good photographer or good subject?

FrankS

FrankS

Registered User
Local time
5:30 PM
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
19,348
Here is a saying that I often think of with regards to photography:

It is the photographer's skill that makes an extra-ordinary photograph of an ordinary subject. With an exra-ordinary subject, the photographer simply needs to be competent to make an extra-ordinary photograph.

With that in mind, look at this photograph (nudity warning) and tell me what you think: is it an extra-ordinary photograph? If it is, is it because of the subject, or the photographer's skill (beyond competency)? Would the photograph still be as compelling if the model were more ordinary?

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6285636

(You're welcome, in advance.)
 
I'm not comfortable with this photograph. It almost looks as if the model is a composite, that is, she does not appear to be in proportion - not just the breasts, but also the leg. I think it is interesting more than extraordinary and it is certainly well executed. However, without that model I don't think it would be as striking. Also, I think there is too much space around the subject - a tighter crop would work better for me.
 
I don't know if you can simply separtate the subject from the image. Certainly a photograph of a beautiful flower is not necessarily beautiful, but a photograph of a rose bud is not the same as a whithered daisy. So you cannot dismiss the model nor the choice of that model by the photographer - if the photographer skill is in composition, then surely the choice of props, lighting, and models is equally important.

Then there is the "taste" paradox; everyone was good taste. It comes from beauty is in the eye of the beholder theme. How much of taste is to do with nature vs. nuture. Is there a "high" view of objects - a Playboy center fold is somehow less valuable than Michealangelo's "David" because it is playing on our "base" nature. Is the current social trend of super-thin forms better than the fuller forms of the past? How we relate to a image has as much to do with the viewers as the photographer.

Personally, I don't see anything stunning or extra-ordinary about the image. The photographer seems competent. I don't get a lot from the image. It seems very cold and superficial, but that is also a matter of preference and that "style" has been around off and on for sometime - it just does not blow my hair back. And that may have been the photographer's intent or what blows his/her hair back.
 
I really dont think the photo is artistically good. Technicaly it is nice but as far as being a thought provoking emotiomal photo.... well I don't "feel" anything from looking at it.

It is just there, no emotion at all, a chair a woman, and a backdrop. The lighting is a little too harsh, and does not lend well to the subjects being photographed. Also the back drop is to close to the subjects, thus the shadow being cast is some what distracting to me.

What would I have done differently....

I would have shot the subjects in a much different way with much darker background, and with maybe just a dim spot to illuminate them both (the chair and the model).

Of course in a more emotional pose too. Maybe sitting with arms folded across the chest and with a softer focus all around.
 
After looking at the image (downloaded), I couldn't put my finger on what was bothering me about it. Yes, the model is great, but I agree that the leg does not appear to belong to the torso. When I studied the composition, I tried various crops and determined that the image looked off balance and mechanical when cropped using rectangular formats. The photographer HAD to use a square crop. But what really bothered me was the face. The low point of view and the lack of eye contact just does not appeal to me. IMHO, the model is wonderful, the composition is good, the pose awful, the photographer did not distinguish himself by making this work better. Considering the comments left for the photographer, my tastes must be out in left field.
 
Usually if I don't have anything good to say, I keep it to myself, but in this instance, I had to respond in the comments, much the same as Robert's first 2 paragraphs.
 
Hi Frank, sorry I don’t find the image particularly attractive in an aesthetic sense, apart from ample charms of the model it just looks competent to me, I like a bit of gratuitous nudity as well as the next chap but that’s all it is for me.
On the same lines take a look at this shot by Lewis Morley LINK the same sort of thing but better posed and crafted so it oozes sexuality but you could show it to your Gran
 
Sparrow said:
Hi Frank, sorry I don’t find the image particularly attractive in an aesthetic sense, apart from ample charms of the model it just looks competent to me, I like a bit of gratuitous nudity as well as the next chap but that’s all it is for me.
On the same lines take a look at this shot by Lewis Morley LINK the same sort of thing but better posed and crafted so it oozes sexuality but you could show it to your Gran
Click to expand...

Thank you thank you thank you for the photo of Christine Keeler! Now, if I only had one of Mandy Rice-Davies my day would be complete. I remember gazing at those photos in the newspapers (the one of Christine Keeler was considered chaste enough to run in all the newspapers of the day) as a young boy and they deeply affected and shaped my view of femininity and glamour.

/T
 
Tuolumne said:
Thank you thank you thank you for the photo of Christine Keeler! Now, if I only had one of Mandy Rice-Davies my day would be complete. I remember gazing at those photos in the newspapers (the one of Christine Keeler was considered chaste enough to run in all the newspapers of the day) as a young boy and they deeply affected and shaped my view of femininity and glamour.

/T
Click to expand...

It was that photo that attracted me to photography……………among other things
:D
 
I agree, the image of Christine Keeler shot by Lewis Morley is a fantastic example of glamour and and a tasteful, sensual nude. The eyes caught my attention and really brings me into the scene. This is an example of a model and photographer working as one!
 
I am not impressed by this photograph. I think that a picture of a person succeeds when it expresses something of that individual or the photographers' view of the same. Here we have a sterile arrangement of texture and form which uses a deliberately coy nudity to provoke a response and so compensate for its essential emptiness. To me it demonstrates that a technically proficient but imaginatively mediocre photographer produces technically proficient but imaginatively mediocre photographs. Compare it to Lewis Morley's not wildly dissimilar picture of Christine Keeler and you realise how meaningless it is.

Edit - Sparrow, we had the same idea - I was posting when you responded :)

Cheers, Ian
 
Last edited:
Windwalker57 said:
I agree, the image of Christine Keeler shot by Lewis Morley is a fantastic example of glamour and and a tasteful, sensual nude. The eyes caught my attention and really brings me into the scene. This is an example of a model and photographer working as one!
Click to expand...

Actually it’s an example of a photographer using up the last two frames on the roll at the end of the shoot
 
IMO if she had a sweater on it would be a fairly static and boring photo.

I mean, it would be much more interesting if the photographer had her pose with a wicker chair or something...
 
Sterile is how I would describe it. The focal length used needs to be cropped for one. This would at least give the viewer more of an intimacy; too much useless space leaves the subject lost surrounded by the backdrop. Second, the background/backdrop is like a stock 70s blotchy background to take shots of kids at schools...even worse; it adds to the Blah-ness. Third, the photographer captured no expression from the model; no hint of a smile, no pensiveness, no joy, no sadness; very bland. Lastly the septia tone adds to the emotional blahs, making the scene look more and more contrived the more I look at it; I mean doesn't the background give off that "studio" look enough?!

my 2 cents.

But she looks rather well endowed.
 
Last edited:
Sparrow - Er, did you ever notice that sometimes your best shots always seem to come at the end of the roll?

Actually, I was pointing out that in the image linked to by Frank that the model and photographer don't appear to be working together. I think that this photog was seeing the model's assets, not actually saying anything with this image. This image does not "involve" me in it.

Sorry, I am a poor typist, I don't express myself well at the keyboard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom