Portraits

IMG_6350BW.jpg
 
airfrogusmc said:
Really nice Erik. Love the couple and the twin towers in the background. And the implication of a connection with the towers being connected. I also really like your gentle hand regarding your processing. It works so well for your images. I know I have said ths before but because of the way you put you images together (compose)and process as well as few other things, I know it is one of your images even before I see your name. That is very rare in forum land.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much, Airfrogus. Over the years photography has become a part of me, I guess. The fact that I print my pictures in "split grade" has also to do with this, I guess.

Now a strange thing happened to Flickr again. I had a problem with the sharpness of the images. This is still the case, exept on the oldest page of the "photostream". These pictures are now sharp again. Creates expectations.

Erik.
 
Although I remain unconvinced that a portrait can be any picture which contains a human figure, I have enjoyed the posts in this thread, and thank the respondents.
Admittedly, my opinion is worth no more than the paper it is printed on, and since there isn't even any paper, well......that's what it is worth.
Given that, I would humbly submit that the essential nature of a photographic portrait is no different than the art practiced by portrait artists on canvas, with oils, in the past, being a concerted effort to capture the complete essence of the subject in one image. No easy task, and one which leaves much room for editorializing, and hagiography on the one hand and "warts and all" on the other. But, that's a portrait, something which attempts to explain who, exactly, is this person, in one image. Great photos, which happen to have people in the frame, but which leave those people as we found them, a complete mystery to us, are those portraits?
Others may object, a fact to which I have no objection. Let the party continue as it has.

Even though the human element in the photo below is a tiny part of the photo, I know for a fact that it captures the essence of this person in a way that words never will. So, perhaps, portrait.

 
Erik van Straten said:
Thank you very much, Airfrogus. Over the years photography has become a part of me, I guess. The fact that I print my pictures in "split grade" has also to do with this, I guess.

Now a strange thing happened to Flickr again. I had a problem with the sharpness of the images. This is still the case, exept on the oldest page of the "photostream". These pictures are now sharp again. Creates expectations.

Erik.
Click to expand...

Yeah 100kb jpgs form a hosting site is really not the way to view images in my opinion. Some hosting sites just turn images to mush. I usually don't judge sharpness on forums for that very reason. I usually know that more advanced photogrpahers are going to have images that are sharp enough. Anyway, really good work and your commitment to following your vision shows.

Allen
 
Larry Cloetta said:
...... I would humbly submit that the essential nature of a photographic portrait is ...... being a concerted effort to capture the complete essence of the subject in one image. ..... that's a portrait, something which attempts to explain who, exactly, is this person, in one image. ......
Click to expand...

Larry, I certainly agree with you while similarly acknowledging everyone can have their own definition and motivation. I am one who rejects "labels" to define different photo genres. However, I do need to always have an overall goal, more than just making a pretty picture, when I photograph.

Now my goal is not individual images but to create a cohesive body of work, a series, that informs the viewer of a particular culture. That requires me to photograph, edit, and sequence individual images with that in mind. Presentation of such is a challenge here. I sometimes feel like a writer being asked to present a good sentence or two from their story.

I do find occasional images in my work that do stand on their own, some of which also fit in the overall concept of portraiture. That is what people see here.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Larry, I certainly agree with you while similarly acknowledging everyone can have their own definition and motivation. I am one who rejects "labels" to define different photo genres. However, I do need to always have an overall goal, more than just making a pretty picture, when I photograph.

Now my goal is not individual images but to create a cohesive body of work, a series, that informs the viewer of a particular culture. That requires me to photograph, edit, and sequence individual images with that in mind. Presentation of such is a challenge here. I sometimes feel like a writer being asked to present a good sentence or two from their story.

I do find occasional images in my work that do stand on their own, some of which also fit in the overall concept of portraiture. That is what people see here.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Bob. Understood and appreciated.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Since we are defining street shots of strangers as portraits for purposes of this thread, I have to drag out one of my old favorites.
Click to expand...


Thank you Bob, yes why not. Many paintings in the museums are portraits of not identified people. Nevertheless these can be great portraits. What's in a name?


Erik.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom