Chet

Jacques, I think you are seeing things. He looks pretty happy to me!

It's simple.

And I like it.

Chet's face really does make the difference he has a lot of character there a few stories to tell. I like the way you have it cropped. It's as if I'm looking down and away from him as though he has told me something that makes me feel ashamed. Looking at it again maybe ashamed is not the best choice of word...can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe proud..?

I also see quite a lot in those eyes I think that there almost seems to be a flicker of brown in there somewhere. As far as the background goes, I don't think this picture warrants one it looks well without it. I think it would detract from the subjects face and maybe darken the picture substantially more.

 

I wouldn't say that I am blown away by this pic but...would like to have taken it myself.

Job well done.

You guys are bad.

 

Bad Boys!

 

Very Bad.

I do not wish to be unfairly critical, but I'm afraid I must go against the grain of the previous comments. I feel it's a very good portrait, but not great, and there are some better portraits even in the same portfolio. With regard to tonality, on my computer screen it appears somewhat flat, perhaps due to flare, or a thin negative with regard to the subject(heavy emphasis on MY computer screen, as my own images tend to have the reverse problem, downloading frustratingly dark). On the upside, the crop or framing is nice and adds some tension to the overall feel, and the character of the face is certainly very good.

This piece reminds of Dick Avedon's work if your familiar with him. He shot clebrities and common folk alike in black&white with a pure white backdrop. This image definately emulates his style.

Viewing this photo in light of it being taken in an assisted living facility, the photo says a lot by the man's expression.

 

But it falls short as a studio portrait. The cropping draws attention to the photograph, but does nothing for the subject. The lighting is extremely flat and leaves me wanting a better look into the man's eyes. A more classical lighting style would have added more depth and character to the subject's face.

 

A good journalistic photo, yes... studio portrait, no.....

Boring and cold, too clinical. Plus, I've seen this sort of portrait work done before- the blank white background deal. By a famous photographer back in the day whose name eludes me, but I'm sure others know who it is. This famous photog did it more successfully since there was more conveyance from the subjects usually.

As mentioned before, Richard Avedon pioneered this concentration on the subject with a white background. This one however doesn't have character.

This portrait looks suited for a reportage or in a gallery.

The frist thing that struck me was the white background, like a white void surrounding him, like half-way to heavens. It gives the feeling of a lonely man, who's lived his life and we'll never find out his story. Maybe the crop is good for that, for showing that we won't ever see his whole face, his whole story. Just a glimpse of an old man.

 

The crop and the background work depending on the purpose of the portrait. This may be a very bad grandfather portrait (I couldn't cut off the ear of my grandfather, nor surround him with void), but it may be a very good human photo. Maybe the crop is a little bit brutal for my taste, but life is like that too; and he's got the smile to balance that.

 

I looked at the other photos in the folder and from the 3 croped portraits he's the best. Maybe because of the smile (and ear).

 

Enigmatic and quiet.

Well done.

he seems to be exhonorating old age ! by positioning the head in such away

he is doing what most grandfathers do (nod and a wink) an age old knowing.

 

The anticipation of most viewers is to understand that portraits need

grounding this would be the reason for background intervention we have

been shown by the work of Thomas Ruff (passport photo's and such)that what

we bring to the portrait is more important that that which is presented infront of

us.

But in this case we can see that there has been intervention from the

photographer- the slight tilt leads us in an all different direction which

interestingly termed as punctums and the uncertainty of these is displayed in

this image (punctums see Barthes or Brecht )

 

Should a photograph document or describe a situation rather than leave so

many things unanswered? this is a question full of flaws !!! a photograph is a

chemical reaction and that reaction gives us an impression of what we

alegedly perceive infront of our eyes- in order for this chemical reaction to

answer a question we must first discover what we bring as a question-

 

i.e. is a photograph a piece of art - answer steiglitz beleived so- ........is a

photograph a document made by a photographer capturing a moment in time

for future generations to interpret and understand - a camera only has the

ability to capture light at finite moments in time efectively killing it by stopping

all visual things not capable of capturing time in itself - Ansel once wrote that

he was never lonely when photographing ( in response to a question about

solitude and photo) there was always the subject the audience and then

himself - Is it important for a photograph to to describe - EVERYTHING

DESCRIBES IN ORDER TO BE UNDERSTOOD, BUT WHAT IS TO TO BE

UNDERSTOOD MUST BE DESCRIBED BY THE VIEWER.

 

( if i had another 30 or so years i would be able to answer it more

appropriately and does anybody read all of these ? jill m see ruff and his

approach you will find the theary interesting !)

....great shot....interesting crop.....but it makes me want to see more images with similar croping designs....possibly a show or display....it seems to need more to stand alone.....

The first thing I noticed when I looked at this image was Chet's hearing aid. Next, was his shirt. I like that. I believe it is due to the crop and lighting. By not using a lighting or crop technique that goes after a 'brilliant eye capture' I think he is portrayed as...here I am, this is what I am. I'm wearing a shirt I've had for 20 years and I'm into it.

 

I'm into this photo.

I think this is a very fine image that is enhanced by its "flatness", if that's not too much of a contradiction. I've always been ambivalent about Avedon style portraits, but this, along with the rest of Jill's folder, seems fresh for the stark way the subjects are portrayed. I'm a bit of a catchlight freak myself, but here, I think there's enough expressiveness (minimalist as it is) in the eyes and overall face to make an impact. Plus the composition is itself interesting and calls attention to the subtle details in Chet's face and expression.

 

I don't think the author intended to hit viewers over the head with this, thus the flat contrast, tone, and lighting, as well as the unusual crop. I actually like the way the image sneaks up on me, though I do agree that the image is stronger when viewed as part of a series, rather than by itself.

 

I admit to being puzzled by criticisms like "passport photo" and "I wouldn't hang this one up if it were my (name the relative)"...from what I can judge of Jill's intent, the goal was *not* to produce a sparkling, flattering, conventional family or old folks portrait. (How many Bill Brandt or Sally Mann portraits would the average person hang up on their wall?) The execution may not resonate for everyone, but to judge this strictly by the conventional standards of a Good Portrait smacks of the most superficial type of camera club criticism.

What if the subject didn't have any character to begin with? Then this would be a masterful portrayal, don't you think?

At first I hated this photograph. The flat lighting was an echo of what I thought his flat expression with no affect and no sparkle in his eyes. I think I had huge expectations for an old man with lots of vitality and wisdom which would reflect to me old age as something I dont have to fear of live in denial of. And my critique was based on my aversion. But when I returned to the portrait I did not find Chet without affect. I found him smiling out of the left side of his face with some paralysis in the right side of his face or he would have been smiling there too. The lack of symmetry in his face reveals a complexity that is interesting to me. Life and the world is not one-sided. It is both sickness and health; both joy and woe. And to ask for one without the other is naïve and shallow on my part. In his mind Chet is smiling completely. Its just that some of his body does not respond to his intentions anymore. This is what sickness and age does. I hate this idea but it is the truth. So if I am at odds with the truth there must be something wrong in me. And thinking about this has effected me and I am a little different this morning. I dont think I can ask more of a photograph than that it change my life.

 

Now what I find wonderful about Chet after sitting with him for a while is that his mind still finds happiness. All the years with whatever wounds and losses he has suffered have not affected his hearts desire to find happiness. And his heart has not suffered those ravages of time. He has lived through God knows what: years of growing up and difficult achievement, depression, inflation, world wars, threats of nuclear destruction, business and political leaders who were truly fools and madmen, assassinations of great and good men, sickness and disease, still his spirit is strong and has the smile of a youth. That is an amazing achievement of an indomitable spirit. And to have made me think about my expectations and my bias and my unwillingness to look old age in the face and the truth that is found there is also an achievement. Maybe not the intention of the photographer. But thats what her photograph has achieved in me. Thank you Jill M.

nothing personal to anyone, but why is hanging something on your wall considered the highest compliment? I'd be happy to own countless photographs that I wouldn't hang on my wall. I don't get it. Most of my photographs are too big to hang on the average wall. In fact, many museums refuse to even consider that my photographs exist because they are so big. If you ask your local curator: Do you have any Doug Burgess prints in your collection, I can tell you right now you will get a blank look and a "who is Doug Burgess?" response.

 

Gracious! I sure hope my worth as an artist is not determined by how many walls I've been hung on.

No Doug, the responsse is more like "never heard of Doug Burgess, but we do have some lovely work hanging on the wall by AZ (for halloween)".

 

My thoughts on the POW is that it reminds me an awful lot of the way Stanley Kubric portrayed Dave at the end of 2001 Space Odyssey. I remember Dave looking old and washed out with a very bright background which Marc correctly points out can happen if the background to subject light contrasts significantly and will cause the background to appear as if no background exists. To me, Kubric wanted to create an image of this guy half way to nowhere and on his way out, a very ethereal mood. Maybe Jill is looking for a similar feeling and no offense to the individual in this picture but he could be the poster boy for some unfortunate ailment. If that is the intent then this pic does its job.

 

As far as the Richard Avedon reference goes, this is certainly his signature non-environmental approach but with nowhere near the polish, level of sofisticated lighting, detail and composure. The missing catch light in the eyes as previously mentioned would help but then again maybe Jill wanted the lights out look here if this is a poster boy. This would also account for the flat contrast, lack of detail, expressionless pose and croped to the edge.

 

I think Marc's comment about whether this is a studio or an outdoor available light shot is a good obsevation and I wish Jill would weigh in on the discussion. I have seen this lighting condition in the desert, in particular when the sun is at "high noon", the shade is deep & dark and in severe contrast to the intensely lit landscape. So, could Jill please come in to explain this one to us, just a clue. Brad

Of course your worth as an artist is not determined by how many walls you have been hung on (Your prints, not your physical self). On the other hand, the worth of a particular print has to have SOME correlation with whether you would want to look at it or display it publicly, don't you think? Whats the sense in owning a photograph that you stick in a drawer and never look at again? I don't think that hanging something on your wall makes it good, but it does mean that you like it enough to display it. Of course, there is no accounting for taste. I have met people that thought anything with a PS flood filter applied was "great art".

Thanks to everyone who took the time to provide feedback. This is a great opportunity for me to see the different reactions that can come from one image.

 

My portrait of Chet is one in a series of twelve taken for a Platinum-Palladium Printing class I took in college. This is a scan from the original medium format negative, but I attempted to make the tonality look similar to the palladium print that I created from a digitally enlarged negative.Those who suggested that this is not a studio portrait are indeed correct. This was shot outside using only natural lighton an overcast day with a white backdrop. My intention was for it to look like a studio shot, so I suppose it still fits the elf category this week. I agree that a catch light in the eyes would make this stronger, so if I shoot something like this in the future Ill probably add some fill flash.

 

I see the stark background and tight cropping as an opportunity to really look at the subject. We go through life and just pass people by. You cant stop and study someone because its not polite to stare. Of course youre not really getting to know Chet through this image, but youre forced to look at the effects of time on his face and imagine what hes like or what hes gone through. I was there with him, but didnt really look at him until I saw the print. I met an older man who was still mentally sharp and seemingly content, but saw so much more on the image I created. He normally wears large-frame eyeglasses, but took them off for this shotI can see now how glasses can act as a shield.

 

Many viewers have issues with my framing decision, but I cant fully explain that. I choose my compositions instinctively based on what feels right. I stray away from the traditional in an effort to fill the frame in a way that looks graphically interesting and also enhances the subject. Photography goes beyond just the subject like in any art formcomposition, color, tonal range, etcit all has to work together.

 

I am proud of this image and of the whole series, but admit that I dont have any hung on my walls. It isnt meant to be a lovely portrait, just an honest one. I lost two grandparents to Alzheimers and wish I had taken pictures like this of them...I never really looked at them, not really.

I can't think of any level where this portrait works for me. Rule breaking is fine when it accomplishes something, but when nothing is accomplished, it's just rule breaking.

 

The flat, lifeless lighting and lack of contrast further degrade the visual impact, and the subject is rendered as unattractive and uncomfortable looking. The pose and crop add insult to injury.

 

Seniors can make very dramatic subjects if you respect them and want to bring out their character with careful posing and lighting. On the other hand, a poorly lit mug shot

achieves the opposite effect as is so well demonstrated here.

Interesting points Randall raises.........wonder if someday he could share some of his photos demonstrating all of those dramatic effects he mentions. Brad

...while I don't agree with much of anything that Randall had to say, the fact that he doesn't have any photos uploaded has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of his ability to make comments. There are MANY valued members of this community that have no photos uploaded.

Jill... Interesting photo... Chet has received more critcal eyes during your post than from all of the years spent with his marriage partner. This photo would be easy to overlook perhaps..because of some of the mentioned points.... but there's that slept in undershirt and several other subtle marks of 'experience' that make it worth a double take and stop-over study. Keep clicking! You gotta' love it...

Thanks for the details you provided. You are so right to say that we see so many people, even parents, without really *looking* at them. And this portrait does just that: *look* at a man, with nothing "lovely", just the plain and cold reality.

This being said, I wouldn't have posted again if you hadn't written this:

"I agree that a catch light in the eyes would make this stronger, so if I shoot something like this in the future Ill probably add some fill flash."

Imo, these are two bad conclusions in a single sentence. All I mean is that you should consider these decisions carefully.

1) Would this portrait be better WITH a catchlight ? Imo, no. It would be ruined. If you add a catchlight, that's your first step *out* of the dull feeling you successfully created here; a catch light would probably make for a lovely picture, but stay with your original aim to make this a *honest* portrait, as you said. You would most certainly want a catch light IF you were here shooting a model for a magazine cover, but this ain't glamour. Stay firm and stick with your original intent. In chess, there is a saying: "Still better to have a bad strategy and stick to it than to change strategy all the time because you have no plan at all"... I think it applies as well in photography, and I don't think your "strategy" here was flawed. I think you made a matured decision. Stand by it.

2) The second part of my comment would be about this: "If I shoot something like this in the future Ill probably add some fill flash".

"Something like this" will never happen again. This is a unique session with a unique person. If you were looking for some stereotyped beauty for a portrait of a fashion model, perhaps yes, there would be "tricks" and general ways to achieve a pre-conceived image. But if my understanding is correct, you wanted to look INTO the soul of a person here... and if you had to have "soul" in a fashion model's portrait as well, I'd say your lighting should obey the soul of the subject as you see it, and *not* some last page of a photography book. Creativity is about adapting your aesthetics to your goals - which you did here - and not about applying receipes like commercial photographers are supposed to do in many cases.

And with fill-flash, what would happen ? Fill-flash on a face with a flash gun (as opposed to studio lighting) is perhaps the most difficult thing to achieve properly in portrait photography. It seems easy to so many people, but the results are generally dead flat or cast unwanted shadows etc. Good fill flash, in the first place, is rarely with the flash gun on top of the camera, but rather hand-held, or on an extension cable and with a diffuser more often than not. Bad fill-flash kills a shot. So, fill flash here is a nonsense in my humble opinion.

Again, you had a goal here, stick to it. Part of the dullness I liked in this image would be gone with a fill-flash. Remember what I wrote at the beginning of my previous post: no catch light meant to me that it wasn't studio or that it was bounced lighting at best, but no direct lighting involved. Well, a fill-flash would entirely change this first impression I had and which is what drew me into this portrait.

Regards, and all the best for your next pictures.

Works for me on Halloween.