- This topic is empty.
Rita in the garden…
-
Firstly the photo – personally I take it for what it is – a nicely captured photo of Rita, which has the appearance of having been candid rather than posed – and is all the better for it. It will not win any prizes, but I can see why it would be displayed with pride. I suspect it will become one of your favourite ever pictures, and personally I only worry about uprights when I’m doing serious photography – not when taking candids of loved ones. Only photographers notice those things – family just see themselves. I see a lady, with a glint in her eye and a look on her face which suggests a mischevious personality – it shows her character in the way that a posed shot probably would not. (And if she throws you out, please give her my number…… :lol: )
Secondly, what an entertaining thread from start to finish – I havent enjoyed a thread so much since the days of Paddy Joe. And a word of praise for the quiet moderation of Steve – a certain lady from the thankfully distant past would have jumped in with both feet, then locked the thread, etc etc. Things are looking up……maybe I should hang out here more now……. :shock:
:lol:
To warrant my comments I can tell you I’ve taken pictures of a couple of thousand women of all ages. All women have insecurities about how they look – ALL OF THEM. And a few things come out again and again.
Now airbrush that won’t ya?
Cover the fat on my arms
Remove my double chin
Remove the bags under my eyes
Make me slimmer
My legs are too skinny
Make my skin look better
No I don’t like my pose
No I don’t like how I look
No I don’t like my teeth
No look at my feet
No look at my mad freckle
Fix my hair
…and the list goes on.
Add to that my own requirement to make her look feminine, elegant and graceful to show off the delicate woman inside.I apologise in advance, to Steve and Mark. And Rob too.
I think perhaps there is something of a question of ethics here.
Despite your defensive PM to me, I still think your comments were derogatory towards women.
I don’t think it would be accepted if I tried to make such a sweeping generalization about men, and yes Nossie, I have worked with quite a few men,
honestly, I’ve found they are all different. The same is true of women.The thing is, are you happy for a client to leave with a print that makes her look 2st lighter, because you airbrushed it death?
I work in an industry where a lot of attention is placed on image, there is a code of ethics, people are not led to believe they look like something they are not.Also, don’t you have any respect for keeping a clients requests confidential?
The tone of your post/posts is both rude and immature.
I don’t want to discuss it with you any further, either here or by PM.
Sorry but i dont log in here very often – some great Irish photographers on here but alot of cocky nobodies aswell. But a friend who also uses this site had passed on this thread to me and I just have to say something about this guys “critique”.
Im not here to flame or offend anyone, but i just couldnt believe this one reply.
First my own thoughts on it. Short and Simple
its a beautiful shot (im not just saying that for the base of the rest of the post). she seems very content on the photograph, id agree maybe a little too much neg. space up top that isnt helping the framing, it also seems a bit over all flat, maybe some burning is needed.
but this guy…wtf – i really cant believe a “Photographer” like himself has this idea on portraits. im not attacking you whatever ur name is but really, id just like to question what you are on about and where you are coming from because I think this will really help you grow as a photographer after the replies ive seen some people send you, i really hope you have taken them on board..
Rob don’t hate me for this but I think the picture is for the bin. I’m not willing to blow hot air up your ass for the sake of being nice. For that matter I’m not intentionally mean either.
Women globally spend billions on cosmetics to enhance their looks. Do you think you’ve done that here? Have you captured her looking fabalicious? Is her expression a story telling look? Her hair, jewelry, composure, where’s it at?
im sorry but what the flying fuck are you talking about? Women should wear make up and only be shown in a glossy magazine fashion. Are you a complete idiot or just have this plain view on women and how you like to portray them. obviousley you dont see this photograph as im sure any one else with any sense or appreciation sees this. Its a photograph of his wife, if you actually look at it, she seems content, shes not having this typical smiling portrait but she is happy and it is very easy to see that. Why you might ask he hasnt photoshoped her skin? Because it dosent need to be, why should it be, its natural, its black and white, its simple. Like when I was reading what you were saying i was thinking of Migrant Mother
if you know it, probably one of the most famous photographs of our time taken during the great depression. Her Hair? i wont even comment. Her Jewelry…wtf man. have you ever not just taken a semi candid photograph of someone you loved and appreciated it. I can see why he likes this shot and im sure anyone esle could. Im sorry but that line in you’re critique really annoyed me because – you seem so biased and ignorant towards a different style of portraiture. Close minded is all i can describe it to be.It’s a clear sharp shot. Ok. Any P+S will do that for you.
Has she (I don’t know her name) seen the photo? What is/was her reaction? “Oh my god, delete that!”?
The guy who took it took it for himself, if i took a photograph of someone I loved and liked it, id keep it, he isnt getting paid to take a photograph of his own wife, come off it like – what was her reaction, to be honest, a complete guess, im gona say she actually liked the shot.Would you send this photo into a glossy magazine and hope for it to be printed? Would you make it a 4foot canvas and hang it on your wall with pride?
im sorry…but..what glossy magazine?
would he print it on a 4foot canvas? i wouldnt say he would, if he dose, thats his decision, but i would imagine a nice 5×7 ontop of the piano/matle piece would look lovely.
She looks uncomfortable and just about to talk which knocks her jaw offside/jolted. It looks like you caught her at a bad time. Personally I’d have left it out or else got her into it depending on the vibe.
im sorry i dont know what you are seeing, to be she is half smiling, she isnt about to talk, she loosk content to me, not uncomfortable, did you even actually take the time to even look at the shot.Sorry for being harsh but there are millions of pointless shots taken coz it’s free. Go back and allow her to fix herself/hair etc. Compose the shot, settle and the shoot. Look through the lens like it’s a printed finished copy, look about and into the corners, is all ready for printing before you push the button?
Man sorry for being harsh but a million photographs are taken each day for the very reason its Free. Its a memory. Im sure the only memory this guy will have is of his beautiful wife and also some knob on Photograph Ireland attempting to critique it.
This isn’t a slant opinion of the woman by no means, I say this coz I think she’s close to you, it’s just my observation of the shot. I don’t think you did her any favours.
I think im doing you a favour man.
If your going for au-natural and all that well then I can’t be arsed. I want her to feel and be delighted when you hand her a print.
Clearly you cant see the difference and shouldnt of been arsed at all.
Consider it in good faith. Would you make a 4foot print of this and hang it on your wall? Would you be pleased with the result?
just shut up about the 4foot canvas print. I myself dont take a photograph with the intention of printing it 4foot canvas the whole time,
thats my 2cents and I’ll suddup now.
like…what the flying fuck?
and then you go on.
To warrant my comments I can tell you I’ve taken pictures of a couple of thousand women of all ages. All women have insecurities about how they look – ALL OF THEM. And a few things come out again and again.
Now airbrush that won’t ya?
Cover the fat on my arms
Remove my double chin
Remove the bags under my eyes
Make me slimmer
My legs are too skinny
Make my skin look better
No I don’t like my pose
No I don’t like how I look
No I don’t like my teeth
No look at my feet
No look at my mad freckle
Fix my hair
…and the list goes on.
Add to that my own requirement to make her look feminine, elegant and graceful to show off the delicate woman inside.ya know, if you were any good, you wouldnt have to spend hours fixing up you’re photographs making them look high fashion to compliment the person. there really is a line like and without even looking at you’re shots, i can guarentee i can pin point what kind of photographer you are, relying on photoshop rather then the camera.
really
Grinds
my
Gears.
Anyway dont bother replying to me, i just wanted you to read what i have to say. I probably wont be back to reply if you did.
sad man. real sad.
Rob,Rita likes the shot,you like the shot.That’s all that counts.
Oh yeah,I like the shot too! All da best. FS…..This is a very dissapointing thread. I’m hoping we’re all adult enough to have a conversation here rather than a side-taking exercise. If you are offended by an honest opinion please stop reading here!
To my mind there’s some seriously crossed wires here and some (possibly unintentional) misunderstanding (and alternatively some possibly intentional misunderstanding).
First thing that comes to my mind is that critique is open to anyone, not just here but more broadly, anyone can hold a valid opinion on taste and technique and in all fairness I think it’s a little incredible that so many have responded with ‘well if you’re so great…’. Think about it, if there were no painters in Malta due to a painter conference that lasted four years, would Carravaggio and his patrons have to wait until they all got back before they could learn if he had really completed a masterpiece? Of course not, even a disinterested floor washer would probably be struck be the magnificence of “The Beheading of Saint John the Baptist”. His patrons may have never painted even the spare room but patrons, not artists, decide who are the masters of the day, whether a particular painter and his/her paintings are up to scratch. These days it’s the critics and critics that are skilled to a comparable or higher level than the artist are very few and far between. The skill of the person offering a critique is a non-issue and an excuse for an ad-hominem attack. I thought this place was above that. I would hope anyone who’s just found an old polaroid in a drawer and suddenly realised photography is a pursuit their interested in would feel free to critique any of my photos honestly. In fact I often seek out non-expert opinon because I’m more often interested in whether a photograph is effective rather than perfect in every last technical detail.
Secondly, on a typed page it’s in your own interest to moderate your language, it’s usually not possible to determine whether someone is a friendly grump or just a plain asshole by the way you come across here, maybe keep attitude and straight talking to political warfare or Canon vs Nikon threads? A little sugar with the medicine is for your own benifit too :)
In response to the most fierce criticism, I think if we’re all honest there is a legitimate and large market for the kind of portrait photography that Nossie describes. The problem here is the mis-reading of the photographers intent.
There’s a world of difference between a documentary shot taken for the photographers pleasure or taken to capture a particular aspect of the subjects looks/personality that stirs the photographer (what I think was intended and succesfully deployed here) or to capture the zeitgeist or the ‘times we live in’ (as in the ‘Migrant Mother’ pic linked to) as opposed to a commercially commissioned portrait taken for a client. They’re different approaches with different outcomes intended but they are both here with us, and here to stay.Pick up any book on portraits or lighting and you will read all the myriad tips and tricks photographers have used to obtain a portrait that flatters and enhances the subject. Posing for gender and body shape, soft lighting schemes and ratios, make-up considerations, head tilting for masculine and feminine effect, soft-focus effects etc. etc., all are soley intended to accomplish exactly what Nossie describes. I’m almost certain there some that have responded here that have such books on their shelves. It’s a skill that’s very much in demand, not to impose arbitrary standards on people in general but to fulfill people’s aspirations and literally ‘paint them in their best light’. The kind of photography Nossie describes, in his own ‘straight talking’ way ( :) ) is not in demand because photographers out there are imposing some internal vision of what women and men should look like or want in their portraits, their services are actively sought for. You can’t really blame some photographers for identifying the elements that people consider important for a flattering portrait and implementing them for their subjects. This is the photographers expertise that is in demand, not just in fashion and advertising.
In the book ‘Freakonomics’ the authors Levitt and Dubner repeat again and again that economic theory applied to social issues is intended to ascertain how the world actually is rather than an exercise in morality that should portray how the world ought to be, we should be able to analyse the world as it is even if (maybe especially if) the findings conflict with what your morality would prefer. Your average commercial portrait photographer most often supplies services that people actually want, not apply their own standards what people should aspire to. They wouldn’t last very long if they made special care to portray in fine detail every bump and pimple or paid no regard to the most fundemental aspect of portraits: expression, expression, expresson!
Saying that women want particular aspects and features enhanced or minimised in a portrait is not the same thing as saying all women should make an effort to conform to some ideal of beauty. This is the way the world of commercial portrait photography is and while there is a market for it, people will provide.It applies to both genders, but if you put any weight behind the statistics in ‘Freakonomics’ then there’s some reason to also put weight behind the common stereotypes, in a survey of vast numbers of personal ads, men most highly rate personal appearance of a potential female mate as the most important trait while women hardly rate it at all. Women are unlikely not to notice and similar as well as more diverse studies in evolutionary psychology generally bear this out very strongly (see in particular the work of David Buss). Maybe it’s not the way some of us would like it but let’s be honest, how many studios have clients walking in saying ‘my beer belly is important to my self image and the person I aspire to be, could you ensure that it’s full girth is obvious, unmistakable in my photo?’. Maybe it’s not for documentary photographers or an ‘artist’ but it is undeniably ‘out there’.
Nossie has possibly just misidentified the intent of the photograph and excluded alternative approaches, it’s an easy mistake in a forum called ‘People’ not ‘Techiques for accurately depicting a human subject doing what people do and being what people are’.
As the old saying goes ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ (unless he/she really is just an asshole :) )…
CianMcLiam wrote:
In the book ‘Freakonomics’ the authors Levitt and Dubner repeat again and again that economic theory applied to social issues is intended to ascertain how the world actually is rather than an exercise in morality that should portray how the world ought to be, we should be able to analyse the world as it is even if (maybe especially if) the findings conflict with what your morality would prefer. Your average commercial portrait photographer most often supplies services that people actually want, not apply their own standards what people should aspire to. They wouldn’t last very long if they made special care to portray in fine detail every bump and pimple or paid no regard to the most fundemental aspect of portraits: expression, expression, expresson………It applies to both genders, but if you put any weight behind the statistics in ‘Freakonomics’ then there’s some reason to also put weight behind the common stereotypes, in a survey of vast numbers of personal ads, men most highly rate personal appearance of a potential female mate as the most important trait while women hardly rate it at all. Women are unlikely not to notice and similar as well as more diverse studies in evolutionary psychology generally bear this out very strongly (see in particular the work of David Buss). Maybe it’s not the way some of us would like it but let’s be honest, how many studios have clients walking in saying ‘my beer belly is important to my self image and the person I aspire to be, could you ensure that it’s full girth is obvious, unmistakable in my photo?’. Maybe it’s not for documentary photographers or an ‘artist’ but it is undeniably ‘out there’…….
:? :? :?
And there was me thinking I was doing well for understanding what jb7 says in his posts………but you have got me well and truly stumped with this one Cian! Maybe I should come back and read it when I am not as tired….. :wink:Cian, I won’t pretend to have fully understood all of your post (although I don’t mean that in a patronising way!) but I completely agree with the overall thrust of your message.
It has very much surprised me that so many experienced posters and photographers reacted as they did to a different perspective, expressed in a very forthright way; the mis-understanding, invective and downright subjectivity was absolutely stunning!
Well said, and I hope your message redresses the balance somewhat to this argument.
This thread is heading for classic status. Every time I come back another 10,000
words have been added and now it’s really starting to warm up. Cian waxes
eloquent about Caravaggio and gets “patronised” by Ross who is instantly slapped
on the wrist by kenh for his trouble. Someone mentioned handbags yesterday (I
think it was one of our newest members in a PM to me) and it does rather look
like the only ones left standing will have their knickers in disarray when this is all
over.Perhaps it’s time for Mark to send out a multi-member invitation to read and comment
and take sides. Sod cliques, let’s have factions. I know where I’m going – to join
The Patronising One wearing a wry smile and not getting too involved.If someone (whom I wasn’t overly familiar with) handed me a slice of cake that they personally baked and asked me to taste it; then tell them what I think of it; and then it turned out to be not to my taste; I’d try and be nice and explain to them in a reasonably pleasant manner that it wasn’t to my taste. (Sorry long, badly punctuated sentence)
What I wouldn’t do is spit it out of my mouth and onto their shoes and tell them it tasted like dog sh1t and then suggest that they should bin it… which is, to an extent, how the critique in question reads.
I find it of a mildly, mildly offensive nature for someone to blurt out that they think someone else’s photo is “for the bin”.
“I’m not willing to blow hot air up your ass for the sake of being nice” – What’s that got to do with anything?
“What is/was her reaction? “Oh my god, delete that!”?” – I wouldn’t just make an assumption like this.
“there are millions of pointless shots taken coz it’s free” – Who’s right is it to suggest that a photo is pointless?
“If your going for au-natural and all that well then I can’t be arsed” – I can’t imagine too many of us are ‘arsed’ to care… just a badly worded opinion.
It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it… and as far as I am concerned the critique in question reads as blunt, ignorant and inconsiderate.
Most people around these parts don’t have an issue with negative critique… but if we all started to pen our critique in this manner then I’m afraid I can’t imagine the site being a very pleasant place to be. There’s blunt… and then there’s downright ignorant.
I won’t speak for anyone else that has knocked the offender but in my case maybe I’m wrong to publically agree with the ‘arse’ opinion… and maybe by doing so I’m just lowering myself to the same level as the offender?
BTW: Going back to another thread – If I have an opinion on a matter why should I be told “Up Yours” for having my own opinion? People may disagree with other people’s opinions… but at the very least in the public arena we should respect that others are entitled to their own opinion.
*Edit* Spelling correction
Hi all, thanks for comments:
Rossco: Sorry, was a bit late in the evening for me too :) What I really meant to say was ‘I’d do a bit more burning in on the backgroud and a new layer of diffuse glow and vary the opacity to taste’…
Only kidding, the main point I wanted to make in that part is that saying what way things are is not the same as deciding how things should be.
kenh: Tks :)
PTB: Yeah sorry, Caravaggio was just on my mind because I was redoing a photo I took of his painting in Malta :) But, apart from the discussion here, he’s a good person to discuss elsewhere because he was the original master of what we would call ‘off camera flash’, only 400 years before pocket wizards and Nikon CLS brought it out into the streets! An absolute genius of lighting technique, he should have his own thread here :)
nfl-fan: Valid points, I wasn’t in any way defending the approach taken in the original critique. What did startle me though and caused my response was the way people seemed to pretend one of the largest schools of photography suddenly didn’t exist just to lay the boot in. Saying you don’t agree with someones attitude is enough, you don’t have to go so far as to deny that vanity is a massive component of commercial portraiture (and always was) and in places not very far from this thread most if not all of the points raised by Nossie have been raised to criticise other ‘People’ photographs with no eyebrows raised. People don’t book a portrait to have a record of how they look, otherwise portrait photo studios would have dissapeared once automatic passport photo booths were widely accesible.
People want to look their best in a portrait and every portait photographer must be aware of all the points Nossie raised and have the skills to minimize the bad and maximise the good. It’s a simple fact of human nature, and also explains why 400 years later people are still bemused by Cromwell telling Peter Lely before commisioning a portrait “I desire you would use all your skill to paint my picture truly like me, and not flatter me at all; but remark all the roughness, pimples, warts and everything, otherwise I will never pay a farthing for it.”. We still use the phrase ‘warts and all’ because such a request was completely off the wall at the time, and probably still is.
All of this discussion though is nothing to do with the original photograph of course, or the person in it, just a comment on the state of affairs here.
kenh wrote:
Cian, I won’t pretend to have fully understood all of your post (although I don’t mean that in a patronising way!) but I completely agree with the overall thrust of your message.
Maybe I’m being too sensitive, but is ken calling me patronising? :?
Rossco wrote:
kenh wrote:
Cian, I won’t pretend to have fully understood all of your post (although I don’t mean that in a patronising way!) but I completely agree with the overall thrust of your message.
Maybe I’m being too sensitive, but is ken calling me patronising? :?
your post came across to me as such :cry:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
