Portraits for C&C

CONMIKE12

Jaysus, my head is COMPLETELY wrecked trying to post images actually into the thread on both this forum and the other one.It;s just not to be i think.So here's the linksm to my flickr and apologies for being too f**king stupid to make them easier to view...oh, C & C please if you have the time and inclination. Thanks.:)

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=301240767&size=m

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=300046362&size=m

B0rG

looks good, but (camera left right assumed)

1. 1st picture
1.1. right side severely underexposed. If you were shooting in raw I'd add a couple of stops of expocorrection.
1.2 Top of the head is chopped off - no good for portrait.
1.3 right ear is chopped off as well, but it isn't noticeable because of underexposure, you may get away with it.
1.4 little finger is chopped off as well.

2nd image:
2.1 left cheekbone is chopped of.
2.2 hand is chopped off
2.3 eyes are well spoken of but...
2.4 I don't understand the horisontal of the image...

delly

I like the second one, but it seems a bit grainy around the nose.

Morlar

I dont think that there is anything cropped out of them that makes the pictures any less effective imo.

I think the expression in the 2nd one is excellent, the eyes are pin sharp and thats where the focus of the viewer goes - not on the missing fingers.

The first one looks a bit soft and the expression is a bit less engaging for the viewer (alongside the 2nd one at least). I like the way its lit from one side and one side is in relative shadow - I am guessing that was intentional - either way it adds a bit of drama to the shot but its still not in the league of the 2nd one. Just being nosey but what way did you convert them to b.w ? Or were they shot that way ?

Dimy

I like B&W portraits, I agree with Morlar that there isn't anything cropped out that make the pictures less effective. As Borg pointed out the right side of the face in the first picture is a bit dark, but I don't think you can correct that with the exposure correction slider, that will only overexpose the left side. The only way to solve that "problem" is by using a reflector screen (although photography magazines claim a newspaper or sheet of white paper/blanket works quite effectively to reflect light as well). Anyway, that's coming from someone with not much portrait experience and I haven't been experimenting much with this myself yet... it's on my "to-do" list though .

Good shots all in all, 2nd one has my vote though!

CONMIKE12

Thanks for the comments . The pics are actually both exactly how i wanted them.The lighting,the crops were both thought out and painstakingly worked on till i got to where i wanted them.i know they probably don't stick to the "rules" and obviously not to all your tastes,:) , but I just wanted to see what people thought. Thanks for taking the time to view and comment.It;s good to get the feedback of other photographers.
Morlar,i can't quite remember but i reckon it was the calculations method i used .I shoot in raw then bring them into photoshop as a psd then do it there.There are a few diff methods i use, bar the channel mixer.So yeah,I reckon calculations.

melekalikimaka

also a tip use [IMG][/IMG] insert image location inbetween them. tis easier to see in forums

Valentia

What's with all this "chopped off" stuff Borg?

Nothing that bothers me about them at all except maybe the hand in the first one. I'd be inclined to crop more off the left or else let the whole of the hand be seen. Cropping more off the left would be my preference though.

They show the character of the subjects, which is what portraiture should do, and they are technically very good Conor.

Don't be tempted into photographing "by numbers", it generally leads to soulless pics!

AlisonB

hey Conmike really like these two shots. First one great expression well exposed (a tiny bit hot on the LHS but definitely doesn't take away from the shot).
There is a perfect range of tones.
The eyes in the second shot are absolutely fantastic i like the grain the unconventional crop.

mikeanywhere

AlisonB wrote:

The eyes in the second shot are absolutely fantastic i like the grain the unconventional crop.

I totally agree with Alison.

Ruu_Old

Nice work, nothing much to add to what has already been said. The second one is my fav, smashing job.

JMcL

I think the cropping is fine, they're both lovely portraits, my personal favourite being the first one. Nice work Conor.

B0rG

Valentia wrote:

Don't be tempted into photographing "by numbers", it generally leads to soulless pics!

Valentia,
of all the people I'm surprised you came with this. I'll try to explain - hands are a vital attribute of a character on a portrait. Back in the old days the painter skill was judged by how he paints people's hands. Leonardo is still the best, I have to tell you. Just by looking at hands you can tell the story of a character. Go to the gallery and see for yourself. See how different authors paint the hands. Also find at least one portrait with the hands or half a head chopped off.

In few words: this is not "by numbers" this is long time tradition in such kind of art.

I would suggest a simple excercise to illustrate my point: take one full body photograph (I'm sure you have plenty on the hard drive) and try out a different cropping - chop the legs off below the knee, above the knee, waistline, chop the head off, half a head, arm at the elbow, below the elbow, above it, hand etc. Do one chop everyday - otherwise your eyes get used to one photograph and you'll stop seeing impact. You can of course do it with different pictures.

Back to the photographs: if an artist breaks the long established rule, there has to be the good reason for it, otherwise it's just sloppines and technical mistakes.

First one again: As the center of light in on the boys hands your eyes are drawn to it and you immediately see that the little finger is chopped. You ask the question why is it chopped? Then your eyes are moving to the right to underexposed area. Moody expression alright. Lighting is almost good - there is a dimension you can see the face, the eyes. Then you look at the top - head is chopped - again, why? What is the point of a photo? What was photographer trying to say? What is the story behind that picture? Then you take a second look at the dark area - then your brain starts to think: there has to be right ear... And the only thought left after detailed examination is "why the hand is chopped?"...

A cantimeter to the left and it'll be ok, so was it not enuff background, was there something distracting behind? I can almost agree with the head, but then again, I'd have to look at the original photo, cause if we include full head, we might be required to add some air to it, that could upset the balance from expression and the photo will tell nothing at the end...

There is a trick in photoshop: make a brightness adjustment layer, add layer mask to it, make a gradient from left to right (holding shift will give you straight line), add a couple of steps of brightness - it will brighten up only right part of the photograph.

Second photo - horisontal of the image comes between the eyes and it's angled (or whatever you call it in english), it gives a sense of instability and motion, but the photograph is all about eyes deep as a mountain lake, which is what you see when you first look at the photo. So the question is: why motion? why instability? Where is it coming from and where is it going? Is the "THE EYES" or is it "THE LOOK". If the latter the look WHERE and WHY?

Then you start to notice that two fingers are missing (hands are important, remember?) and there has to be (camera) left cheeckbone there somewhere... I'd reshoot it, so the eyes are horisontal and without hand, and then may be close up on the eyes... but that's just me. Ligthing and focus is very good. And the eyes

enuff...

CONMIKE12

thanks very much guys.I like these two shots a lot myself but it's good(for me anyway) every so often to find out how others see them.And it's especially encouraging then if you get a few positive resposes to them. Hopefully,as someomne recently said to me,we all shoot for ourselves,but it's nice if others think they are good too.

Valentia

Borg, I'm surprised that you are surprised at me of all people

The points you make are valid enough for you. There is no doubt that there are techniques when it comes to composition but.....

Take the hands example. Hands are important when they are in the picture, but they don't have to be in the picture. Most portraits that I see are spoilt by the hands, usually by only including a stump to the elbow that leads nowhere. With Conor's first photo I find the hand distracting because it is neither in nor out of the picture. My preference would be to crop it out completely otherwise a vacant space is created on the left which defeats the whole purpose of the tight crop.

I don't get your point at all about cropping the top of the head. It worked really well for me and adds to the intimacy and character of the shot.

I find myself being too conservative at times and it is when I see other peoples work that I realise that when you have the basic compositional rules embedded on the brain that that is the time to let rip and trust your instincts. Good photographs should be like a good play or novel. They should leave something up to the viewers imagination. I know the ear is there, I don't necessarily have to see it.

When I look at a photograph I want it to stir an emotion. That can be conveyed in many ways. Processing and composition are just two of them. I see people here and on other forums getting almost orgasmic over studio shots that may in themselves be technically and compositionally perfect but look just plain false and plastic to me. Photographs like Conor's of real people and not paid models appear to me to have so much more character.

What Conor said is so true, we shoot for ourselves. I think that is what all the great photographers ever did. There is an audience for almost everything.

CONMIKE12

Borg,I don't strive for the technical perfection.What i hope to achieve with any shot is to stir an emotion,as Danny has said.To move with the image.And i have only my own emotions to guide me there.i work purely from the gut and crop and recrop till it "hits" me and the image feels good to me. I love photgraphs that instantly make me feel an emotion,be it laughter or awe or whatever.Really good tack sharp shots do that to me also.Take a look at some of Danny's puffin shots to see an example of what i mean.But a lot of the time for me,it's what you can't see,as much as what you can see,that brings and image to life and makes it interesting.The "hint" of something rather than the visual certainty of it.Shadow and light,graininess ect. Thats just my style at the mo and hopefully it will evolve as I practice.But i would never want to simply go for souless technically perfect images,I am not Borg,you will not assimilate me,lol !! .
At the end of the day,it has to be enjoyable and not taken TOO seriously. I like the shots,a few others do too,thats enough. We all cannot like the smae stuiff or we really would be Borg.

Dimy

Amen

Fionn

hmmmm....

there's two things flowing here i think!!

emotion is one
and

perfection/composition the other

i know nothing about either!! i don't have to!! why? coz i'm human ignorant of such s h i t!!!

however i do know what attracts my eye!! and ear at times!!

in my humble i don't think there'as a proper!!!! anything

if it appeals thats it.i dont care if it doesnt conform to some code or practice, why should I????

i can take reasonably good shots and not know what the phuck about photography....(sorry all yous studying) so i know what i like and appeals to me does that devalue my seeing the world through my eyes or be extension through someone else???

if someone creates a photograph that appeals to someone else...stirs an emotion in another person - has the photographer managed to achieve something?

anyway
i cant think of what the point was but i thought i'd add this

B0rG

Oops, sorry guys I've mistaken creativity for technical mistakes. Won't happen again.

But at least now we know why the boy is sad - having his little finger chopped off for creative reasons must've been painfull...

FreeAnd..

I really like the second one Conmike, not sure about the first one the pose seems a bit forced and a little un-natural but is sort of balanced out by the facial expression. the second one is a gem. I like the grain and the conversion. As for the cropping, I try to never stick to head and shoulder shots, personally I love cropping off ears, chins, heads and sometimes even eyes if it takes my fancy. This goes against what most people want or even like but I have about as much interest in formal portraits as * ***** * ****.

FreeAnd..

B0rg, nothing personal but you have given the most clinical, mechanical synopsis of photography that I have read in a while. It sounds like you are trying to remove the sponteneity from life and conform to set rules in each given scenario. If everyone did that we would get photo's of different things that all look the same - a conumdrum in itself....Life feels that little bit bleaker today...

B0rG

FreeAnd.. wrote:

B0rg, nothing personal but you have given the most clinical, mechanical synopsis of photography that I have read in a while.

When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning. When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine. (Pablo Picasso).

Funny that you mentioned my engineering approach to art, for I like Wermeer and impressionists. The interesting thing is I can explain why I like Wermeer - I like his pedantic approach to perspective, colors and dark moods - it somehow speaks to me. But I cannot explain why I like impressionists - I just like them. I can say I like the lively colors - but it's like saying nothing. Shortly speaking I don't know why I like them. Somtimes I talk to my painter friends to find out, but the understanding didn't come. Yet. I appreciate massive skill of Leonardo, but I don't feel towards him, but then again I haven't seen Mona Liza yet. People say that you have to see it live - it either hits you or not. There is Rembrandt as well - but it's topic for another time, and another place - somewhere where they serve warm wine with spices.

Yes, there are plenty of stories of artists that break the rules. One came to mind: Gaudi was nearly thrown out of the university for he couldn't do technical drawing (which is rather important part of the architecture). But then again history doesn't remember less successfull artists who challenged the rules.

So I am a firm believer that for us mere mortals it is important to master the technique first and then move to creativity for you can't compose the music before you master the piano.

Same goes for photography as like any other art it has a language and little tricks which gives you understanding of the pictures. You've noticed that I didn't even mentioned creativity there, and there is a good reason for it.

Anyway, thanks for the argument - it makes me understand a lot of things much better. As it's really hard to find good argument

FreeAnd..

So I am a firm believer that for us mere mortals it is important to master the technique first and then move to creativity for you can't compose the music before you master the piano.

I completely agree with the importance of understanding technique, but when I look at an image i look at creativity first then I can analyse whether the creativity is enhanced as it follows well established rules or because it breaks those rules. I dont examine the technical aspects and then the creativity - how am i to gauge if the photographer in a moment of creativity broke all the rules on a certain image but has a wall full of technically perfect images at home? How can I judge an image on technicality alone, how can the photographer be jusged on their technical competence unless the full scope of their work has been seen?

I can see where you are coming from but it leaves a narrow scope for judgement, would your impression of a piece change after you know the artists technical credentials? Basically what i am saying is, when you look at a piece of art/photography that defies technical convention, how can you be certain that the artists/photographer has not mastered the technical techniques only to defy them in this moment of creativity? Its impossible, did you think you could do better than picasso when you seen his work for the first time (and later change your mind when you realised he did understand the technicality?) or did you look at the piece from a purely creative standpoint - leaving technical rules to the back?

I understand taking this as a personal approach and getting to the fundamentals of why things work was extremely important to me, but not in so much as it would suppress my creativity until such time as i had completely mastered every single technical aspect....experimentation was an important part of defining those technical rules in the first place...

Fajitas!

Haven't fully read through all that yet...but on the technical first, creativity last...I'd say quite the opposite. Whats the point in being a technically great photographer...If you can't take a good shot in the first place.

As for Artists that break the rules not being succesful, define the break from impressionism to post impressionism to cubism...in fact...all the way up to postmodernism. Each changed through someone or a group of people breaking the rules. No problem with breaking the rules as long as you know them first.

B0rG

Fajitas! wrote:

As for Artists that break the rules not being succesful, define the break from impressionism to post impressionism to cubism...in fact...all the way up to postmodernism. Each changed through someone or a group of people breaking the rules. No problem with breaking the rules as long as you know them first.

I can do that, but only after you'd write us a little esse about Black Square of Mr Malevich (notably what series it opens, what's at the end of the series, what is written on the back of Black Square, and what was the point he was making with the Black Square) Deal?

Fajitas!

Why would I have to?

Dimy

As a dutch person and proud of the many famous painters dutch history has brought along, I'm pretty sure you're talking about Johannes Vermeer Borg...and not Wermeer whoever that is For such a fan of his work I'd expect you to be able to spell his name :rolleyes:

FreeAnd..

on the technical first, creativity last...I'd say quite the opposite. Whats the point in being a technically great photographer...If you can't take a good shot in the first place.

Agree with you here Fajitas, No matter who you are you can learn the technical rules, as they are that, rules, definitions etc. But what about true creativity? - give me one truly creative photograph that breaks all the rules any day over thousands of technically correct yet lifeless images. You can have creativity without technicality but not technicality without creativity - that defeats the purpose of art. To master both and to be able to express it is to truly achieve something but to dismiss creativity because it doesnt fit the rules leaves you open to miss the point completely and only discover things that you already know....in my mind that approach is cyclic and leads you nowhere new..

Valentia

Is condescension an art form?

B0rG

Fajitas! wrote:

Why would I have to?

Because your question required rather large lecture

I'll elaborate. I know there is a story connected to the Black Square, and I know from the point of Malevich starting a series with BS was some kinda practical joke to illustrate the movement of art from classicism to impressionism then simplicity.
Thing is I don't know the details, and it'll require good library and time to find out.

But the story is funny.

B0rG

Dimy wrote:

As a dutch person and proud of the many famous painters dutch history has brought along, I'm pretty sure you're talking about Johannes Vermeer Borg...and not Wermeer whoever that is For such a fan of his work I'd expect you to be able to spell his name :rolleyes:

Oh, that's really adding to the conversation

But you're perfectly right - he is the one I was talking about. Thanks for correction.

Dimy

B0rG wrote:

Oh, that's really adding to the conversation

But you're perfectly right - he is the one I was talking about. Thanks for correction.

Not really, I was just being sarcastic Trying to look smart is one thing, but getting simple things like a name wrong makes it look kinda silly

And you're welcome

FreeAnd..

B0rg, your liberal use of the in place of a full stop amuses me, almost as much as your views on creativity...I almost wonder if i know you in person as your views (well the brief insight into your views that i have gotten from this thread on which i base my analysis) remind me of someone I know...Probably one of the most technial guys i have ever met who is not happy until something is stripped to its lowest level when in essence he is missing the point completely but trying to explain that to him is about as much use as him trying to explain all art through technical process...

B0rG

Dimy wrote:

Not really, I was just being sarcastic Trying to look smart is one thing, but getting simple things like a name wrong makes it look kinda silly
And you're welcome

dunno if you know it but russians quite often mispronounce W for V, I gues my usual correction for this mistake kinda gone the other way.

FreeAnd...
hmm I guess this is typical for highly technical minds. Allow me to make my definition of creativity: creativity (for me) starts once the basic stuff mastered. You cannot write a book, without knowing the alphabet, as you cannot compose the music without knowing the notes. There are exceptions of course: Mozart comes to mind. But for some reason it doesn't work in literature as it relies heavily on author knowledge and personal experience.

Same goes for photography. Some people have naturally good eyes for details and images, some people just snap away, some people master postprocess, some people like me are naturally bad in all things art, so I have to study composition, lighting, form and meaning - once I master it I'd be able to envision the result before I'm taking a photograph - so making the decision of taking the photograph and not taking the photograph would be creativity for me.

But I would agree with you that mathematical jazz is quite boring.

As for liberal use of smiles I'd hope that would make people not take me too seriously when I'm in arrogant mode

rymus

B0rG wrote:

I'd hope that would make people not take me too seriously when I'm in arrogant mode

You've got other modes?!?

Creativity though; You've either got it or you don't. You could read a thousand books on composition and technique and you still wouldn't be able to churn out a creative photo. If you're the type of person that just is not creative, all you'll end up doing is copying someone else's style. However if you are naturally creative and you know where the shutter button is and how to turn on the camera, you've hit the ground running and will always have a good head start on anyone with 'book smarts'. I'd rather be 95% creative, 1% technical genius and 4% expert bullshítter.

Just because someone knows the chemical composition of all the paints in their box, it'll never make them an artist.

sineadw

Not even gonna try to give the impression I know what I'm talking about (I don't - that's why I generally stay away from C&C posts) but I just wanted to say they're beautiful shots. Especially the girl - what eyes!

FreeAnd..

hmm I guess this is typical for highly technical minds.

i'd say more, one dimensionally technical minds, I'm afraid my background too is engineering, as is my profession - but i'd never let that get in the way of creativity or to try to define expression merely as a pattern of process, but i guess you apply what you know to things you do. I take the opposite approach, by trying to challenge the things that I do know in as many ways as possible as often as possible

Fajitas!

Right, I should have said this at the start. The photos are great. Especially the girl. Right down to the B&W conversion.

B0rG wrote:

,...and it'll require good library and time to find out.

NCAD has a fantastic one. I must give you access some day.

B0rG wrote:

You cannot write a book, without knowing the alphabet, as you cannot compose the music without knowing the notes.

You wouldn't know what to write about if you weren't creative, so why bother learn the alphabet? To list off rules of grammar?

Similarly, you can't write music without being creative in the first place.

Всего хорошего?

CONMIKE12

But at least now we know why the boy is sad - having his little finger chopped off for creative reasons must've been painfull...

......

Rotfl,:D Nice one Borg,I came back to see if i got anymore comments on the pics and I have to say thats a good one,I am still laughing!!

mathias

Love the protraits , They are a break from the norm and they all look great to me ,

For me , the technical side comes into play only when I want to do something I dont know how to do , I picture the shot , and find out how to do it.

One thing you really have to watch with any kind of art is letting the technical side take over , once that happens the form goes ridiculous , I'll use Guitar playing as an example cos I play the guitar as well ,

Has anyone picked up a guitar magazine and seen all the players mentioned , Yngvie malmsteen , steve vai , satriani , etc,. Here are players that have taken the instrument to such technical extremes that their output these days is just a tour de force of scales, modes and notes per second.
Only technical minded guitar players listen to them , everyone else ( non guitar players ! ) just hears a lot of loud twiddling !!

Borg , no offense , but if everyone approached photography the way you suggest then we would have the same ridiculous situation in the photography world.

You dont need to know why you like a photo or any piece of art , just know that you like it and enjoy it !