2 Portraits of Adrienne. [Pics Attached]

McMadCow · 03-08-2006, 03:37 PM

I shot with Adrienne this past weekend and I had a lot of fun. I'll probably post a few from that set on here over the next couple of days, but I liked these portraits and I'm looking for some feedback on them.
I shot these with my 50mm, I think around f4. Kodak BW400CN film.
Any comments or critiques are greatly appreciated. Thanks for looking!

ChowChi-Ching · 03-08-2006, 04:22 PM

I do not know what it is but these do not appeal to me. I am not sure why. Sorry, guess I was not much help.

Ronnoco · 03-08-2006, 05:44 PM

Well, I am sorry, but someone has to be the less than diplomatic one to tell it straight.

You need to read up a considerable amount on the art and practice of portraiture. The worse thing that you can do in a portrait is emphasize problems and in this case the problems relate to the skin blemishes.

Pros use a make-up artist to emphasize the beauty and de-emphasize any problems in the face of the model. Others without a make-up artist use lighting: more flat and direct to draw the eye away from the surface texture of the skin. Some also use soft focus filters or a stocking over the lens or angle or backing off from being too close, or hats, earings, props etc. Even later touch up is done and selective blurring or softening in Photo Shop.

There are all kinds of approaches and methods but a portrait photographer has to look VERY CAREFULLY at a model and emphasize the beauty and draw the eye away from the "weaknesses" or problem areas.

Ronnoco

***Photo-John*** · 03-08-2006, 06:02 PM

I love both of them. I love the way you show the supposed flaws in her skin and emphasize might might be considered imperfections. To me, these make her an interesting and real subject. I think the tonal values might be a bit flat. I'd probably increase the contrast just a bit.

I very much disagree with the idea that you've done anything wrong here. Just because you haven't gone along with the standard approach to a portrait doesn't mean your photos are bad. It only means that they're different. These are no cookie cutter, airbrushed mannequin photos. These are photos of a real woman - one who apparently feels good enough about herself not to worry about wearing makeup. And one who really appears to trust you and be having a good time. And I think you captured her and the spirit of the moment very well. There's life in these photos!

Rulebreakers rule (when it works). I love these photos.

And I love Naked Raygun, too. One of the best shows I ever saw was an all-ages Naked Raygun show at a tiny club in Boston. The kids went nuts!

Lava Lamp · 03-08-2006, 06:30 PM

Interesting set of responses here. It's okay not to like the photos, but I think the line of thinking that they are flawed because they aren't glamour photos (to paraphrase) in incorrect. Many of the best and most memorable photographs from some of the most celebrated photographers of our time ignore (or emphasize flaws.) I saw a Richard Avedon exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC one time that had photos very much like this.

I like #2 very much. I would even go so far as to say this is the best I've seen you post here and the best anybody had posted here in a while. The skin lines and blemishes really enhance the feeling that we are getting to know who this person is.

As John said, maybe boost the blacks a little.

***Photo-John*** · 03-08-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lava Lamp

but I think the line of thinking that they are flawed because they aren't glamour photos (to paraphrase) in incorrect.

Thanks for paraphrasing. I think you said it very well.

I've seen a couple Avedon exhibits, including the "West" exhibit, when it was traveling around the US, in the eighties. I think I know exactly which photo you're thinking of. There was a photo of a red haired, freckled girl in overalls. The prints were over 6 feet tall. That photo is wonderful and it's a great comparison. The freckles on this girl are one of the things that make these photos stand out. And I also agree that they're some of the best I've seen here in a while. Without makeup, fancy lighting, or anything glamorous, this woman is just so attractive. What an accomplishment. That's all about the relationship between the photographer and the subject. In fact, I'd like to know if this Adrienne is McMadCow's girlfriend. Because these photos have so much chemistry, I can't help but think there's more going on than just photos.

Lava Lamp · 03-08-2006, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Photo-John

Thanks for paraphrasing. I think you said it very well.

I've seen a couple Avedon exhibits, including the "West" exhibit, when it was traveling around the US, in the eighties. I think I know exactly which photo you're thinking of. There was a photo of a red haired, freckled girl in overalls. The prints were over 6 feet tall. That photo is wonderful and it's a great comparison. The freckles on this girl are one of the things that make these photos stand out. And I also agree that they're some of the best I've seen here in a while. Without makeup, fancy lighting, or anything glamorous, this woman is just so attractive. What an accomplishment. That's all about the relationship between the photographer and the subject. In fact, I'd like to know if this Adrienne is McMadCow's girlfriend. Because these photos have so much chemistry, I can't help but think there's more going on than just photos.

Yup, that's the Avedon exhibit I was thinking of, although I didn't remember the freckled girl consciously until you mentioned it. Rock on, Captain John.

Harry Hing · 03-08-2006, 10:03 PM

Really nice to see non-glamour. I really like picture 2 - which absoloutley catches the moment. Personally I can't stand the airbrushed, more perfect than perfect look that we are tending to see in glamour... I prefer women to look like women, and not girls, and men to look like men and not boys etc...

McMadCow · 03-08-2006, 11:26 PM

Well, there certainly is a wide variety of responses here. I appreciate all the critiques, and everyone taking their time to voice their opinion.
I'll try and address Ronnoco's critique specifically. While I do agree with everything you said in regards to my shots versus a commercial portrait, the critique you gave was based on just that- commercial portraits. I don't think there's anything in these shots to indicate that I was going for anything remotely like that. Aside from the "Noir" shots I posted last week, I've always asked my models not to wear any makeup (or as little as they are comfortable leaving the house with). I also warn them that I'm going to get right in their face because I usually shoot with my 50mm. I'll tell you right here and now that unless you paid me a good amount of money for the job, I'm not interested in shooting the kinds of portraits you compared mine to. Quite frankly, that sanitized style bores the pants off of me, and I usually refrain from critiquing them when someone posts them here. I don't work in the Sears portrait studio, and new shooters such as myself should have this board as a guide for creating new and interesting work, not just to get chastised for not following supposed "rules". I don't usually defend my work against critiques, but given how your critique had seemingly nothing at all to do with the material I posted, I felt like I should say something on my own behalf. Relevant critiques will help me get better at this hobby I enjoy.

And speaking of the relevant ones... yeah, I'd like it if these shots had a little more tonal range myself. This will probably be the last time I use the BW400CN film. It's incredibly convenient to have B&W film come back in an hour, but it just doesn't compare to Tri-X or FP4 for that B&W "pop". I'll probably try and tweak my levels a bit more, however.

Photo-John... no, she's not my girlfriend. In fact, I hadn't met her before a few days ago. We just got along real well and worked together very easily. I'm sure there will be future collaboration between us, as well. I'll be sure and post the results!

On the subject of Richard Avedon, I'd highly recommend his new book, "Woman in the Mirror". It is absolutely breathtaking. His old fashion stuff all the way up to his very confrontational portraits right up until his death. It's an incredible wealth of material, and the printing is great, too. I'll be buying it as soon as I feel the need to plop down the $65 for it.

And since these have already bocome a hot topic, I'll tack on a few more to add some fuel to the fire. More portraits of Addie from the same spot...

payn817 · 03-08-2006, 11:37 PM

I always enjoy your portrait work for the reason that it isn't always a glamour shot. You have a nack for showing personality. Good work.

OBie · 03-09-2006, 06:21 AM

I like these a lot. I like the 'realness' of them. My favorite is the second - however that may be because I love a shot that shows a natural laugh (comes from taking shots of kids who like to 'fake smile' for a photo a lot!)

I hope to be able to take shots like this someday soon.

CLKunst · 03-09-2006, 07:01 AM

Hey MMC,

I think the second shot of your first post is the hands down winner but that's just because I don't know her. I'm sure anyone who does know her will think these are all gorgeous!! Beautiful work. The compositions and focus on her eyes in all of these are wonderfully arranged. I am always eager to view your postings and see who you have in the scope of your ray gun now. You must be quite charming to get so many beautiful women to behave so candidly. Whatever it is, keep it up, it's working!

julsoph · 03-09-2006, 07:36 AM

I looked at these last night too, but didn't have a chance to comment. I really like the 2nd photo, for the realness of her expression. Her smile and laugh look genuine and unposed, which I always like. I'm a big fan of catching candid moments. In the other pics, I have to say her eyes are just amazing. You do a good job emphasizing them.

Emily

Ronnoco · 03-09-2006, 07:53 AM

It is not a matter of creating glamourous photos, but it is about creating photos that flatter your model. Here is the model with a few fast improvements. Notice it is still natural.
I would normally take a lot more care and time, but there are a number of problem areas.
The hand detracts from the photo and the nails need some work too. The position of the mouth should be changed to be more flattering to the teeth. This photo might have looked better in colour in that certain problems might have blended in better and been not so noticeable.

Anyone can like or dislike a photo, but that does not change the standards, guidelines, techniques and composition that are a required pre-requisite to excellence in the craft and art of photography.

Ronnoco

**Sebastian** · 03-09-2006, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

Anyone can like or dislike a photo, but that does not change the standards, guidelines, techniques and composition that are a required pre-requisite to excellence in the craft and art of photography.

God that makes me sick.

The day someone tells me that something I do is not up to some ridiculous rudimentary standards that elitist pigs with too much time on their hands came up with is the day I quit photography.

Ronnoco, it's people like that are the reason any sort of photographic competition sickens me. Literally. I read your posts and I throw up a little in my mouth.

McMadcow, the third shot, the first one in your second set of two, blew my socks off. I freaking LOVE how you emphasized all the details of her face, good and bad. I feel like she's alive and in front of me.

**Sebastian** · 03-09-2006, 11:58 AM

One more thing.

Photography is about self expression, or documentation, or just for the hardware side of it, no matter what, it's what you make it. If you want to compete, then do so, and follow all the BS guidelines and whatever else it takes to win. But stop trying to pigeonhole everyone else into the same narrowminded ideal. Some of us don't see things the same way as you, and that doesn't make us wrong, or ignorant.

mikeup6 · 03-09-2006, 12:13 PM

I personally hate glamour shots. Natural beauty is so much more impressive. People have flaws - to try and hide them for the sake of a photo just doesn't impress me. I like that these pictures are real. I particularly like the second, because it doesn't look posed, and the fourth because it really shows off her eyes. Good work.

Mike

**Sebastian** · 03-09-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeup6

Natural beauty is so much more impressive. People have flaws - to try and hide them for the sake of a photo just doesn't impress me.

Amen. If the client requests touch up, I will of course perform it, but for my own tastes stuff like this is gold. If I wanted to see fake and airbrushed I'd be reading Playboy.

***Photo-John*** · 03-09-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

Here is the model with a few fast improvements. Notice it is still natural.

I know you meant well, but we discourage people from editing and reposting another photographer's photos. That is - unless you get their permission first. Photos are sacred and it's just not right to take someone else's work and eidt it unless they've given the ok.

Thanks!

verbalobe · 03-09-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

It is not a matter of creating glamourous photos, but it is about creating photos that flatter your model.

What does 'it' in this sentence refer to? There is a class of commercial portraiture for which this is true, but as MadCow explained, nothing here suggested he was constraining himself to that very narrow, and artificial, category.

There is such a thing as documentary portraiture, with an incredibly wide spectrum of practice, almost none of which has anything to do with flattering the model, and everything to do with depicting life with some notion of immediacy, art, heart, or insight into either a particular personality or the human condition. Gordon Parks and Irving Penn are two greats who could do both (glamour and documentary) -- but they never confused them as you are doing.

Your critique is a little like tasting a slab of home-made bread fresh from the oven, and complaining that it is too unlike a cupcake -- where is the icing? where is the little foil wrapper?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

Here is the model with a few fast improvements. Notice it is still natural.

I notice it is now a cupcake. What a shame.

McMadCow · 03-09-2006, 01:57 PM

Wow, all this arguing over a pretty girl. I'm sure that's never happened before in the history of the world. Oh wait....

Anyway, I'm glad these shots are provoking a response. I just didn't think such simple shots would be so controversial!

Trevor Ash · 03-09-2006, 02:21 PM

Flaws? She's hottt!!

The composition isn't perfect. But I don't think it's ruining the photo, as the strong wording in the first two paragraphs of Ronnoco's critique might imply.

villenadecorte · 03-09-2006, 03:25 PM

These portraits rock! I love the framing/composition in each, regardless what the model looks like...we're talking about the technicality of the photos, group, not the looks of the person in the picture, granted, someone may be turned off from a photo because of its content, but that doesnt mean its not a great photo.
(On a personal note, I think she is beautiful and is natural in front of the camera) .

Each of these have such a well balanced depth of field from her face to her clothing. It's just great, for lack of a better more colorful word.

Ronnoco · 03-09-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McMadCow

Well, I'll try and address Ronnoco's critique specifically. While I do agree with everything you said in regards to my shots versus a commercial portrait, the critique you gave was based on just that- commercial portraits. to the fire. More portraits of Addie from the same spot...

Consider the work of Josuf Karsh. He may have done commercial portraits but his work was considered photographic art and the best in the world in the area of portraiture. He flattered his models by his work partly through the use of lighting. At the same time, he DID NOT try to achieve "realism" or whatever by emphasizing that for example Pierre Trudeau was losing his hair, or that Winston Churchill was fat. That would be considered betraying one's art, denigrating one's skills, and insulting your model.

"commercial portraits to the fire" tells me that you really don't understand the nature of photographic portraiture. If "commercial" was synonymous with lack of quality, a lot of photograhers here would be in the poor house and not be able to afford a computer to espouse picture taking as opposed to photography. Sure there are some commercial "picture-takers" out there, and here also for that matter, in the derrogatory sense of the word, but there are also some masters of photography out there as well and perhaps here too, although after reading some responses I am not so sure.

The first step of a good photographer, film maker, or director is to get the "eye" of a Josuf Karsh or an Alfred Hitchcock. If you cannot see with the eye of a master photographer or director and use what you see to improve your work, then find another craft. The challenge is to know the difference between picture-taking and true photography and between a technician and a skilled craftsman or artist. The skilled photographer is always looking to improve and does not rationalize arrogantly or otherwise an unwillingness to learn and practice elements and guidelines that define quality in the field of photography.

Ronnoco

McMadCow · 03-09-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnoco

He flattered his models by his work partly through the use of lighting. At the same time, he DID NOT try to achieve "realism" or whatever by emphasizing that for example Pierre Trudeau was losing his hair, or that Winston Churchill was fat. That would be considered betraying one's art, denigrating one's skills, and insulting your model.

Well Richard Avedon Disagrees with him. Also, my model happens to like these shots very much. She's not insulted in the least.

Photo Critique Forum