a quick shufty also reveals she mostly shot in black and white.

i’m not sure how comparing one photographer with another brings anything to the party? it’s almost as if photographers should be working towards a homogenous body of work with a constant reference to the past. 😕

i’m not sure how comparing one photographer with another brings anything to the party? it’s almost as if photographers should be working towards a homogenous body of work with a constant reference to the past.

I looked at geetee’s photos and noticed that there were a lot with the same (homogenous!) “look” – square on, almost staring at the camera – and then looked at the photos of a well-known portrait photographer to see how she varied the portraits. I would have chosen a photographer from the future but couldn’t find one.

I would have chosen a photographer from the future but couldn’t find one.

😀

Thanks for the constructive suggestions. They are indeed helpful and the comment about having a prop is particularly true. I often try to find something but I might start taking things with my for when there isn’t something available.

…but I might start taking things with my for when there isn’t something available.

Are you telling the story of the person you portray, or are you using them to portray a story you want to tell?

Are you telling the story of the person you portray, or are you using them to portray a story you want to tell?

They are impossible to separate.

I would beg to differ.

If you are the one taking the picture you are part of the creative process. You’re very presence changes the outcome; you influence the subject and it’s your decision when to press the shutter and which picture to present. You can try to minimise your influence on the image but since you cannot do that in the absence of conscious thought you as the photographer will always have an input on the final image.

In order for me to not to have at least part of my story in the picture, I would have to make the picture in the absence of conscious thought. Clearly that is impossible.

“Conscious thought” doesn’t even scratch the surface of what is going on, let alone make a distinction between the two parts of my question. They may well, for the sake of argument, be inseparable at the moment you release the shutter; but either side of that action they can be infinitely scrutinized as independent ideas. It’s not simply a matter of influence – on the subject or the image, though even those are deeply distinct and interesting subjects – but a matter of motive and intent, and even what is informing your unconscious actions. And of course the photographer will always have an input – direct, indirect, concrete, abstract, or otherwise; but that wasn’t exactly my question.

i find myself instinctively agreeing with everything you’ve written in that last post so I’m not sure on what, or why, we disagree. Perhaps we don’t.

I think perhaps a better answer from me, to your original question, is ‘both’. I’m telling both stories. I’m actually quite explicit about that.

I’d even go as far as to say that what I am actually doing is exploring (and thus telling) my own story through other people.

I think I would even go further than that and suggest that this is all an artist can ever do.

“I looked at geetee’s photos and noticed that there were a lot with the same (homogenous!) “look” – square on, almost staring at the camera – and then looked at the photos of a well-known portrait photographer to see how she varied the portraits. “

Artistic convention often dictates that we should follow certain ‘rules’ when taking particular types of photos, such as portraits. Sometimes, breaking those rules actually helps achieve an aim a lot better than ‘obeying’ them. I find the classic 3/4 pose really quite boring personally. Look at the difference between a ‘nice’ school photo and a police mugshot. The 3/4 shot is all about the ‘glance’, deemed to be more flattering, less arrogant maybe, on the part of the sitter. Wealthy patrons of portrait painters didn’t want to appear so vain, and perhaps artists considered the full frontal look to be more intimidating to the viewer, so a less direct approach was favoured. Compare Ingres’ portrait of Napoleon to Vermeer’s ‘The Girl with a Pearl Earring’. Geetee seems to have gone with the square on style for a reason; maybe to provoke a less sympathetic reaction in order to have more impact? Whatever, it’s his choice. Because he’s the one telling the story.

Not everyone’s cup of tea Im sure, but I found these images rather striking and disturbing; not so much fo the content, but they way they’ve been planned and executed.

http://www.mariasvarbova.com/index.php?article=gallery&id=25

The ‘straight on’ composition is quite deliberate. I want to force the viewer to look more directly, to see the person in front of them more deliberately. It’s less about intimidation and more about being direct and engaged with the ‘person’ rather than with the ‘portrait’.

I dunno, sometimes I write this stuff and think I’m just being a pretentious **** and I’d be better off giving up and just going back to being boring.

The swimming pool set I’ve seen before, I think on Lens Culture. The images are very interesting but I think they are less about the people in them and more about the colouring, lighting and overall mood. It’s almost as if the people are only there as props to introduce colour.

I love the colouring though. It’s a look I’ve been trying to understand and replicate.

“I dunno, sometimes I write this stuff and think I’m just being a pretentious **** and I’d be better off giving up and just going back to being boring.”

I think you should stop trying to justify your approach to others, and instead concentrate on what makes your pictures ‘work’. Which images stand out above others? Why? What techniques/circumstances allow that to happen?

I’m currently going through a lot of my early work, and selecting images for a website. There’s a particular style in my earliest stuff, and often a disregard for traditional ‘rules’ of photography, yet those images are very strong. So I’m finding it helpful to reinvestigate what made those images work so well. I think as I’ve got older, I’ve tried to ‘discipline’ myself in terms of those traditions, and ended up with images that are too conservative and not ‘me’ enough. I think I need to rediscover that rebellious youth. 🙂

Resurrecting this in an attempt at getting myself away from the pointless political threads (a bit like hard drugs; you know it’s bad for you but you just can’t help yourself 😳 ).

Been playing with the 85mm, and have to say I’m in love with it! It’s such a brilliant lens. Seems a lot more versatile than my 135mm, and the shorter length allows for slightly slower shutter speeds, which is a bonus in low light. It’s so good, I’m leaving the zoom at home more often. Zooms are great when you need one general purpose lens, but I’m rediscovering the beauty of primes. The 85mm is making me want to do more portraits, so that’s only a good thing. 🙂