Iconic Portraits, What makes them amazing?

met

I'm trying to improve in portraiture so I've been studying some of Alfred Eisenstaedt's photographs because I find myself really drawn to his portraits and I'm trying to figure out why. He somehow manages to capture the essence of a person and I'm curious to get the insight of other photographers or those that have studied iconic portraits to see broken down what it is that makes them so great.

What iconic portraits really draw you in and why?


Here are two of my favorites of Eisenstaedt's work. What are your thoughts on them?

1. George Bernard Shaw



2. Dr. Joseph Goebbels




I checked the copyright on the website that I'm linking to and this doesn't seem to be a violation. If the mods feel otherwise, please remove. Thanks.
<center>

</center>

<center>© 1999 BY DIRCK HALSTEAD

</center> <center> ALL RIGHTS RESERVED</center> All photographs and text by Dirck Halstead appearing in dirckhalstead.org are the exclusive property of Dirck Halstead and are protected under United States and international copyright laws. The photographs appearing in this web site by other contributing photographers are similarly protected in their names. The photographs may not be reproduced, copied, stored or manipulated for commercial or editorial purposes without written permission of their author(s), however Dirck Halstead grants and encourages use for personal and educational purposes, with the exception of textbook. No images are in the Public Domain. Use of any image as the basis for another photographic concept or illustration is a violation of copyright.

divamum

The engagement with the camera - the EYES. You feel like you're connecting with the subject, like you're meeting them. The Shaw is wonderful - I feel like he's about to speak to me (and also an overwhelming urge to go reread Dear Liar for the umpteenth time) Thanks for posting the links you did - I'm now going to scuttle off and learn some more!

One of my all-time favorite portraits (as any who read the Challenges forum know )

http://silentstoryteller.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a5343d23970b0120a6219c9e970b-800wi

The exception to "connection with the camera" making strong portraits might be some of the work of Hurrell and "school of Hurrell" where he intentionally has people looking *away* from camera, but somehow it still works, although perhaps in a different way. The Hollywood images don't so much connect you WITH the person as *show* you the person, if that makes sense.

http://makeupbeat.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/Norma_Shearer_George_Hurrell_029.jpg

Mitchell

When you look at your two example photos, the common thread is undeniably the eyes of the subject. While the Shaw portrait is an engaging glimpse into the artist, the portrait of Goebbles is almost disturbing. His eyes in that portrait have a dark, hatred with a depth that is seldom seen.

For me, the eyes are always what make a wonderful portrait. As far as icons go, I always think of the Afghan girl.

sweet caroline

The Afghan girl is part of why I wanted to be a photographer! I agree that it's almost always in the eyes. Our brains register all kinds of information based on the slightest detail in a person's eyes (or eye expression). We aren't even usually aware that we have received that information, or that we are sending it out.

Caroline

met

I forgot about that National Geographic picture. Love that one.

One of the interesting things about Shaw's picture to me is that even though he is looking at the camera quite honestly he still remains a bit elusive. I still can't pinpoint what he is thinking. Whereas with Goebbels his thoughts and feelings are written so clearly. You can almost hear him thinking, "How dare this Jew take my picture." It is interesting that the photographer didn't just capture the emotion but he is the person that evoked it in the first place. Everyone has good and bad qualities and are capable of hatred, but you rarely look at a person and think that they look like pure evil. With him - I do.

divamum

met wrote:

Whereas with Goebbels his thoughts and feelings are written so clearly. You can almost hear him thinking, "How dare this Jew take my picture." It is interesting that the photographer didn't just capture the emotion but he is the person that evoked it in the first place. Everyone has good and bad qualities and are capable of hatred, but you rarely look at a person and think that they look like pure evil. With him - I do.

It's a good point, but... do we know that's what he was thinking? To me (despite finding the image deeply uncomfortable and agreeing that your interpretation is a possible one), I see, "I'm working - please don't distract me with picture-taking right now". He's definitely irritated... but isn't it possible that we're using hindsight to impose an interpretation of "pure evil" onto him? (This is not, btw, an argument justifying or condoning Goebbels or any of his buddies, simply a slightly-devils-advocate observation about how we interpret things) I think there is a tendency to perhaps impose broader context on an image, often unintentionally. His is indeed a look of hostility but.... I don't honestly think we can presume to know why (unless there's an account from the 'tog and I simply don't know the whole story. In which case, this post is completely pointless and I put my hands up and say, "Whoops - didn't know that! )

A somewhat less emotionally jarring example of this is often seen in paparazzi pictures - celebrities allegedly sobbing over lost loves captioned a mile high on the cover of supermarket magazines that turn out in fact to have been wiping away the tears from an irritated contact lens. Faces of abject rage alleged to be at the sight of a former spouse that were because they stepped on a nail, or some other utterly banal event that prompted an extreme facial expression. You know what I mean.

Great discussion, Met - I'm so glad you started this thread!

ETA: I hope BD Colen sees this - I'm sure he'd have some wonderful comments to add!

Elaine

Thanks for the links. Enjoyed seeing those photos.

I had similar thoughts to Divamum...I can't help but think our hindsight influences an even darker interpretation of that Goebbels shot.

What an amazing collection! In general, I think eyes and unforced expressions/positions are what draw me in. In short...realness. Although, I must admit, I'm a noob when it comes to this genre.

met

Good points, maybe with hindsight I'm reading too much into it. I listened to the audio clip of Eisenstaedt speaking about taking that picture and he said that a moment prior Goebbels was laughing with another journalist. Then he turned and looked at Eisenstaedt who lifted his camera and took the picture. Eisenstaedt said, "He thought I would wither." It's interesting listening to the audio clips of his perspective while he was in the moment taking the picture.

Elaine

met wrote:

Good points, maybe with hindsight I'm reading too much into it. I listened to the audio clip of Eisenstaedt speaking about taking that picture and he said that a moment prior Goebbels was laughing with another journalist. Then he turned and looked at Eisenstaedt who lifted his camera and took the picture. Eisenstaedt said, "He thought I would wither." It's interesting listening to the audio clips of his perspective while he was in the moment taking the picture.

Well, that is interesting.

I love what is quoted next to the photo..."...when I have a camera in my hand, I know no fear."