single photos Summer portrait

Just to be clear, this is not a stock photo, at least not for sale on all of the sites I could find where Stasys sells his stock photography. It is included in personal collections on a few sites.

I was only meaning that it could quite easily be, for the reasons mentioned, that is all.

DL, I thought your analysis was excellent and if you posted it earlier might have saved a lot of pixels from being harmed here ;))

Alberta, again, I don't know that if this was or wasn't ever stock is relevant anyway. The image could certainly be used for commercial purposes based on the mood it establishes but as DL said, it could also just as easily be on the wall of someone's study. It has an appeal and when something has appeal, it can work in many different ways.

Marc brought up this idea of "taking away" again, which changes the image but, personally, I think the image would be fine in straight black and white--not Tom's version, which is almost hideous, but a straight conversion. The color, which is there, just adds to the heat (summer) of the image. The color and the treatment are there, it isn't something else.

Anyway, DL said it very well as to how this image operates and the fact that not everyone will feel it the same.

There has been so much negative mention of stock photos, I thought it important to note that this one does not seem to be for sale on any sites where Stasys' work is available for purchase.

That pretty much says it all for me: it leaves room for the imagination. In fact, it requires imagination on the part of the viewer.

For some, the imagination gave us the bizarre (the toothless, shrunken head), and for others a summer idyll at the beach. In every case, however, it does seem that the photo engages the viewer, and I see that as a definite strong point of the photograph, given the various negative things that have been said about it.

I will not claim that it shows the superior technical skill that Jim Adams displays in his portraits and figure studies, but it shows another facet of photographic skill.

How would one label that skill? I really am not sure. Fred hinted at it, I think, with reference to "vision."

With this picture, Stasys also finally engaged our emotions and not merely our cognitive and imaginative processes. No one seemed to be totally indifferent to it.

--Lannie

I like DL's explanation very much too, but for me the sentiment that the picture expresses feels a little manufactured, so I can't really buy into it 100 percent.

<<<In every case, however, it does seem that the photo engages the viewer, and I see that as a definite strong point of the photograph, given the various negative things that have been said about it.>>>

Lannie, I appreciate a lot of what you've said, but I can't buy this. It's often said . . . "oh if it gets such a negative reaction, it must be a strong photo." Nah. I think the people who don't like this are entitled not to have their words turned back on them. Creating a photo that people don't like is not necessarily a strength, though it can be. Sometimes, they don't like it simply because they don't and in their minds because it's weak or because they don't think it's very good. I wouldn't read any more into their dislike than that.

Someone saying that the eyes are like black holes isn't saying they're engaged by the photo. They're describing what they see as a flaw. Besides, engaging a viewer is not necessarily a strength if the viewer is turned off. It might just engage them because it's so bad. I know I've been engaged by all sorts of things that are simply trash.

One thing that often occurs in these discussions is that engagement in the discussion can seem like but not actually be engagement by the photo.