Look

Elsewhere on this site I've confessed that I essentially have no experience with portrait work. Yet, this image comes across to me as being contrived. The upward tilt of the subject's head, her eyes wide open, her mouth agape, and the position of her hands seem like too obvious clues that she is startled by something. It makes me think of the expression on the face of Fay Wray when she was directed to look terrified in King Kong.

I see more of a look of wonderment on her face than fear, but I'm not sure I particularly like the pose as it does seem somewhat contrived as Michael says. But the work in itself is gorgeous. I love the way the model's wardrobe and hair coordinate with the other elements in the shot, and the lighting is perfect. Perhaps the pose does offer something more interesting than the model looking into the camera. I do like it more the longer I look at it.

I think this is the point, to look startled. Your Fay Wray analogy is correct. It is acting in front of the camera. There are different kinds of photography. This is professional and well done, obviously a commercial style shoot. I would say this is for a book, possibly fiction story, a play or movie poster, or it was at least shot like one to be part of a portfolio.

The contrivance of the pose works with the contrivance of the whole photo, from costume, to setup, to lighting, to background. It all makes sense. I don't relate much to it, but it works for what it is though, to be honest, I have no idea what it is.

I probably should have conceded that I like the color palette and tonality. But, as a whole, the image still doesn't do much for me.

I was waiting to comment on this one as I don't really know what I think about it. Enough time has passed. I, too, like the execution, but the picture does not appeal to me very much because it is contrived and one yearns to know what she is looking at, or what it is meant to be saying. Perhaps the next shot in the sequence answers the question (a bear, wolf-man, ravaging beast, an elf?). The central placement also worries me, although I should probably get over this.

Here are a few links to things I think are contrived and successful.

Steichen photo of Fred Astaire

Leibovitz photo of Queen Elizabeth

Grant Wood painting American Gothic

IMO, it's not usually contrivance per se that's the problem, it's HOW something is contrived and what it winds up looking like or saying that's important. The POTW is, of course, contrived and there's nothing wrong with it being contrived, IMO. But beyond that, what is it saying and how does it look? Those things are what generate a negative response in me, not the fact that it's contrived.

One more thing . . . I've briefly looked at Irina's portfolio, and several of her portraits are much stronger than this one - example: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17814823. If the Elves truly are looking for images that will spark discussion, I think they goofed this time.

It's a fun effect and well done. I also saw Irina's portfolio and while the more conventional portraits are very good, I like this one equally. It sparkles, and while stylized the child's pose looks more spontaneous than contrived. I don't care whether it's a portrait, a concept piece or just a lark. It could be an illustration for a fantasy or adventure book, a still from that type of movie or a promotional poster for a theatrical play about singing winged heffalumps. Works for me.

Fred,

I'm not sure I'd call the photos you link to 'contrived' in the sense that the POW is (I couldn't get the first link to work though). I suppose most portraits are 'contrived' in the strictest sense of the word, but feigning an emotion adds a more obvious element. I rarely like photos that do such, but I don't find it as unappealing in the POW because it isn't an exaggerated expression like some present, and I like the overall look of the shot. But I can understand the viewpoint of those who don't.

Bill

That's a good point, Bill. I think a lot of subjects of portraits do feign expressions—though sometimes a subject is caught more off-guard—but I think a feigned expression can come across as sincere or as faked. There is a sense in which a lot of subjects of portraits are actors or at least being asked to act for the moment, and actors can be either good or bad. Acting is probably a contrivance, but when done well, it feels authentic and, IMO, IS authentic. A good portrait (and, as Lex points out we don't have to call it a portrait because it may fit into some other category as well) will usually capture something that feels genuine to us. Likely the best acting or posing does require bringing something of oneself to the table and requires a certain sincerity of expression which can certainly occur in a non-candid shot but is not all that easy to achieve.

I'm with the peanut gallery, and 'puzzled' might be a more apt title. I think the lack of 'why' or 'what' is why it just does not work.

When I saw the image, the first thing that popped into my mind was a similarity to the "portrait/salon photography" of the late 1930s and into the 1940s. If you look through the covers of Popular Photography of that period there are similar images.

Nothing objectionable about it, really; but "posed" in the old style, certainly.