkroom? I see that the sky is quite nice when processed to bring out the clouds and sky and contrasted to the water. Also the muddy face, skin and board in the 2nd image is easily adjusted and creates a equally pleasant light, like the 1st.. If you were to start finessing I think you would find other minor details might suggest some other simple adjustments. All relatively simple.

These photos are definitely worth the attention.

imo, The suggestion to crop above knees is a good idea aesthetically.. in this case. The 'cropping at a joint rule' is another thing altogether (far too many exceptions). I like maintaining the square format.

Nice captures.

n e y e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these are both very good photos. Strong casual captivating portraits. I do not think your post work has discovered the potential.

I don't recall if you have mentioned your pp experience in the past..? Film darkroom or digital darkroom? I see that the sky is quite nice when processed to bring out the clouds and sky and contrasted to the water. Also the muddy face, skin and board in the 2nd image is easily adjusted and creates a equally pleasant light, like the 1st.. If you were to start finessing I think you would find other minor details might suggest some other simple adjustments. All relatively simple.

These photos are definitely worth the attention.

imo, The suggestion to crop above knees is a good idea aesthetically.. in this case. The 'cropping at a joint rule' is another thing altogether (far too many exceptions). I like maintaining the square format.

Nice captures.

Much appreciated. I was a totally digital shooter since I really started being interested in photography about 10 years ago. And almost strictly a cityscape/architecture guy at that. I started film about 2 years ago. First with 35mm which I didn’t love, then with medium format. First being a Rolleicord, then with several rolleiflexes. (The robustness of the rolleiflex really attracted me, especially after the shutter on my ‘cord jammed.) still primarily an architecture/city shooter, as I try and sell my prints online, but I have realized that people are way more interesting, especially when shot on film!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a film darkroom or are you doing your post processing in digital? Also how much pp experiwence do you have? It helps inform the critiques. To know how much of what we are seeing is an intentional decision.

I process exclusively in Lightroom. I’d say I’ve been using that for about 7-8 years. The film photos I posted have not been processed at all. I’m trying to get better at film photography, so without a darkroom to dodge and burn, I’ll process in LR. Generally I try and stay close to what came from the scanned negative, if I do post, I generally put a filter on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks that does help. Knowing that these are intentionally not post processed beyond the scanning & conversion options changes my critique... to a more generic one.

 

These portraits have real potential. I would enjoy seeing them with some pp.

Edited by inoneeye
  • Like 1

n e y e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, the 'ethereal' quality of your 1st portrait under portrait (1) started me off on yet another "film vs. digital" websearch. There are articles and videos that illustrate that digital photos and film photos shot at the same location are pretty much indistinguishable from each other. There are also are also articles and videos that illustrate that photos shot on film have a very different quality to those shot digitally.

 

Pre-digital, I took 'snapshots' on 35mm film too. But my real interest in photography only started when I bought my 1st digital camera in 2003 (a canon Powershot G7). Since then, I've been a strictly digital photographer. My assumption has always been that from a digital 'raw' file and a plethora of digital (plugin) filters, any 'film look' could be digitally emulated.

 

One of the most entertaining (starting out in photography) videos I watched was

. During the interview, Tran explains that she had so much difficulty and spent so much time trying to emulate a 'film look' from digital photos that she decided it was was just easier for to justy shoot film.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ocean City New Jersey is along way from Newport Beach, yet, my first impression was an uncanny likeness to Max Dupain's "Beach Portraiture": I guess the sea and surfing, like Music and Photography, have no geographic boundaries and speak a universal language.

 

I think a Series on this theme would be a fantastic adventure for you.

 

WW

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ocean City New Jersey is along way from Newport Beach, yet, my first impression was an uncanny likeness to Max Dupain's "Beach Portraiture": I guess the sea and surfing, like Music and Photography, have no geographic boundaries and speak a universal language.

 

I think a Series on this theme would be a fantastic adventure for you.

 

WW

Admittedly, I had to look up Dupain, and I was blown away by his portraits. Very cool to read that my photos have even a passing likeness to those classics. As I said, never really having shot portraits, it was a spur of the moment thing, almost as much about wanting to see what my new camera could do, then taking photos of those surfers in the great afternoon light. But, luck favors the prepared as they say, and I was prepared with my beautiful Rollei and a new roll of tri-x. Here’s a link to a story on Dupain for anyone interested. “The Sunbaker” is a stone cold classic!

Max Dupain the man behind Australia’s most famous photo hated the iconic image | Daily Mail Online

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Admittedly, I had to look up Dupain, and I was blown away by his portraits.

 

We have many talented 'sleepers' down here. Glad you looked him up. There is good learning there.

 

***

 

Anyway - "I think a Series on this theme would be a fantastic adventure for you." was quite considered and serious advice: I do trust you will consider it.

 

Break a leg.

 

WW

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...