Film & now

ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
edited February 2, 2005 in Technique
15031889-L.jpg

This shot is roughly 35 years old. It was professionally shot and used in an annual reprot for a Fortune 500 company. Last week, it was professionally scanned by Panopticon. I think the scan is very true to the original.

This is my father and so I've known this picture for a long time. I've always considered it a fantastic portrait. Looking at it now on my monitor is interesting. If I'd shot this I'd be dissatisfied with some technical issues:

  1. The shadow of the left eye is very deep. I'd like to be able to see the eye better.
  2. This is probably a result of the off balance lighting (probably window light.) Sid didn't like thie effect on a shot of Lynn's.
  3. Distracting background.
  4. Boy, is it ever grainy!
Yet, all in all, I still think this is a fine portrait. The composition works well. It is very flattering. It captures an important aspect of the man's personality (competitive, intelligent, intense.)

If I took this picture, would I have the courage to leave it as is? Would I deliver it to a paying customer? What do you think the original photographer (his name long forgotten) thought about this shot? Was he satisfied? Did he just consider it a hack job, a part of his greater day job?
If not now, when?

Comments

  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2005
    i have some bachrachs of my father, when he was president of ibm data processing division... in fact, i just went and grabbed one.. 8x10.. loads of grain :D and, a lovely fine portrait.

    i giggle at all the "noise" and "sharpness" arguments that ensue sometimes wrt to digital photography.

    rutt, i like the portrait, and thanks for sharing your dad, and your thoughts. could prove to be an interesting discussion here ear.gif
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,708 moderator
    edited January 30, 2005
    rutt wrote:
    15031889-S.jpg

    This shot is roughly 35 years old. It was professionally shot and used in an annual reprot for a Fortune 500 company. Last week, it was professionally scanned by Panopticon. I think the scan is very true to the original.

    This is my father and so I've known this picture for a long time. I've always considered it a fantastic portrait. Looking at it now on my monitor is interesting. If I'd shot this I'd be dissatisfied with some technical issues:

    1. The shadow of the left eye is very deep. I'd like to be able to see the eye better.
    2. This is probably a result of the off balance lighting (probably window light.) Sid didn't like thie effect on a shot of Lynn's.
    3. Distracting background.
    4. Boy, is it ever grainy!
    Yet, all in all, I still think this is a fine portrait. The composition works well. It is very flattering. It captures an important aspect of the man's personality (competitive, intelligent, intense.)

    If I took this picture, would I have the courage to leave it as is? Would I deliver it to a paying customer? What do you think the original photographer (his name long forgotten) thought about this shot? Was he satisfied? Did he just consider it a hack job, a part of his greater day job?


    John, I think this is an excellent portrait for the reasons you described. Your father does seem intense, itelligent, and competitive. The drama of the lighting helps convey this feeling. If the light were less directional and you could see his left eye better, would the photo have the same intensity?

    Business photos are frequently shot in the individual's office or business place. Do you know where this was shot? I suspect it was not shot in a studio - lighting and background both lead me to this suspicion. I coulb be wrong though.

    Was this shot in 35mm or 2 1/4 square? I bet 2 1/4 for an annual report for a Fortune 500 company. Look how clearly the detail in his coat and tie are depicted. I don't think the grain is that bad. Most of us have forgotten just how grainy B&W negatives were - especially 35mm negatives. 30 years ago I shot Tri-X and Plus-X a lot, and souped it in D-76. My negatives always had more grain than this. I looked for a portrait I shot from 30 years ago in 35mm, but can't really find one to display. I think we have all gotten so used to grainless B&W conversions from digital images that we have forgotten what B&W prints from 35mm negatives really looked like.

    This brings up an interesting subject - does increasing technical quality decrease esthetic quality sometimes? Andy's Tri-X effect would suggest that the answer sometimes is yes.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • NirNir Registered Users Posts: 1,400 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2005
    When I look at a photo the most important aspect for me is what it makes me feel, if at all. Technical scrutiny is less important on my list.I think it's a wonderful portrait although if the eyes were clearer I would feel he was staring right at me and that would intensify my feelings.
    Background and grain don't bother me at all in this portrait.
    __________________

    Nir Alon

    images of my thoughts
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited January 30, 2005
    pathfinder wrote:
    Business photos are frequently shot in the individual's office or business place. Do you know where this was shot? I suspect it was not shot in a studio - lighting and background both lead me to this suspicion. I coulb be wrong though.
    I'm pretty sure it was shot in his office. He had a couple of these really nice old chess sets and kept one there. The background looks like his office at the time.

    Maybe it was medium format. I just assumed 35mm from the aspect ratio, but of course it could have been cropped.
    If not now, when?
  • lynnmalynnma Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 5,208 Major grins
    edited February 1, 2005
    Thats a great shot of your father rutt.. really really cool..I love everything about it.. his expression, the jacket the chess and the angle.. nice.. the only thing I would nitpik at is the eye light.. both eyes are a tad dark.. I think it's good tho.. grain and all.:D
    website
  • David_S85David_S85 Administrators Posts: 13,250 moderator
    edited February 2, 2005
    I see...
    Character. Mood. Purpose. That's what I see in this portrait.

    Everything else is just picking it apart. When a portrait is done right, the flaws just don't seem to matter. And this was done right.

    Yes, I could get a little critical too about some technical details, but there just isn't any need to. Very nice photo of your dad there! Thanks for sharing it with us.
    My Smugmug
    "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2005
    Its a great shot for sure...but which actor am i thinking off ?...man he looks so familiar.
  • dugmardugmar Registered Users Posts: 756 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2005
    Humungus wrote:
    Its a great shot for sure...but which actor am i thinking off ?...man he looks so familiar.
    Same here, I'm thinking Paul Newman myself. But that may not be it. There is some Newman in his face but there is another actor too... Can't put my finger on it.

    Doug
  • Michael AllenMichael Allen Registered Users Posts: 196 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2005
    I like the portrait, I think the shadowing(available lighting) helps intensify the overall mood. just my opinion.
    -Mike
  • dugmardugmar Registered Users Posts: 756 Major grins
    edited February 2, 2005
    A combo between Paul Newman and Tom Berenger. That is who he looks like.
Sign In or Register to comment.