Two portraits

bdcolen

Environmental. Available light. Shot on Extachrome.

Dick Smith, Blue Hill, ME. Gunsmith.




Eugene Richards, photographer, and on Sam.

thoth

Both of these shots just make me giddy B.D. The more I shoot the more I fall in love with good environmental portraiture. And these are excellent environmental portraits. Well done!

bdcolen

thoth wrote:

Both of these shots just make me giddy B.D. The more I shoot the more I fall in love with good environmental portraiture. And these are excellent environmental portraits. Well done!

Thanks, Travis. You are too, too kind. The second, by the way, is as much homage as it is portrait. I'd invite anyone to look at it, and then go take a look at some of Eugene Richards's work.

heatherfeather

I like the first one... The reflections in his glasses make me curious as to what is behind the photographer. In other words, I wanna look around, but can't figure out how to turn my head.


But to be honest the second one doesn't do anything for me, and if it were mine would likely have ended up in the recycle bin.

The subject in focus has something possibly gun like pointing into his head... and the cut off subject in the front... Really not my dish of tea. Though it is possibly what I have trained my eye to like. I do like the ladies in conversation in background though.

michswiss

Both shots are excellent. My immediate reaction to labeling them EP is that #1 fits wonderfully. It gives me a strong sense of the individual in their surrounds. #2 is excellent, but I don't see the connection to the subject being a photographer. (The title influenced me )

bdcolen

michswiss wrote:

Both shots are excellent. My immediate reaction to labeling them EP is that #1 fits wonderfully. It gives me a strong sense of the individual in their surrounds. #2 is excellent, but I don't see the connection to the subject being a photographer. (The title influenced me )

Right you are - and that's why I virtually never title images. He happens to be arguably the greatest living American documentary photographer, which the photo doesn't tell you in any way. And as to environmental - probably informal would be a better label.

bdcolen

heatherfeather wrote:

I like the first one... The reflections in his glasses make me curious as to what is behind the photographer. In other words, I wanna look around, but can't figure out how to turn my head.


But to be honest the second one doesn't do anything for me, and if it were mine would likely have ended up in the recycle bin.

The subject in focus has something possibly gun like pointing into his head... and the cut off subject in the front... Really not my dish of tea. Though it is possibly what I have trained my eye to like. I do like the ladies in conversation in background though.

Not at all your cup of tea - I know. And there are some distracting elements in it. But you work with what you have - and what it is is a quiet moment between father and son, shot much as the father might have shot it.

But again, it's a far cry from what most people here are shooting.

bdcolen

heatherfeather wrote:

I like the first one... The reflections in his glasses make me curious as to what is behind the photographer. In other words, I wanna look around, but can't figure out how to turn my head.


But to be honest the second one doesn't do anything for me, and if it were mine would likely have ended up in the recycle bin.

The subject in focus has something possibly gun like pointing into his head... and the cut off subject in the front... Really not my dish of tea. Though it is possibly what I have trained my eye to like. I do like the ladies in conversation in background though.

Oh - What is reflected in the glasses is the glaring sunlight immediately outside the open door of his shop.

heatherfeather

bdcolen wrote:

Not at all your cup of tea - I know. And there are some distracting elements in it. But you work with what you have - and what it is is a quiet moment between father and son, shot much as the father might have shot it.

But again, it's a far cry from what most people here are shooting.

True, and I do have to confess that seeing your work is stretching me in a good way. I have found myself looking at photos a bit differently... not always going for perfect and clean but allowing a little of reality to show through. I see you using a lot of unconventional framing, and that is always an interesting thrill. You strive to include the passersby as an important element, while I wait for them to leave and isolate the subject. Different philosophy, I suppose. Neither is right, but both are fun, valid and interesting.

But the one thing I continually come back to, is what makes us different than the uneducated casual point and shoot or cellphone photographer? What makes our images worth paying for?

bdcolen

heatherfeather wrote:

True, and I do have to confess that seeing your work is stretching me in a good way. I have found myself looking at photos a bit differently... not always going for perfect and clean but allowing a little of reality to show through. I see you using a lot of unconventional framing, and that is always an interesting thrill. You strive to include the passersby as an important element, while I wait for them to leave and isolate the subject. Different philosophy, I suppose. Neither is right, but both are fun, valid and interesting.

But the one thing I continually come back to, is what makes us different than the uneducated casual point and shoot or cellphone photographer? What makes our images worth paying for?

Ah... "the question." I wish I had the answer.

Seriously though, I think you know the answer. The first - and most obvious - thing is technical skill - knowing how to get the best out of our equipment. But more important than that is having the ability to see what the casual point-and-shooter doesn't see. The snapper sees a smiling child and - snaps. He/she doesn't see a photograph, an image - he/she just sees the smile. So we then look at the image that's been produced and say, 'yup, that's a smiling kid alright*'

You, on the other hand, will see the same smiling child, take in everything around the child, and consider how to produce the most meaningful image in which the child is the central figure.

The problem, of course, is that many clients don't get it - they just see the smile.


* This reminds me of a joke the late Johnny Carson told about going to a hospital to visit a friend who had just had a baby. Carson said he walked into the room, and there lay the famous movie star Mom and the most terrifying ugly baby he had ever laid eyes on, ugliest baby he could even imagine. He panicked! What was he going to say?! And then it came to him...
THAT is a BABY!

DavidTO

bdcolen wrote:

shot much as the father might have shot it.

Wow. Amazing images.

bdcolen

DavidTO wrote:

Wow. Amazing images.

Thanks, David.

richtersl

I have a love/hate battle going on with #1. I love the shot but I don't care for the reflections -- but yet, they fascinate me and keep my interest in the photo. It definitely gives me an emotional reaction. If I saw this in an exhibit I'd keep coming back to it to figure out what the reflection is.

The second one does absolutely nothing for me. Just like with Heather, it probably would have ended up in my Recycle Bin. When I see a shot like this, I do find myself thinking, "what am I missing?" While I agree that you can't always control your circumstances and have to work with what you have, I still find myself thinking, "what am I missing?"

Wil Davis

richtersl wrote:

snip...
The second one does absolutely nothing for me. Just like with Heather, it probably would have ended up in my Recycle Bin. When I see a shot like this, I do find myself thinking, "what am I missing?" While I agree that you can't always control your circumstances and have to work with what you have, I still find myself thinking, "what am I missing?"

I agree. Basically if it has to be explained, then as far as I'm concerned, it hasn't worked...

- Wil

thoth

Wil Davis wrote:

I agree. Basically if it has to be explained, then as far as I'm concerned, it hasn't worked...

- Wil

Why is it that a photo of a high school girl with pretty colors and perfectly smooth skin needs no explanation but this photo does? Photo two, as far as I'm concerned, displays far more character than a very very large portion of the portrait work shown here on DGrin. So what if we don't understand the photographer's intent; there's still plenty of stories we can tell ourselves about the photo. There's a huge difference between a photo that contains no interesting elements and one who's original intent is unknown.

Wil Davis

thoth wrote:

Why is it that a photo of a high school girl with pretty colors and perfectly smooth skin needs no explanation but this photo does? Photo two, as far as I'm concerned, displays far more character than a very very large portion of the portrait work shown here on DGrin. So what if we don't understand the photographer's intent; there's still plenty of stories we can tell ourselves about the photo. There's a huge difference between a photo that contains no interesting elements and one who's original intent is unknown.

You've answered your own question.

(1) HSG pretty colours etc, the intent is obvious... needs no explanation (if it's a good picture, that is...)

(2) "So what if we don't understand etc. etc." surely you can't be serious (!!!!) Photography is about communication! A successful picture requires no explanation i.e. it is SELF EXPLANATORY! If it needs explanation, then it has not worked (IMNSHO);

Of course, your mileage might vary!

- Wil (still a Curmudgeon )

thoth

Wil Davis wrote:

You've answered your own question.

(1) HSG pretty colours etc, the intent is obvious... needs no explanation (if it's a good picture, that is...)

(2) "So what if we don't understand etc. etc." surely you can't be serious (!!!!) Photography is about communication! A successful picture requires no explanation i.e. it is SELF EXPLANATORY! If it needs explanation, then it has not worked (IMNSHO);

Of course, your mileage might vary!

- Wil (still a Curmudgeon )

I would be extremely surprised to learn that a world existed in which a painting of a can of soup can be sold for millions yet a portrait must have a story behind it. If this had been a headshot with a 70-200 VR lens with some speedlights we wouldn't be having this discussion. How, then, does the addition of life around a subject detract from its usefulness as a portrait?

After takings B.D.'s suggestion and looking over Eugene Richards' work it is clear why this shot was chosen. As he mentioned, it is in Eugene's spirit and I think it does well in that regard. It is very presumptuous to believe that, because the viewer doesn't inherently know what they are seeing, the object has no merit. There is much that I would not personally consider art, such as an $11.7 million painting of a can of soup, but I can't imagine that Andy Worhol would have given a damn.

In the end, personal taste is more important than anything. If you don't like the photo then you don't like it; that's that. But to tell a photographer, of any skill level, that a shot is meaningless is bad form in my opinion.

Wil Davis

thoth wrote:

I would be extremely surprised to learn that a world existed in which a painting of a can of soup can be sold for millions yet a portrait must have a story behind it. If this had been a headshot with a 70-200 VR lens with some speedlights we wouldn't be having this discussion. How, then, does the addition of life around a subject detract from its usefulness as a portrait?

Somewhat irrelevant, I think…

thoth wrote:

…snip
It is very presumptuous to believe that, because the viewer doesn't inherently know what they are seeing, the object has no merit.

Not really; to use an analogy with humour, if you have to have the joke explained to you, then the joke hasn't worked. I agree with you that it makes more sense if you're familiar with Eugene Richards' work, but without that knowledge, the picture is meaningless; so what am I left with? I see a B & W picture containing a man's head, partly obscured by a child totally out of focus either getting up to leave, or just arriving on the scene. The man is wearing glasses; his eyes look to be partially closed; is he asleep? is he conscious? Perhaps he's reading. There is some activity going on in the background. There are a lot of things going on, but there's no coherence, perhaps there's none intended. There's nothing to suggest that the man is related to the child (apart from the title (external to the picture), suggesting that they have the same surname)

thoth wrote:

There is much that I would not personally consider art, such as an $11.7 million painting of a can of soup, but I can't imagine that Andy Worhol would have given a damn.

…irrelevant

thoth wrote:

In the end, personal taste is more important than anything. If you don't like the photo then you don't like it; that's that. But to tell a photographer, of any skill level, that a shot is meaningless is bad form in my opinion.

I agree, it's all to do with personal taste, but why should admitting that I don't understand it and it means nothing to me, be "bad form"? Would it be more honest to say, "…oh yes, wonderful! …me too! …me too!"

At least, I now know about Eugene Richards, something I might never have learned if I'd not seen the picture

- Wil

thoth

Wil Davis wrote:

I agree, it's all to do with personal taste, but why should admitting that I don't understand it and it means nothing to me, be "bad form"? Would it be more honest to say, "…oh yes, wonderful! …me too! …me too!"

*sigh*

I didn't chastise you, Wil, for claiming that the photo meant nothing to you. I also did not claim that you should appreciate the photo. As I said, it's your decision whether you like it or not. I really can't imagine, though, that you truly believe that, just because you don't see anything in an image, it has no value.

I don't see anything in a can of soup (here's your overlooked relevance). Does that mean it has no value?

Wil Davis

OK, no offense taken

I've just finished looking at Eugene Richards' gallery (from the link in one of B.D.'s posts) and honestly I find his pictures to be bloody amazing!
I think all the accolades to be well deserved…

- Wil

bdcolen

Wil Davis wrote:

OK, no offense taken

I've just finished looking at Eugene Richards' gallery (from the link in one of B.D.'s posts) and honestly I find his pictures to be bloody amazing!
I think all the accolades to be well deserved…

- Wil

Guys! Guys!

If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't. Obviously you're right if you do, and wrong if you don't.

Seriously, different kinds of images appeal to different people. And if the photo requires an explanation, clearly it fails for the person who needs that explanation. So if Wil's my audience, the image is a flop. If Travis is my audience, it succeeds.

And if I got two people to go look at Gene Richards's work, posting it was a total success, because anyone with even a passing interest in documentary photography should know Richards's work.

adbsgicom

Firstly, I get the first picture and am struggling with the second.
Secondly, I want to preface this all by saying that I'm asking all of this such that I might learn. What might sound critical or cynical is just me trying to resolve my mental conflicts (or confusions). I'll do my best to not come off as either, but please filter your reading of my questions in the best possible light.

B.D., you mentioned that the second has it's issues, but you need to work with what you've got.

What I see captured is great photographer in thought. He seems to be looking slightly down, which implies (to me) that he's not looking at something in particular. Perhaps he's looking just at the crowd and thinking about where he is. The son in the foreground, though, isn't part of the picture to me. If it weren't in the title, I wouldn't sense a connection.

In another thread where there was a woman walking away talking on her cell phone, you asked to poster (sorry, I don't recall who it was exactly) if the picture was of the good-looking woman or not. At issue was if it counted as catching something that said 'the hurried life of NYC' or 'nice-looking woman talking on cell phone'. Is this a keeper because of who is being captured or the moment? I'm guessing that it is a combination of the two -- if that's me my daughter instead, it's not likely a keeper. If you could have had more connection between the father and son, even if it were that they seemed to be looking (or staring off into space) in a similar direction, would this image have still been a keeper?

Maybe it's just the 'and son' that is bugging me. I think you have captured a man's being lost in thought while in the commotion of a festival setting very well.

Thanks for reading this far, and thanks for sharing these images and helping us learn from them through your time and experience.

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

Guys! Guys!

If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't. Obviously you're right if you do, and wrong if you don't.

Seriously, different kinds of images appeal to different people. And if the photo requires an explanation, clearly it fails for the person who needs that explanation. So if Wil's my audience, the image is a flop. If Travis is my audience, it succeeds.

And if I got two people to go look at Gene Richards's work, posting it was a total success, because anyone with even a passing interest in documentary photography should know Richards's work.

Haha, I didn't mean any offense to anyone, including Wil, with my argument. I just felt a need to defend the possibility that there was more than meets a single observer's eye.

Or maybe I'm just kissing up for when I enroll in your PJ program... :ivar (Here's my assignment, Mr. Colen. By the way, I love your new hat... )

Honestly, I didn't get your intent out of the image when I first saw it and commented. I'm with Andrew with what I saw; a man in a moment of solitude in a contradictory setting. I guess, by that regard, your meaning was lost until it was explained, but, because I didn't need that to begin with, I think the image still works without it.

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

And if I got two people to go look at Gene Richards's work, posting it was a total success, because anyone with even a passing interest in documentary photography should know Richards's work.

I need to offer a huge thank you for the suggested viewing. Richards' works is simply amazing and I don't recall being so impressed by anyone elses work to date. I woke up this morning with the image of an out of focus child's head with a funeral behind it. Simply stunning.

jethibod

thoth wrote:

I need to offer a huge thank you for the suggested viewing. Richards' works is simply amazing and I don't recall being so impressed by anyone elses work to date. I woke up this morning with the image of an out of focus child's head with a funeral behind it. Simply stunning.

Richards' work is simply amazing, and from my perspective, I think a part of the reason I think so is that it's a glimpse into a life that I don't get to see often, if ever.

Maybe that's why these kinds of photos are so compelling - it's something different and raw and human. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with a seniors' portrait with perfect skin and perfect processing - in fact, I'm quite in awe of the many talented photographers on this site alone who make such beautiful images - but I love the grittiness and the reality of images like Richards' and BD's.

Thanks so much, BD, for sharing that link - very eye opening...

bdcolen

adbsgicom wrote:

Firstly, I get the first picture and am struggling with the second.
Secondly, I want to preface this all by saying that I'm asking all of this such that I might learn. What might sound critical or cynical is just me trying to resolve my mental conflicts (or confusions). I'll do my best to not come off as either, but please filter your reading of my questions in the best possible light.

B.D., you mentioned that the second has it's issues, but you need to work with what you've got.

What I see captured is great photographer in thought. He seems to be looking slightly down, which implies (to me) that he's not looking at something in particular. Perhaps he's looking just at the crowd and thinking about where he is. The son in the foreground, though, isn't part of the picture to me. If it weren't in the title, I wouldn't sense a connection.

In another thread where there was a woman walking away talking on her cell phone, you asked to poster (sorry, I don't recall who it was exactly) if the picture was of the good-looking woman or not. At issue was if it counted as catching something that said 'the hurried life of NYC' or 'nice-looking woman talking on cell phone'. Is this a keeper because of who is being captured or the moment? I'm guessing that it is a combination of the two -- if that's me my daughter instead, it's not likely a keeper. If you could have had more connection between the father and son, even if it were that they seemed to be looking (or staring off into space) in a similar direction, would this image have still been a keeper?

Maybe it's just the 'and son' that is bugging me. I think you have captured a man's being lost in thought while in the commotion of a festival setting very well.

Thanks for reading this far, and thanks for sharing these images and helping us learn from them through your time and experience.

Good questions, and good exchange. And you are challenging my assumptions about the shot. I saw it as a quiet moment between father and son. I will argue with my dying breath that the son's being way out of focus is utterly irrelevant,as is the background - clearly from the composition, Richards is the main subject, framed by everything else.

But I'm now wondering if the connection between the two main subjects is as clear as I've always thought it was - or perhaps I am bringing too much back story to the photo.

As to Richards - I highly recommend any of his books of photos, but if you are going to invest in only one, get The Fat Baby, which contains photos and stories about the assignments. Richards is that rarest of creatures - a photographer who can write.

And I know everyone will like this one better - no ambiguity; no questions; no confusion.

heatherfeather

bdcolen wrote:

And I know everyone will like this one better - no ambiguity; no questions; no confusion.

Yup... much better. I get this one! Yay for me!

adbsgicom

I 'get' the new one as a picture of father & son sharing a moment.
I think I've moved on to getting the original as a capture of Eugene Richards.

The FG being out of focus isn't a stopper for me (since I posted a cropping question with an OOF FG that I liked a day or two ago). I think what was stopping me up was the darn title / written intent for the picture.

Now we get a 3-day haiatus from captions....

andersmi24

Question about focal length
B.D. I am really enjoying your work and especially your critiques of others. May I ask what focal length these two photos were made with? Mine is a crop sensor camera, and with my current set of lenses I'm always tighter than I'd like, so I'm shopping, using your work as an example.