just a statement of fact

Azuth said:
Chinese_Busker.jpg


Shoe_Shiner_BW.jpg

Just want to say I love these two photographs/portraits (after reading all this I've lost the ability to really decide one way or the other :confused: ) and I've spent the past 15 mins. just studying all the little details. Fab work! I just :heart: :heart: :heart: them both!
 
I'm not even going to talk about the tech aspects of the images. I don't think that that matters in this thread. But I do want to say that they both capture something about the person, and I think that's the hard part. I especially feel like you've shown me a bit of who Brian is. Looking at this picture, I just want to give the guy a hug.
 
mysteryscribe said:
Not really the eye is in the composition the rest is just makeup. You shot a hell of a well composed shot.

I think this is the nicest things anyone has ever said about a picture of mine. Thank you, mysteryscribe. :)


Regarding the topic of 'portrait' vs. 'no portrait': Could it be that you guys define portrait simply on two different levels of meaning?

One level of meaning would be the rather techical definition of what makes a portrait a portrait, i.e. a photograph where a person is the main subject.

The other level of meaning goes beond that and lays a claim to a portrait to meet certain requirements beyond the technical aspects, like "does it say something about the person", "is it of a certain quality", "does it 'catch' something more", "does it convey more than just the outlines of a subject". A more artistic approach, so to speak, whilst the first level is rather a technical approach.

Reading your arguments I get the feeling that you may simply be debating on two different levels of meaning. Just a thought. :blushing:
 
Actually, the basic line of all this discussion was mysteryscribe's saying that NOT every photo with a person in it is a portrait. No more. No less.
 
markc said:
I'm not even going to talk about the tech aspects of the images. I don't think that that matters in this thread. But I do want to say that they both capture something about the person, and I think that's the hard part. I especially feel like you've shown me a bit of who Brian is. Looking at this picture, I just want to give the guy a hug.

That's the difference in a nut shell imo. A "pitcher" is a photo that doesn't really give anyone but a family member an insight into the person.
A portrait tells me a bit about the person. It's more about the composion and expression than anything else.

JMO
 
Agreed. I get kinda confused sometimes with the heading "portrait" when it doesn't tell me anything about the person. But then again, I know its personally hard for me when taking my own family and friends photo. Because I know the person, I tend to assume that everyone does, and I don't struggle as much to attain the "true and telling expression".
Does that make sense?
Anyhoo, I think that a lot of shooters tend to do the same thing.
 
a female is always a woman, but she is not always a LADY, just symantics guys. He means that sometimes people are just caught in a picture that may be art/landscape/ etc... whatever...

they are not necessarily the focal point of the picture, and maybey steps were not taken to light them properly, etc...

A shoot of a bottle of cologne for a cologne AD with a off-center 3/4 of a car in the corner as background, would you say that its a car shoot ?
 
I am 42 years old. I have emphasema.
I'm not using that as a reason why I can't get the job done. I can. And they are goona be really happy campers.
I feel for, but cant go with the tired folks, and all that. I've got a few years and I;m gonna do what I can.
I'm a perfectionist. I paid a whole lot of money to learn. My learning curve is pretty curvy, and I'm ok with that.
 
I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO EDIT.
WHATEVER.o
I

Dangit. Sorry the meds. I wanted to say, thank you for your well wishes. It's gonna work out either way.
Love you guys,
Cindy
 

Most reactions

Back
Top