C&C My first portrait type photo

RCNPhotos

Hey, this is probably my first sort of portrait type shot I've done, it was taken this weekend in cork, on the Bjorn course, just wanted to see what people thought. Cheers people

beans

The B&W conversion looks great, and the tones are lovely. The symmetry of the arch frames the subject wonderfully - I only wonder if this image could have benefitted from a tighter crop, not too much to loose the natural frame, but enough to bring the model more to the heart of the image?

It's a kick-ass B&W all the same

RCNPhotos

I'l try it and see....one of the reasons I didn't crop the sides was the texture in the stones. I'l try it though and see

rymus

nice photo, but on a tangent... that girl needs to put on some weight!

mikeanywhere

rymus wrote:

that girl needs to put on some weight!

Kitty is putting on weight, trust me!!!

Rojo

so do YOU tihnk that you needed the course to take a portrait like that? Just wondering!

Borderfox

very nice, love the contrast between the model and the door

challengemaster

rymus wrote:

nice photo, but on a tangent... that girl needs to put on some weight!

haha im almost imagining a skeleton in the picture.. she could atleast smile tbh

Cabaal

Nice shot, like the mood that the arch adds to it, model is grand but she def should gain some weight....she's far too thin imho

Valentia

The conversion is good. The burning and dodging works. The whole tone of the photo is excellent. But the pose doesn't work. The legs out like that do her no favours. I don't usually comment on model photos because I rarely see any that look half natural and relaxed. I'm afraid I feel the same about this....

Dr.Louis

I really like this photo... The texture of the stone looks great in BW and contrasts nicely with the model's smooth skin. As regards her pose, I don't think a model has to 'smile' or look particularly 'relaxed' to make a good photo- maybe for a family photo album, but not all photos are meant for that...

Valentia

Dr.Louis wrote:

I really like this photo... The texture of the stone looks great in BW and contrasts nicely with the model's smooth skin. As regards her pose, I don't think a model has to 'smile' or look particularly 'relaxed' to make a good photo- maybe for a family photo album, but not all photos are meant for that...

Hmm. I understandish what you are saying, but surely a photo should have something to say. Most model shots just show me someone who is just, well, posing and looking camera conscious and awkward. Alternatively they are trying to look "cool" but end up looking clichéd. It takes a really good model with a really good photographer to make fashion photography work. A rarity me thinks.

I think a lot of lads like taking pictures of good looking women, and who would blame them, but it doesn't mean that we get the same enjoyment out of looking at them

Hugh_C

Borderfox wrote:

very nice, love the contrast between the model and the door

Yeah, one is hard and wooden and the other's a door.

Couldn't resist, just kidding!

Nice image RCN - what's your flickr link?

I think this portrait (or is it fashion?) needs to be seen bigger to appreciate the pulchritude of the model and the form of the door. Although I echo what others are saying, she has skinny legs for such a, em, uh, advanced superstructure.

:eek:

TelePaul

I think it's a great shot. I think the pose works too...it's quite abravise and almost aggressive in terms of the angles made by hands and feet. I think the feeling adds to the black/white contrast, and the contrast between the softness (the girl and her dress) and the roughness (roughly-cut stone). It's like a salvador dahli painting.

TelePaul

Hey RCN sorry for RUINING your shot Just trying to make a point about underlying symmetry:



You could almost fold one side over the other. The posing of the model is built on triangles.



Heres a more classical example

RCNPhotos

Haha, thanks Paul for that. But yeah the whole triangles and diagonals etc was something i was told about over the weekend, found it pretty interesting.

As for themodel, i think her thinness adds to the shot. Why should she smile, it's not meant to be a happy clappy shot. I made it dark for a reason, and as for relaxed, she's not meant to be relaxed either, like someone said, it's not a candid shot of a family member. But with that said I do appreciate peoples opinions, cheers

Valentia

I agree that there is no need for her to smile. By relaxed I mean someone who looks comfortable and doesn't look tense, uptight and camera conscious and looks as though there are a thousand other places that they would prefer to be. "But sure it's a few bob I suppose and I am beautiful amen't I??".

Unless of course a photograph is trying to depict these emotions for some dramatic reasons. That of course would mean that a model should have a modicum of acting ability which is an even rarer commodity.

Don't mind me, I just find 99% of this model stuff an exercise in vanity by people that have nothing to be vain about so I usually keep stum with shots like this. Just now and again I can't keep my frustration in.............

TelePaul

Valentia wrote:

Don't mind me, I just find 99% of this model stuff an exercise in vanity by people that have nothing to be vain about so I usually keep stum with shots like this. Just now and again I can't keep my frustration in.............

You've kinda shot down all popular culture of the last 50 years! :eek:

Valentia

TelePaul wrote:

You've kinda shot down all popular culture of the last 50 years! :eek:

No I haven't. Read it again. There are a zillion photos of crap models by learner photographers that are mind numbingly boring. That's all I'm saying.

We have had a few notable exceptions here but not very often.

Is there something weird in a young woman's psyche that makes her think that being compared to a model is a compliment I wonder?

Have a look at photo.net. Do a search for "nude" or "model" and you will see many examples of how it can be done well. Do the same on Flickr and you have a perfect exercise on how not to do it.

TelePaul

Valentia wrote:

No I haven't. Read it again. There are a zillion photos of crap models by learner photographers that are mind numbingly boring. That's all I'm saying.

We have had a few notable exceptions here but not very often.

Is there something weird in a young woman's psyche that makes her think that being compared to a model is a compliment I wonder?

Have a look at photo.net. Do a search for "nude" or "model" and you will see many examples of how it can be done well. Do the same on Flickr and you have a perfect exercise on how not to do it.

I wouldn't say those two photgraphs are particularly different, subject wise. Aesthetically, I think most people would find RCNs model attractive. As for boring....I'm not sure what you'd want her to be doing.....it's like those shots of Audrey.....does the fact that she's smoking make it particularly dynamic? Iconic? Or maybe it's because she became famous a propo of the photograph? I don't think there's that much for Audrey to be vain about...I'd describe her as mouse-like. But she's now an icon of the 20th century, so go figure.

Valentia

TelePaul wrote:

I wouldn't say those two photgraphs are particularly different, subject wise. Aesthetically, I think most people would find RCNs model attractive. As for boring....I'm not sure what you'd want her to be doing.....it's like those shots of Audrey.....does the fact that she's smoking make it particularly dynamic? Iconic? Or maybe it's because she became famous a propo of the photograph? I don't think there's that much for Audrey to be vain about...I'd describe her as mouse-like. But she's now an icon of the 20th century, so go figure.

You've lost me sorry. Looks like a slight of hand argument that seems to have logic but, if it has, it has passed me by I'm afraid. Nice try though

Pick any point of view and I bet you would be able to get two photographs to support it. You seem to be replying to something that I didn't say.

Sorry RCN, there is a lot to like in your shot but I would prefer not to make any personal comments on the model. My points ate made as a general observation rather than on this particular shot. Probably should be on another thread but I suppose part of photography is to stimulate debate and this one has done that for me anyway.

TelePaul

Valentia wrote:

Pick any point of view and I bet you would be able to get two photographs to support it. You seem to be replying to something that I didn't say.

Valentia wrote:

Don't mind me, I just find 99% of this model stuff an exercise in vanity by people that have nothing to be vain about so I usually keep stum with shots like this.

I just think it's weird that you can so readily downplay an 'exercise in vanity' when it's so prevalent - and has been prevalent - in modern society....and that you'd consider the result amateurish because she's not to your taste.

Valentia

TelePaul wrote:

I just think it's weird that you can so readily downplay an 'exercise in vanity' when it's so prevalent - and has been prevalent - in modern society....and that you'd consider the result amateurish because she's not to your taste.

OK. The first part first. Just because something is prevalent...why on earth should that stop me downplaying it? I'll downplay image over substance anytime. In fact it's a great device to screw up (young) peoples brains by confusing them by telling them that image is somehow more important than substance. Does populist make something immune from criticism?

The second point....whether the model is to my taste is not remotely part of my argument. The reason I don't want to comment on the model is that I don't want to personalise this. The pose doesn't do her any favours and conjures an image that I'd rather not describe.

RCNPhotos

Well I appreciate the implication that my shot is "mind numbingly boring", but she is a talented model with an awful lot of experience over in london and around the uk who was great to work with since I haven't done anything like this before

Valentia

RCNPhotos wrote:

Well I appreciate the implication that my shot is "mind numbingly boring", but she is a talented model with an awful lot of experience over in london and around the uk who was great to work with since I haven't done anything like this before

There ya go. I knew as soon as I said it that you would take it personally. If you re read my posts you will see that that is NOT what I said or meant in this case.

As for the talented model with experience. I'm afraid that doesn't impress me at all. The new world is full of "talented" people. Just turn on the telly. Have we lost our critical faculties to the extent that just because we are told something we believe it? This whole plastic culture depresses me, so, as I've said, I'd be better off not annoying myself.

I'll go back to ignoring fashion/model shots in future and give ye all a break. As well as mind my blood pressure.

Calina

I'd like to comment briefly if I may.

I seem to have some issues with how some photographs get classified. I wouldn't see this as a portrait - for me it comes across as a basic fashion type shot and almost commercial. I can't see personality in there, can't see feelings. For me it is a technically very competent photograph but emotionally cold.

But then, that begs the question is it sufficient for a photograph to be technically very good if it is also emotionally cold? Does that make it a very good photograph? I have to say I'd argue that it doesn't. I look at photographs like this and think "would I want to look at this more than once?" If you think about the Laird Hamilton photograph you put up a while back that got published in Fins, I think I'd have to say I see that far more as a photograph, with way more depth of personality to it. And I would be more inclined to look on it than I would on this.

Maybe the colour shot would be less cold, although I have some doubts.

At any rate, I'm not absolutely clear on what you wanted to make with this shot so from there perhaps comes the coldness.

___________________

Leaving that debate aside I have the following comments: in general the processing appears to be very good; the black and white conversion is lovely. The photograph looks slightly askew vertically, however, and on my screen at least, the dress appears to be slightly overexposed. The photograph as a whole, however, does very little for me because it's a branch of photography which has never really interested me.

TelePaul

Calina wrote:

I seem to have some issues with how some photographs get classified. I wouldn't see this as a portrait - for me it comes across as a basic fashion type shot and almost commercial. I can't see personality in there, can't see feelings. For me it is a technically very competent photograph but emotionally cold.

But then, that begs the question is it sufficient for a photograph to be technically very good if it is also emotionally cold? Does that make it a very good photograph? I have to say I'd argue that it doesn't. I look at photographs like this and think "would I want to look at this more than once?" If you think about the Laird Hamilton photograph you put up a while back that got published in Fins, I think I'd have to say I see that far more as a photograph, with way more depth of personality to it. And I would be more inclined to look on it than I would on this.

I think this is pretty interesting. Considering you can do so much with digital processing to 'enhance' a photograph, what kind of ratio is there between technically good versus emotive? Is tehre a balance to be observed at all? I think journalism, for example, should probably have both.

But then you have things like Westons pepper which was technically brilliant, but then how emotive can a pepper be? You probably wont be able to cover all of the bases at any one time. But I do feel that in this case commenting on the model is somewhat irrelevant given that the picture was an exercise in framing, composition and tone. I personally think the model works fine as a focal point given the use of contrast and I'd be reluctant to analyse it as anything more than that; a focal point.

magicbastarder

TelePaul wrote:

I wouldn't say those two photgraphs are particularly different, subject wise. Aesthetically, I think most people would find RCNs model attractive. As for boring....I'm not sure what you'd want her to be doing.....it's like those shots of Audrey.....does the fact that she's smoking make it particularly dynamic? Iconic? Or maybe it's because she became famous a propo of the photograph? I don't think there's that much for Audrey to be vain about...I'd describe her as mouse-like. But she's now an icon of the 20th century, so go figure.

just because audrey hepburn is iconic, doesn't mean a random photo of her is. that photo of her is quite forgettable.

TelePaul

magicbastarder wrote:

just because audrey hepburn is iconic, doesn't mean a random photo of her is. that photo of her is quite forgettable.

Well I don't find anything right or wrong with either subject in either picture. They're just there. I just figure in RCNs photo, the model is a means to an end. Heightening a deeper sense of understanding should take second place to technically good photographs.

magicbastarder

i know the original shot is not a fashion shot, but someone else raised the subject of fashion photography, so i'll blunder on regardless. fashion photography leaves me cold. partly because i suppose we're meant to buy into the convention that the prettier the model, the better the pic. which is far from the truth. but also because fashion photography serves the clothes, rather than the photograph.

Calina

@TelePaul

By the same token, however, you cannot put up a photograph for C&C and then say "but I only meant you to consider it as an exercise in...." To some extent, it is still a work of art, which should evoke reaction and the OP was looking for reactions. If those reactions are not to your, or perhaps his, taste, it is not realistically the problem of those whose opinions he sought.

In any case, you are still missing the point. Any photograph can have emotion in it, whether it is of a human being or an inanimate object, because the emotion is put there not by the subject, but by the photographer. RCN is a very, very good photographer and I highlighted a portrait which I particularly appreciated from his previous work, but also explained why I felt this photograph was less interesting to me. When I mentioned that I felt the photograph was technically competent but very cold, I was not criticising the model. The model is only a tool of the photographer. If the photograph was cold, I would pin responsibility for that on the photographer. Whether it is an exercise in framing and composition does not matter, because when a photograph goes up for C&C here, most people will look at the photograph as a work in itself, not just an exercise.

RCN may correct me, but I don't recall any parameters being laid out other than it was a first attempt at this type of shot. C&C is there for people to learn from it; it's why we do it, and the truth is no one would learn anything from it if they do not respond to what are, in my opinion, valid criticisms of photographs.

Calina

TelePaul wrote:

Heightening a deeper sense of understanding should take second place to technically good photographs.

Why? We'll wind up in a debate on what constitutes art shortly and then someone will split off or lock, but really, if you're going to make a statement like this, I for one would like to see some rationale backing it up.

Fenster

Looks a little wobbly. Where is that doorway, by the way?

It looks very familiar and I could swear that I shot it at some point.

RCNPhotos

It was an old castle in Cork, near midleton. Barrystown castle maybe, I can't remember the name at all. When you say wobbly how do you mean? If you mean soft her face is slightly I think, due to my awful shaky hands probably (I can't shoot below 125 hand held for my life, I have horribly shakey hands). Anyway, Valentina(spelling?) I'd rather forget the whole taking it personally thing, was in a horrible mood earlier to be honest. Don't mind me

Valentia

RCNPhotos wrote:

Anyway, Valentina(spelling?) I'd rather forget the whole taking it personally thing, was in a horrible mood earlier to be honest. Don't mind me

For fecks sake, I thought I was the one causing trouble...;)


I know exactly where you were at....it really isn't personal at all. But I have been meaning to get that off my chest for awhile.

TelePaul

Calina wrote:

Why? We'll wind up in a debate on what constitutes art shortly and then someone will split off or lock, but really, if you're going to make a statement like this, I for one would like to see some rationale backing it up.

Because I think in many cases, like this for example, you're going to wind up trying to draw an emotive response from something that doesn't have an emotional aspect to it. Compositionally this shot does alot for me, but I don't think it's possible to derive an emotive depth from it...I draw a blank when people say things like 'this leaves me cold', as they can very rarely say why a particular shot seems lacking. Maybe it's just something about art that annoys me, but it does get to me. People tend to disguise sloppiness by hiding behind supposed 'passion', 'creativity' or, dare I say it 'emotion' . I think someone should decide once and for all whether a poor shot with alot to say is actually better than a technical shot with very little to say.

sineadw

Been reading this with interest. Firstly, I think its a fantastic shot. Better than anything I've ever produced, so I feel a little silly commenting on it. And secondly, I know practically nothing about technicalities or art history. So this is all off the top of my head.

To my eye the issue with this shot (if there is one) - the reason its causing debate is the classification. I don't like pigeon-holing shots either but to me its not a portrait. I guess it depends on how you define. Is a portrait simply a likeness of a person or do you take it more in the literary sense - going beyond the superficial to tell you something about the person at the moment in time it was taken. Perhaps its the wide framing but I'm getting nothing from the model. Maybe that was the point? Maybe its the coldness of the stone that's amplifying that feeling?

I could ramble on ad nauseum but I gotta go to college

magicbastarder

TelePaul wrote:

I draw a blank when people say things like 'this leaves me cold', as they can very rarely say why a particular shot seems lacking.

cold is an absence of heat. so when i say that a shot leaves me cold, i mean that there's nothing i find interesting in it. it could be technically perfect, but that doesn't mean it'll be interesting.

magicbastarder

TelePaul wrote:

I think someone should decide once and for all whether a poor shot with alot to say is actually better than a technical shot with very little to say.

going by the way you've phrased this, i assume your criterion for a 'poor shot with a lot to say' is a shot with technical issues?
if so, a poor shot with a lot to say will trump a technical shot with little to say. IMHO.

TelePaul

magicbastarder wrote:

cold is an absence of heat. so when i say that a shot leaves me cold, i mean that there's nothing i find interesting in it. it could be technically perfect, but that doesn't mean it'll be interesting.

Cold is an abscence of heat? If you're going to call a spade a spade, then obviously a visual entity will not appeal to the tactile But now I know that if something is 'cold' it's not interesting, ta for that. My understanding of photo-lingo does suck!

TelePaul

magicbastarder wrote:

going by the way you've phrased this, i assume your criterion for a 'poor shot with a lot to say' is a shot with technical issues?
if so, a poor shot with a lot to say will trump a technical shot with little to say. IMHO.

Yeah, this is where I disagree. Or at least, I disagree with the emphasis people put on 'emotion', the emphasis they put on the 'meaning' behind a poor shot. Because sometimes the point of a photograph is not to convey a deeper meaning. In fact, I don't start by analysing the presecence or abscence of something interesting or some kind of emotion. I'll start with colour and composition, that's what will catch my eye.

elven

Could we possibly take this into it's own thread? I think there's a lot to be discussed here, I'll even throw my own thoughts in when I've pulled them together - but it's overshadowing RCN's c&c I think.

magicbastarder

elven wrote:

Could we possibly take this into it's own thread?

what we need is a mod to split the threads...
or do you mean start a new thread?

RCNPhotos

Annnnnnnnnywayyyyy....I think my mistake was calling this a portrait. Now I am starting to wish I had simply called it a fashion shot perhaps? Like someone said before I think, my classification of the shot is wrong