Chet

First, I would like to make public apology to Jill for my bad choice of word "passport photo". After reading Jacque's second remark, i then realised that this was part of Jill's series for "assisted living" .. & then it explained the dullness of light and the unusual crop.

 

That's to me is a problem of singling out one photo from a series for POW without making clear notes to the viewer - the title for this one was not helpful and it was further compounded by elves' reference to "Studio Portraits".

 

My suggestion would be making a special hyperlink of the folder "assisted living" so thet viewer has more information (background etc) to help commenting on this POW.

 

I am interested in Marc's query on whether this photo was "studio portrait" and yes, if Jill can hold the answer to end of the week. Again please accept my sincere apology Jill :)

For me this photo seems to be not complete...because of the framing. Maybe for some people works, but I have the feeling that this 85% framing is not the right one. The expression is good, almost like at every old man or woman. Usually, old characters are impressive and touching... I also dislike the toning, a b&w photo, with a dramatic contrast would improve the portrait. My humble opinion...

You're going to have to define what a studio is because I seriously doubt if Jill hosted anyone from an assisted living community in her studio, unless her studio were on the ground floor of the community. Most likely, this was a makeshift studio and the residents were borrowed for a short while. Or, this gentleman was photographed near to where he happened to be at the given time.

The first thing I think about when I see cropping of this sort is: COPY. Where is the copy going? Well, look at how much room there is for words here. So, we got this makeshift studio going on, we got room for copy, what does that leave us?

 

ahh hah! A brochure, maybe, an annual report, an article for some magazine.

 

Now I'm thinking that this man's personality is not the primary purpose of the photo, but rather he is representing something else, something in addition to, or greater than himself. This doesn't mean the photo can't teach us about him, but that there are other things to consider.

I'm reminded of a portrait I made of public speaker, part of a conference I attended, one of those mountain retreats. The portrait exuded the speaker's character, I thought, and I was very proud of it. It was 35 mm, tight head shot, window light. Wrinkles, sags, jowls, etc. They were all there, but the character shown through like lightning, I thought. All of his energy and humor just poured out of the frame.

 

Well, I showed this photograph to a casual girlfriend one day and her first response, her only response, was to comment on the apparent lack of health possessed by the subject. I winced and asked her to explain. She pointed out that the sags, fat, wrinkles, and especially the that the whites of his eyes were not clear and vibrant, indicating some sort of malnourished state or something.

 

I was flabbergasted and insulted that my fine portrait would have been reduced to such misinterpretation, and that she had completely missed the point.

 

Relating this story is not to say that Chet is, or is not healthy, but to say rather that the photograph does not seem to make any pretense at glamorizing him. We don't see a portrayal trying to make him look younger, or more virile, or with more hair or less wrinkles, etc. In fact, the portrait emphasizes aging and the deterioration of the body by cutting some of it off, as if to say that this part of the brain doesn't work anymore, so get rid of it, it's not important.

 

come to think of it, there's not all that much room for copy.

Also, people don't generally go to assisted living facilities for picture opportunities unless they're trying to make a statement of some sort. I guess all this is irrelevant because the picture is supposed to stand on its own without all this background information and the inferences that flow. I don't personally believe that, but I know there are many that do, which I think is pitiful.

I think there needs to be some clarification as to what exactly the Elves mean by "Studio Portrait" Is it a formal photograph taken in an official studio or is it a posed portait as opposed to a candid portrait or is it somewhere in between? This seems to be a big issue with this photo and I'd like to hear something difinitive. I'm also not sure this should even be a part of the conversation. We're supposed to be discussing the photograph (which by and large we are), not the definition the Elves have placed on it.

I really don't feel the artist has given her subject what he truly deserves in this representation,IMHO, it is lacking so many things I really don't in any way feel she has done this elderly gentleman justification,its a hurried image!!!!!

What are the so many things that this image is missing? I am curious as to your list.

I'm always amazed that such small files can be considered for photo of the week.

The focus apperas to be out, the man's forehead of out of focus as is most of his face but his neck and shirt appear to be pin sharp.

The photo is a little soft, partly file size, party focus and perhaps other issues. I feel this man's face shouts pin sharp, and to help that along a lot more contrast.

Also I'm not keen on the groovey crop.

It is photo of the week, so I'm being picky.

On the other hand looking at Jill's folders she clearly has talent.

There are some very good pictures in Jill's folders and there are some more groovey crops and interesting angles, compositions etc.. some that don't work but some that really do. Certainly Jill is not scared to try something new.

The underlit eyes the lack of expressive lighting that would add to the created mood,lack of texture,shadow in the face,has a flat unexpressive feel which could have been worked by a different angled approach!! thanx for asking!

Interesting image but not my cup of tee. The crop doesn't bother me. Infact most crops don't, lol. The overall tonality bothers me here. Image is sort of half toney to me, sort of flat. The lack of spark in the eye is also very troublesome. Now maybe your idea here was to capture a lonely/despair kind of image but the white background wouldn't suggest that.

 

A great image for conversation. Congrats on the pic. I doubt I will ever have an image of mine chosen for this but would imagine it must be very hard. Some of the commentaries here tend to be pretty brutal. Definitely a growing experience for those involved... Dave

To Jill,please don't feel I'm being to harsh with my comments,for me one of the beauties of photography is I can always return to most subjects!! Have a good day!!

It seems that your biggest issue is the lighting then?

Yup the thought of being choosen for photo of the week is scary.

I guess one has no say in it, and it seems your best shots will be passed over.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the lack of environment as a problem with this photo. The photographer seems to have empathy with the subject based on the expression, but the viewer is denied knowing anything else other than some interpretation based on the crop. I can't help but think "What would Dorothea Lange have done in a similar situation?" I find the lack of surrounding environment a real loss as a result. I don't think the posed/not posed issue really matters. The famous Lange picture of the woman with her kids comes to mind where she air-brushed out the thumb and obviously posed her subjects very carefully to make her point.

Yes the main problem I can see is the lighting,but also when your in a position to have such a great subject,Scott the cougar on the trail,you should use all your abilities to capture the moment I feel this image lacks that certain feel, IMHO it has been broached in a much to casual manner!!!!and this subject could do better!

This photograph looks like the work of a fine photographer.

 

That said, as a portrait I think that you found the photo weak in some way. To make it

more interesting, you've cropped the left side of the man's head.

 

At first glance, this seems to make the image more interesting. Then again, now when

I look at it, it is a photograph of the man's right ear. His eyes are weak and the ear is

strong. Perhaps this is the story you've intended to tell.

 

So I say: Be bold. Show the whole head. Put him in the middle. The background

doesn't change because it's white. Let the subject tell his story. Don't cheat him. By

this cropping, your photograph appears to me to be more "arty" but not more artistic.

 

-bruce

Jill, you have a really good eye for portraits and I really enjoy many of your other photographs. However, this one, IMHO, is one of the weakest. First of all, the lighting is too flat and harsh for this subject to my liking. Perhaps it is to avoid a cliché and create an original effect, but it just doesn't work for me. I think the cropping works, but just not for this face. What I feel when I look at this photograph is a grumpy old man that didn't want his picture taken. That's just me. I hope people will look through your portfolio because I think you have way more powerful photographs there. Cheers!

Chet/crop

 

I think the picture is of a sweet old man who would cause no harm to anyone and is content to eat his fruit and toast for breakfast and live to see another day, but, who would be equally content to let go of this life and not feel that he is missing out on anything.

For whatever reason, I like the image better when it is flipped (man on left side). When I view the picture this way, it seems that the smile is more sincere or real, but when seeing the original post, the smile seems kind of forced as if it took a lot of prompting in the part of the photographer to squeeze this listless grim out of him. Every time I see a photograph of an elderly person I dont know how to react. I dont want to be disrespectful by criticizing his/her look or his/her demeanor so I simply dont comment on them. But for some reason this is not the case hereI must add that I got my inspiration from the groovy framing toward the FAR SIDE. I think this gentleman would not take any offence at what Im about to do here (at least I hope he never sees my edited version).

 

It seems to me that those of us who prefer that he be on the left, and those who prefer that he be in the middle, would be very happy with what I have done to satisfy our curiosity. I have taken the liberty to take both of these suggestions to the test, and I have come up with the solutionplease see attached. I have also increased contrast for those who find the image kind of flat.

 

On a more serious note: I dont think the image is that interesting. This would certainly be a good picture of your dad but not with this extreme cropping; not for me anyways. As far as the cropping goes, I cant say the intent was to introduce a new style. My opinion is that it is an attempt to break the conventional result that is inevitable with this type of studio (non-environmental, straight - centered) portrait where the individual being photographed has to have such character so as to raise the photograph to a level higher than the rudimentary results of portraiture(not the case here). My opinion: it succeeded in not being repetitive, but not enough to set it apart from its class. By this I dont mean: set apart from its classification, I mean from its level of achievement

By the way Jill, dont be offended by my impertinance. I got this idea purely by accident when trying to reverse the image so I could see him on the left side. I just couldnt stop myself from posting my new discovery. This is all in good fun and has absolutely nothing to do with mocking your work (which I havent seen the rest of, BTW).

The man doesnt look to happy with your post...! Look at him now! No offense on my side... just an alternative view.

I suspect the elves may have made a bit of a booboo this week. Not because Jill's picture isn't up to an award in another category, but because this portrait doesn't classify as "studio portrait" to me at all. Looking in Jill's folio certainly indicates that she is a more journalistic photographer, and this particular portrait does look like flash bounced off the ceiling. A perfectly acceptable result for a documentary shot (though I too would like more light in the eyes). I can think of several more desirable features I would like to see in this photo (as already mentioned in previous comments) but it doesn't seem to be fair comment if this was not a studio set-up.

;o)

and you are right G.!

I think this is a great photo, and cant believe the extreme analysis that goes before, whatever happened to taking something at face value( pardon the pun!)I think the crop adds interest to the photo. I dont think you need to show this mans environment because it's in his eyes, he has seen some life - but there is a twinkle there as well. Great photo altogether!! Regards Helen