kent_tolley2

I don't blame the model. It was the photog who chose when to snap and he chose this dead-pan expression in doing so. I was responding to Fred G's comparison with Hepburn and thinking why one photograph works for me and another does not.

One last thing and then I'll shut up. “Anyone can make a photograph of a face and call it a portrait. The difficulty arises in making a photograph that makes the viewer care about a stranger.”

Perhaps the reason Audrey Hepburn's photographs work so well is that she actually showed up, brought her spirit and her attitude and her expression, which reveals something of her heart to the viewer, to a collaboration with the photographer. That is sadly lacking in this model's death-mask expression.

All of her skin is out of focus except the bridge of her nose, immediately under her eyes and the central part of her mouth. Consequently the texture of her skin is missing. Maybe this is intentional or because of a softening filter but for me it makes something about her seem masked. Her skin looks plastic not human. It is exaggerated because most of her face is fuzzy focus but the eyes, bridge of the nose and lips are in intense focus. If the entire picture was soft it would work better for me I suppose. But to intentionally soften much of the face and intentionally sharpen those 3 elements of the face does not work. The Venetian blind effect is interesting at first. It gives her face a kind of raccoon mask. But as I look longer my attention is actually pulled to the light stripes on her face and not the dark stripes. The eye is drawn to lightness. Esp the stripe across her cheeks and bridge of nose because that is the lightest stripe of all. But eyes and mouth are where my eyes normally go first. Those are the places of interest in a human face. So placing the shadow and light as the photog has done here is jarring and pulls my attention one way while my natural interest goes another way. I don’t like the way her mouth is partly in shadow and partly in light. I think the shadow over her upper lip should be moved up so her entire mouth has the same lighting. With such a small image area on the D80 sensor I question the wisdom of cropping the frame even further. This photo is an interesting experiment for me but ultimately it works better as a guide what not to do than the other way around.
Now I'll read what others have written.

I think Walker Evans would be proud of this photograph because there is such warmth and such a deep respect for the subject. It’s shot in a straight photographic way, available light, no manipulation, no “improvements on reality.” It is the real world that this photographer shows me and it’s candid and story telling. I confess I like it because these are my biases.
The old man’s intelligence and concern for events are so evident by his posture and expression. He cares what is happening in the world and I care about him. There is such interesting detail which we get nowadays because exposure meters are so accurate and automatic which is a luxury Walker Evans didn’t have. Even in the shadows of the black coat there is detail. The texture of his hat, his untrimmed beard and eyebrows, the way he flattens down one page with his right hand and holds up the other pages with his left hand are all details that hold my interest. To me he is foreign but his body language is universal and shows such an engagement in life that makes me like him. All of this is captured by Mehmet with respect and careful attention and the good timing to capture his little smile of recognition which makes the photograph for me. I am intrigued by the mind behind that wizened old face and though I can’t know what he is thinking, I recognize the human condition of it.
This photograph brings up feelings in me and I perceive it through those feelings as much as I do through my eyes. I think Mahmet Alin’s entire portfolio shows the same respect and care for the human condition and there are many wonderful photographs to see there. I especially liked the environmental portraits in Human Landscapes.

I think this type of a photograph is better accomplished with a large format camera because in many ways it depends on the huge amount of intricate detail and that is where a large “negative” shines. Using large format you would also be able to use a very wide angle to include much more of the sky. This would allow you to put the horizon away from center frame as John A and others have discussed. With a very wide angle lens and the movements of a view camera you could make the viewer almost fall into this scene rather than standing back a little and observing it. This photographer shoots landscapes and I wonder if he wouldn't get better results with the "right" tool.
I agree with others said about the lack of an interesting subject. It’s nearly all background and no subject. The path into the picture is nearly a cliché but in addition without it leading my eye to something interesting leaves me disappointed. It’s as if a magician mysteriously waves a cloth over a magic box and then dramatically whisks the cloth away using all the art and technique magicians use. But when he whisks the cloth away nothing happens. Still the same box.

Cotton candy

"The photographer's problem is to see clearly the limitation and at the same time the potential qualities of his medium, for it is precisely here that the honesty no less than intensity of vision is the prerequisite of a living expression. This means respect for the thing in front of him expressed in terms of chiaroscuro. . .The fullest realization of this is accomplished without tricks of process or manipulation through the use of straight photographic methods." Paul Strand 1917

This image is a throwback to the Pictorialists and the days before straight photography and exists in denial or opposition to the major aesthetic direction of photography in the 20th Century. Early in this century critics, Stieglitz a leader among them, began to praise "photographs that look like photographs", those devoid of manipulation so prevalent in the work of pictorialists who strove to force photography to emulate the surface textures of pictures made by other media.

It is hard for me to see the photographer's "respect for the thing in front of him" when his preoccupation seems to be to muddy that reality until it matches some inner fantasy which is held in higher esteem than what actually is.

From a review of Stieglitz' startlingly direct photographs in an exhibition in 1921: ". . .One might venture the comparison that in the average exhibition print we have beauty, design, or tonal scheme deliberately set forth, with the subject as motive or material merely, the subject as the photographer saw it or felt it, an interpretation, a phase; whereas in the Stieglitz prints, you have the subject itself in its own substance or personality, as revealed by the natural play of light and shade about it, without disguise or attempt at interpretation, simply set forth with perfect technique."

My criticism of this photograph is that it misses the entire point of the 20th Century photographic aesthetic. It's equivalent to someone writing and singing a song in the style of Rudy Valley in the year 2006. People may pay attention to the novelty of it but would they take it seriously? From the comments I read above, some of you would probably buy that CD.

It is a joy to see your carefully crafted photographs. I love seeing people, streets, rain, textures, Vaseline and city life through your B&W eyes. It's my bias toward humanity that I gravitate toward your shots with people or at least some trace of them. That scenery is beautiful but it's hard to impossible to squeeze a mountain or a seashore into a little frame. Ansel Adams does it for me sometimes (Clearing Storm) but I always wonder at the relevance of a landscape. I would like to see your landscapes in person and printed big to give them back their vastness. Congratulations and thank you for your inspiration.

I wish I could soften my previous remarks. It's not fair of me to bring my expectations to your picture. You did not intend any symbolic statement with your picture and there is no intent to portray some significant truth. I have to own that as my expectation and it's inappropriate to impose my expectations on your photo. It is purely an example for your portfolio and I think it is an attractive example and accomplishes much. The repeating shades of deep blue from the peacock feather is very nicely done. I wish you had worked with the model longer to achieve a more inviting and less distancing expression. And I think your signature across the bottom appears to pretend to be on the level of a Vogue back cover when, by your own admission, you are a beginner. I wonder if you would not be more successful to have a distinctive style. It's an uphill battle for you to compete with the shooters for Banana Republic or Guess or Vogue using their style.

Exposition of the truth is one of the primary functions of the artist. See John Keats. I realize this may run counter to the world of advertising but artists, even commercial artists who perpetuate the culture of lies are unoriginal in the extreme. I don't care how aesthetic a photo looks on the surface if, at its foundation, it lies to me, I'm outta there.

It leaves me cold but I think that's appropriate since this is a picture of yet another Ice Princess. Her skin looks unreal and porcelain like a doll which makes her cold to the touch. Besides if you touched her you would mess her make-up. She has that supposedly edgy but irritating I'm-pretty-and-you're-not expression. Whatever she's selling I don't want any. I don't doubt this could be used to success in a fashion mag but I think it's just average even in that category. The large signature across the bottom is pretentious.

Her eyes are closed and that is her ear which itself is held close to her head so she will fit better. She has managed to squeeze herself into too small a space as cats will do. Nonchalantly she ignores everything that doesn't have to do with finding a place to nap in this shoe box. We, on the other hand, understand the actual situation and the difference between her understanding and ours is the source of the comical. It's the basis for comedy. (a misunderstanding of a situation which then directs the action which should work but doesn't because the initial understanding was incorrect) But the picture is more than simply comical or cute and this is where my hat's off to Beau because the cat's problem is real. What you experience as sad is softened by the comedy and what you experience as comedy is made to hurt a little by reality. That's Chaplin.

what about

The fact that it's just started raining very hard is important for me but not very evident in the photograph. I can see the drops beginning to fall on the ledge but only lightly. If it were immediately apparent that it is raining, even better if it were pouring, the cat's predicament and less than perfect solution would be sad and comical at the same time, like Chaplin. For that to happen the rain needs to be as strong in the image as the cat. The graffiti, a 3rd element, is almost context to me: a contemporary city; people mark here too; the cunningness of cats has enabled them to inhabit all manor of jungles. I'm not sure that the position of the graffiti is as important to the picture as the problem of the sudden rain to this cat. That's where the drama of the picture takes place for me.

 

I am disappointed that with a stunning and truly original portfolio and large selection of better photographs to choose from, that this particular photo was chosen to represent Beau. That seems to happen a lot.

Is this Eggleston-like or like all the other unremarkable Polaroid snapshots of middle-class American family life and what is the difference? I am skeptical of comments that say how good this is, how they love Polaroids, or they love the kid petting the dog, or they love the color without really saying anything substantive in a critical sense. I love Provia 100 but that does not make a Provia slide a good photograph. And I love beautiful women but a picture of a beautiful woman is not necessarily a good photograph. Neither the medium nor the subject make a good photograph to me. I don't understand "criticism" calling out the contents of the photo (the car, the kids, the dog, the beach) and then exclaiming they are great as if it was a conclusion supported by evidence. Why are they great?

I failed to find "one decent photo" in Marko's pics. Once again evidence PN viewers have some of the worst taste imaginable. What's next? Nudes on black velvet?

Marko Next time, try a smaller f-stop. If you don't know what the aperture control is for, look it up.

Classic without being cliche. Great mood! Of the 3 I like this best. I like the way the benches lead me into the frame and the way the figure fits in the white, calm space on the right. Worth hanging.

It is not a reflection in the train window you are seeing. It is what looks like a double door and the landing on the other side of the train that you are seeing through two sets of windows which appear translucent on film because of the train's forward motion.

Perhaps this is inappropriate on a column that requests criticism but it seems very many wanted or did find more fault with this photograph than merit. In our cynical times where being cool is admired here is an idea for Tanya from a more passionate time not that long ago.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
---Theodore Roosevelt, address at the Sorbonne, Paris, France, April 23, 1910

I wonder if the envy this girl must inevitably deal with and which is even evident on this forum has anything to do with the disturbed look I see in her face. Her beauty graces us all. My sense is that she does not use it as a mask or to be superior or to garner special favors. For one so young it must be hard to endure envy for a face which was given you, in which you had no contribution but which you must walk around in. It must hurt a little to be beautiful like that.

I never thought to challenge Tanya or Ivet on her purported innocence since she's eleven. Silly me.

There is, sadly, no story, no emotional cataclyst, no message conveyed to me whatsover throughout this portrait.

With respect I think Ivet's face speaks volumes but you have to give yourself over to the photo and you may have to look closer. I see Ivet as a beautiful and complicated child. She does not wear her beauty as if it were a personal accomplishment, something for which she deserves the credit. She wears it as a gift the way the truly beautiful do when it is more than skin deep. Instead of cashing it in she graces others with it. She may not be aware yet of how pretty she is. I hope her parents teach her that her beauty is a blessing to be shared, even given away. But she is also complex more than most eleven year olds and she seems familiar with darker aspects of life. Already at eleven she seems to know some kind of heartbreak that is usually only experienced by adults and it's possible that even her extraordinary beauty may not save her from it.

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/4773554-lg.jpg

Marc-

I cannot find the source but Diane Arbus says something which echoes what youﾒve said that has always stayed with me. She said something like: "I think it hurts a little, to be photographed." I don't remember her explaining it anymore than you do but it somehow feels truthful in a strange, perhaps unexplainable way.

You've said: Ivet tells us a lot with her silent and almost absent look, a statement which may also be unexplainable but I was wondering if you'd put into words what it is you think her eyes and her expression say to you. To me that is close to the heart of this portrait.

The carefully composed and relaxed folded arms do not jive with her plaintive expression. If anything her facial expression challenges the viewer on why the world has disappointed her. Something important that she wants is missing and there is an air of resignation. In contradiction to that, her arms folded and relaxed, as if you told her to place them that way, express a peaceful composure, all is right with the world. It is only my intuition and I may be reading more than is really present in her face but I wish you had taken more time to find the bodily expression that would be consistent with her facial expression. The color is pleasing like her arms but I think the truth about this model is possibly to do with being disturbed and not at ease. It is still a striking portrait and would stand out for me on a desk full of other portraits. She has a remarkable face. But the elements of your portrait of her that are pleasing fight with the elements that are disturbing.