who? how? Gordon Gagliano, NY Sunday Books

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/books/review/book-review-children-and-fire-by-ursula-hegi.html</p>

<p>1) Can't find anything online about Gordon Gagliano, but his portrait of Ursula Hegli is even more beautiful on newsprint than online (less contrasty)</p>

<p>2) How do you suppose he lit it? Big soft strobe from above, given the hair movement and shadows? Good technique with natural light only?</p>

<p>3) The lack of kneejerk standard values (which I only-habitually share) such as catchlights and white-whites in eyes is refreshing.</p>

<p>4) He didn't try to make her look like a teen. Presumably likes women.</p>

<p>5) The blowing hair is dramatic, helps. Women and hair. What do you do with a woman who isn't as lucky as Hegli in that respect?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>That looks like an outdoor shot with simple daylight to me, on a somewhat cloudy day. But what an awkwardly framed shot.</p>

<p>I don't think it's "awkwardly framed," I think it's distinctively framed.<br>

<br /> Non-standard, not cookbook. Same story with eyes.<br>

<br /> Another way of saying this: most portrait photographers would try to fit the subject into a mold.</p>

<p>You're probably right about natural light/overcast, but I'm fishing for ideas about artificial light as well as other thoughts like yours (Matt) . My own natural tendency would be to cook-book the composition to make it more conventional...that is what people expect, but it's not necessarily my goal (photography doesn't pay my bills any more).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Completely subjective, of course, John. To me it looks like one of those crop-the-ex-boyfriend-or-the-potted-plant-out-of-the-shot sort of results. It's a likeable enough representation, and (in its lack of sugar-coating) conveys the seriousness of her and her subject matter. But mashing her face up against the left margin, and leaving an imposing dark space ove her head does what, really, to communicate something useful about her or her work? It's distinctive, all right, but that doesn't mean it's constructive.</p>

<p>Matt, Cinematographers use the non-proper to bring tension, a positive. Dynamics. Do you get that at all from the subject's hair, scarf, and positioning in the frame? I think that's why the photograph was published. The New York Times is pretty good at photo editing and they routinely give assignments to very expensive photographers. Maybe this is a great photo for a certain kind or vintage of viewer?</p>

<p>Generic shopping mall "customers" probably do want standardized poses and framings, but this is a portrait of a successful creative person...recognized for success and creativity by many writers' absolutely most desired publication. The dynamics might appeal to people thrilled to occasionally see something other than routine "composition". </p>

<p>And yes, that black section may have felt risky to the photographer. Seems to have paid off in terms of publication :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p> I think that's why the photograph was published. The New York Times is pretty good at photo editing and they routinely give assignments to very expensive photographers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a photo from the publisher's press kit. This isn't that hard to find out, it's used elsewhere. And, like most author photos, it's terrible. The reason is that the pay for author photos is terrible, except for the biggest names. Prices are typically $150 to $300, so the author often hands over photos taken by family or friends rather than have a stranger get paid. I know, I've been there.</p>

<p>Maybe to clarify a little further, Gordon Gagliano is Ursula Hegi's husband. He's not a photographer, although he seems to do painting. My assumption that it was family/friend was right. </p>

<p>Jeff, don't you think you're being a little harsh that it's "terrible"? I mean, there are so many ways to approach a subject, and certainly you know as well as most that these photos are often low budget hack work (as you've inferred), but still it has merit and obviously <em>somebody</em> likes it. Also, when contact sheets were still vogue, I've taken many shots I thought were really well done and then the client/agent/publisher picks some weird shot that doesn't really work for me, but again, they're dropping the cash and it paid a utility bill for me so there it is. I kind of liked the shot, so therefore I obviously find your opinion strong on this. ;-]</p>

<p>The photographer isn't a photographer? Hm. <br>

"seems to do painting"<br>

Jealousy? Yes. Some alleged professional photographers do take low rates. Better to have the work done by a friend.</p>

 

<p>To each his own. The guy's an architect, too.</p>

<p>Are Moderators photographers? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Jealousy? Yes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, speak for yourself. You know nothing about me. Making personal accusations is ridiculous. I've done author photos for publishers, there's not one I would show.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Are Moderators photographers?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's a useless, pointless and inane question. Thanks for asking.</p>

<p>Matt and Jeff, I am quite surprised at your criticism of this picture. This was a capture done by someone who had an artistic eye.</p>

<p>He is not <em>"mashing her face up against the left margin"</em>. There is space and imaginary space is expanded by her right arm going out of the frame.Her arm and the angle of her head and hair create dynamic diagonal lines. The scarf creates a secondary and balancing diagonal. I think if you superimposed a rule of thirds grid either the usual or diagonal it would fit quite well, if pushing the edges.</p>

<p>"an imposing dark space over her head" which is well balanced by the light areas of her hair, face and sweater. In fact, the salt and pepper of her hair is the inverse of the scarf.</p>

<p>Her expression gives her gravity and interest He might have even caught a spontaneous, unposed expression. The dark background makes us focus on the light foreground i.e. her face. This is not an unusual technique and it is excellently done here.</p>

<p>Maybe you guys should take another look.</p>

<p>Other Ursula Hegi photos can be found here:</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/search?q=ursula+hegi+photos&hl=en&biw=751&bih=379&prmd=ivnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qXEIToihKJKatwfF_vHpDQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBoQsAQ</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for sharing Luis, I must admit it was inspirational 8-)))) At least we know now that the NY Times shot was the "best". Maybe if she doesn't keep hubby busy with the camera he bugs her about other things.</p>

<p>I'm shocked at the low comments. Happily a couple of menschen spoke up in response.</p>

<p>I'm not surprised that some folks would want this middle aged woman (athlete and highly successful novelist, not incidentally) to be posed conventionally. Once that was accomplished they'd want her to look like a teen. Same as always.</p>

<p>For an old-school guy like me it's more than a little disgusting to see someone stoop to attacking a photographer as "not a photographer," for having a relationship with his subject (maybe), and for making good money painting. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Who said they wanted her posed conventionally? Please show one place that was said. </p>

<p>Who said anything about what money he made painting? Please show one place that was said.</p>

<p>You also inferred that the New York Times photo editor picked it even though it's the standard press kit photo she obviously uses. You haven't acknowledged that. You seem to be posting mis-statements without regard for what is actually there.</p>

<p>To see the difference between this photo and a great photo in a similar situation, take a look at Mapplethorpe's photo of Smith for the cover of Horses. At the time, Mapplethorpe was a collage artist, not a photographer. Smith was his girlfriend. It is a photo that shows both the relationship between the subject and the photographer and a stunning portrait. The photo of Hegi shows neither.</p>

<p>Some "as unbiased as possible" observations of the print version:<br>

It presents at 6-1/4 X 4-5/8 inches.<br>

The highlight areas (especially the left cheekbone) that present almost blown out on the screen version at about Zone IX, X are sitting around Zone VI, VII in the newsprint version. That alone to me is quite significant. The screen version holds much of the shadow detail, the print version does not, it drops off into areas of darkness without detail giving the photo a quite different presentation with a mood swing to go along.<br>

The lack of white, light, clarity in the eyes is much more pronounced in print, as if she's looking out from a dark porch or something. You have to search a bit for the eye contact, good or bad, it is what it is. I would say the most the white hits in print is Zone VI whereas the screen version seems to border on Zone VIII.<br>

I don't wish to bring in any comments on the composition or choice of lighting, just to present what strikes my as different from the two versions. Of course my monitor and newsprint version may not be exactly as you have.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I guess we won't find out who brought up "conventional posing." Or the money the guy made. Or where the "jealousy" accusation came from. So much for reasonable discourse. </p>

<p>The gross piggishness by a formerly respected Moderator and two hangers-on, related to Hegli's appearance speaks for itself. </p>

<p>I linked to a photo that I found interesting. I had a couple of questions. Big mistake. </p>

<p>Several creeps found it pleasurable to attack the author personally on the basis of her looks in other photos they labored to find online. Is it any wonder that most participants in P.N are men/boys?</p>

<p>It's evidently not cool in certain subcultures for a photographer to also be a successful painter, architect, and husband to a successful writer. Better to work for a camera store?</p>

<p>The lowest $$ I ever took for a non-catalog photograph was $200 (decades ago). Someone's recent $150 rate isn't a surprise. </p>

<p> </p>