leanne_newton

http://www.whoistesting.com

Conflict is a way of getting to know each other as well, so that's fine, I don't take it personally...well, not really !

 

Josh, take it easy, the best thing you can do for a friend is to offer a sincere critique.....it helps no-one to be reassured that they're on the right track if they aren't, or to withhold your private reservations about an image's merits.

 

A sincere critique is also an act of courage, not only of generosity, because of course you risk hurting people's feelings, getting involved in a "debate" about your opinion, quite rightly, but sometimes you learn from that too.

 

This is why we like to discuss images. The aim is not to define who is friends with whom, or to divide ourselves into cliques at war with each other.

 

There are only two things we can count on, when we want honest opinions about our work.

 

1) Close friends who have the courage to be cruel to be kind, and

2) Total strangers who couldn't care less about our finer feelings.

 

Abbie, some of the most famous photographers shoot fashion AND portrait work. When I say that this looks like a "fashion shot" rather than a portrait, I am not saying that is a bad thing. Remember that I live in Italy, our fashion mags are pretty high quality rags, so coming from me, it certainly is not an insult.

My first reply to this thread explains why I think this.

Rob, I can't stand it, I have to ask you something ?

Why did you post this critique request here on the People forum, and not in the gallery ?

Or on the Leica forum ? I'm very curious.

 

I don't mind giving feedback to people on their work, but it feels strange how no "debate" on the negative aspects of this relatively average shot is allowed ?

 

I have been personally attacked by Josh, Abby and you for

1) not allowing another photographer's work to be trashed, just because he suggested that this was an "OK shot, needing less ps ?"

 

and

2) because I happen to agree with that appraisal, although I also think that less/more ps, better printing/scanning will not change my view that this is a head shot, not a portrait ?

 

I inquire, because usually forum posts are not exclusively for the photographer, but are also for those who are interested in discussing all aspects of photography, technical and artistic.

 

For that reason, people at any level can post here. They don't have to be "great photographers". The main thing is that we have something worth discussing. You seem to expect "wow" comments, or perhaps as in the case of Abby, you don't even know what a portrait is ?

 

In that case, you could check out Henk's thread, which is all about what is and isn't portraiture....but perhaps you haven't bothered to read that.

Maybe I shouldn't have commented on this picture at all.

I still don't see how my side of this exchange can be described as a debate, but anyway...I should have checked to see who I was "debating" with.

 

So, Rob, sorry about all this. I checked your profile and I will say that your People presentation is portraiture, more than I find this shot to be.

 

regards,

RJ, I didn't see your post, I was writing mine...

On second thoughts, I agree with the others. Don't crop it, the man's stance is lost, and with it his whole attitude, and the belt buckle... so full frame is best after all.

So why didn't you e-mail Grant and request clarification directly ?

 

By posting on a public forum, you invite others to participate in the discussion. At least, that's what I think, sorry if you feel I am intruding on a personal exchange.

 

You invited him to post an example, I took the opportunity to illustrate my opinion that this photo of yours doesn't qualify as a portrait, and I think I was pretty detailed as to my reasons why.

 

If you want to discuss his work in more detail, or pass comments on mine, I think a thread re your photo entitled

 

"An opinion Please"

 

is possibly not the right place for this.

 

Ignore my opinion if you don't agree with it. I assure you that it is an unbiased one, at least.

 

This is the People forum, not the Leica forum, you cannot expect everyone to know what your interpersonal relationships are about.

Joshua, why don`t you type a little more quietly...

you`re disturbing the peace.

Joshua, I am not familiar with your work, I'll go and have a look...

 

Grant's pictures are all portraits, of people and places and the times we live in. You should check them out again.

 

Regards,

Yes.

Hi Rob. Nice picture, I really would prefer more light in his eyes, to hold my attention.

 

The crop is what is known as a 'portrait', that is to say, head and shoulders.

 

In the artistic sense of the word, I feel that there is not enough information supplied for me to call this a portrait of this boy. After all, I don't know him, nor can I see into his eyes , so what I'm left with is what he is wearing, and how his hair looks.

So to me, it is a fashion shot, strange as that may seem.

To his family and friends it would mean more than that,

but that's because they have information that I am denied.

If I saw something more of his environment, or was able to look into his eyes...

 

regards,

Oh, I wouldn't change a thing. They are just so perfect the way they are...

 

xxx

Wonderful. Restores my faith in the Leica forum somewhat, but you've got some teaching to do hereabouts...

 

Don't find these dated, except (possibly) in the printing style of some,

on the other hand, leaving them like this lends time and place

to this very worthy body of work.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

Regards,

LOL Remy...very good advice !

I've been in the fray myself (with special permission and access ) to the extent of having newspapers write articles about "court" photographers having an unfair advantage over the press photographers...)

An immoral bunch. Helps to be huge and muscular, like an ex-boxer- or small and pitiful and ask the person with special access to shoot the shot for you on your camera...

I'm assuming that Lars isn't thinking along these lines,

so technically I would suggest being very sure of technical choices,exposure etc, no matter the situation, you will never be given much time to shoot.

On the plus side, these people will do anything for a photo opportunity...

Just do your best.

 

Regards,

Peter, maybe I have not made myself clear, so I will add this, just briefly :

 

A portrait IS an illustration of a human condition, the very empathy we are discussing, between photographer and subject, and viewer - is what makes it a portrait. This is not "acting". To be valid, the emotions need to be sincere

even if the photographer needs to use "trickery" to get a real emotion out of the person being photographed, the end result is what counts.

 

I'm not sure I would classify "treadmill" as a portrait, classically speaking, unless the person was a trapeze artist or something, so to me it is more like self expression - a mirror of Henk's state of mind. The second shot is a portrait, because there is more information about the person.

 

regards,

Oh yes, and

 

it has been said that "good photography is like good sex , the more you give, the more you get " and so much of what passes for street photography on the PN forums looks like rape to me...

Not all photographs of people are portraits. It

is a very specialised genre, and without the photographer`s

reaction to/interpretation of/ interaction with

the subject, there is nothing of interest

to look at,or to reflect upon,

except yet another stranger`s facial features.

In which case, casting becomes very important - a very pretty young girl`s face

is very pleasant to look at, an old lined face

suggests a landscape of texture and tone...a laughing

child is a joy to behold...

yet even this is subject to the photographers skill

in lighting, composition and timing, in

order to capture the public`s interest.

So, call it trickery if you will,

without a photographer employing his art you have a snapshot

sometimes lucky,

sometimes no,

but if you cannot perceive the love and attention to detail

on the part of the

photographer

then it is not worthy.

This is not to say that a candid taken by a great photographer will

not be as good as a `staged` shot.

Each click involves series of choices

and instincts, so, the more talented and technically skilled the

photographer,

the more brilliant the snap.

Shoot what interests you. To do anything else is a waste of time. It is that simple.

That way, you'll have a better chance of coming back with pictures you are happy with, rather than shooting what you feel is expected of you....

There is such an odd attitude hereabouts regarding street photography/candids...pretty often looks like furtive snap/grabshots to me...

An old lady jumped out from behind a hedge and photographed me a week ago... and yes, I minded. I didn't say anything, but I expect to see myself posted on internet sooner or later...and I feel it is an invasion of my privacy. Seeing as I feel this way, I'm hardly likely to shoot candids of strangers on the street, now am I ?

Rene, you could try "tunnel light" during the day, which is for example the light you get in a deep doorway, directional, but soft.

Or a white picnic table will bounce light just like a reflector...

A white wall will act as a big bank, especially if bouncing glare back into the shade where your wife will - hopefully - be...

Candlelight on your anniversary....

Do post your results, successful or no !

Need to get that scanned better...Faces are important in portraits, usually the eyes are the main focal point,if it's a headshot. But hands, body language can be communicative too, so,

in the end if the picture says something about the person, then to me it is a portrait. In this case it was not possible to show her face for political reasons.

-x-<div></div>

Don't know why I feel the need to emphasise this point, but anyway, here goes...

 

I actively ban anyone who is not actively involved in working on the picture. That includes boyfriends/girlfriends/family members/anyone who does not need to be there. This is sometimes called a "closed studio" and is the accepted way to work when shooting nudes.

 

Good luck with your shoot,

 

regards,

Peter, I also wondered, just for a moment, because of the cost...but then I figured this, if cost isn't a consideration, why not? I personally like shooting in hotel rooms, kind of hate studios personally...don't have my own, so I often shoot at home, for work I rent a studio, or a hotel room...

It's a question of finding your space, feeling comfortable, especially for a subject like nudes.

Shooting in someone else's home or studio often entails that person hanging around to watch...puts me off a bit, unless it's a job, and the client is involved, not just any bystander.

I would use tungsten lighting. In a hotel room, you won't have that much space, and if these are your first nudes, perhaps you should keep it simple.

Natural light could be ok, but might be little flat for black skin.

Relax about it, and just experiment, the common problem with nude work is the embarrassment the photographer feels, rather than any problems the model might have, y'know.

Give her a bathrobe or something to wear inbetween shots,

to avoid the marks that lingerie or tight clothing might leave on her skin.

Seeing as she is a friend, you can always reshoot if you are unhappy with the results, so don't worry about it too much.

BTW, if any light falls on the black background , it won't be black any more...

I guess I could have posted to the gallery,

but I wanted feedback on this as a series,

and maybe a discussion about the genre,

but, like Henk, I also thought

this was turning into a brawl

rather than a debate...

 

We here on the People Forum could perhaps consider

posting and discussing our work in this way....

could lead to a livelier forum, generally speaking,

which could only be a good thing.