Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 117

Thread: Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

  1. #21
    Zebra
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    564

    Re: Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

    Bill,

    That's exactly why I asked the question to get insight into what you didn't like as I believe, as has been stated here that its the use of the lens, or possibly the lens design, by Chuck Close, not the length of the lens in and of itself. At least my experience with a shorter lens on the big format (I've been shooting 20 x 24 for close to a decade, both wet plate collodion and film for PT/PD gum over output) and NONE of my pictures, every bit as close up and one to one as those shown in the link by Chuck Close have big distorted noses. Wisner wrote an article that I'm sure is out there on the web somewhere that discussed this phenomenon in detail about how you don't get the distortion in larger formats that you do in smaller format with short focal length lenses. For example here is a one to one portrait of my son when he was much smaller, four years old to be exact shot on 20 x 24 Ilford FP4 with a Schneider 550XL. I often show this example mainly because digitizing my 20 x 24 isn't worth the cost it takes to do it, and I'm such a lousy digital copy photographer they always come out looking worse for wear. I have examples that are even bigger than one to one shot with that lens and still no distortion. As stated by others it seems to clearly be a choice by Close. Like you I wouldn't choose that for my sitters but hell I can't even pay for digitizing my 20 x 24's with the sales of my work (you can read into that there are no sales of my work!!!) so given the choice of aesthetic's most would be wise to side with Chuck over Monty.

    Interesting discussion that I have enjoyed following.

    thanks

    Monty
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Satchel Better Version.jpg  

  2. #22
    adelorenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Posts
    457

    Re: Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

    Has anyone read Bluebeard by Kurt Vonnegut? This couple of pages in particular.

    I'm pretty sure Chuck Close is a man who has options.

    By all means you can not like his work but all this 'his photos are not technically good' and 'I could do it better' shit is just plain hating. Petapixel comment thread style of hating. I hope we can all be better than that.

  3. #23
    Unwitting Thread Killer Ari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    6,286

    Re: Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

    Quote Originally Posted by Ari View Post

    Hey, I can shoot (hypothetically) with a 20x24 Polaroid camera, too; unfortunately, it won't make my photos any better.
    Anthony, I didn't say I could do better; I said the bigger camera won't make my photos better.
    And I stand by my assessment of his lighting; if he has options, he should explore them.
    Not a hater, but I do think the novelty of this project is far superior to the result.

  4. #24
    adelorenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Posts
    457

    Re: Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

    Quote Originally Posted by Ari View Post
    Anthony, I didn't say I could do better; I said the bigger camera won't make my photos better.
    And I stand by my assessment of his lighting; if he has options, he should explore them.
    Not a hater, but I do think the novelty of this project is far superior to the result.
    Dude's been doing his thing since the 1970s and I'm pretty sure he's explored all those options and many others that you or I would have no idea about. Does anyone seriously think he doesn't know how to light a portrait or what lens to use? At this point he's obviously got a vision of what he wants to achieve and he chooses his techniques and materials accordingly. That's why Chuck Close is an artist and a highly successful one at that.

    I was referring to that Vonnegut passage to try to point that out.

  5. #25
    ScottPhotoCo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    801

    Re: Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

    Quote Originally Posted by Monty McCutchen View Post
    Bill,

    That's exactly why I asked the question to get insight into what you didn't like as I believe, as has been stated here that its the use of the lens, or possibly the lens design, by Chuck Close, not the length of the lens in and of itself. At least my experience with a shorter lens on the big format (I've been shooting 20 x 24 for close to a decade, both wet plate collodion and film for PT/PD gum over output) and NONE of my pictures, every bit as close up and one to one as those shown in the link by Chuck Close have big distorted noses. Wisner wrote an article that I'm sure is out there on the web somewhere that discussed this phenomenon in detail about how you don't get the distortion in larger formats that you do in smaller format with short focal length lenses. For example here is a one to one portrait of my son when he was much smaller, four years old to be exact shot on 20 x 24 Ilford FP4 with a Schneider 550XL. I often show this example mainly because digitizing my 20 x 24 isn't worth the cost it takes to do it, and I'm such a lousy digital copy photographer they always come out looking worse for wear. I have examples that are even bigger than one to one shot with that lens and still no distortion. As stated by others it seems to clearly be a choice by Close. Like you I wouldn't choose that for my sitters but hell I can't even pay for digitizing my 20 x 24's with the sales of my work (you can read into that there are no sales of my work!!!) so given the choice of aesthetic's most would be wise to side with Chuck over Monty.

    Interesting discussion that I have enjoyed following.

    thanks

    Monty
    Whatever the case may be, this image is awesome.

    Tim
    www.ScottPhoto.co

  6. #26
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,413

    Re: Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings View Post
    I've had the unique opportunity to have been photographed by a few relatively well known portrait photographers like Karen Kuehn. In none of these cases was I concerned with looking good.
    http://www.karenkuehn.com/series/nma..._gittings.html

  7. #27
    austin granger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    3,438

    Re: Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

    I saw the portraits this morning and have been thinking about them throughout the day, as well as reading with interest people's wildly divergent opinions. I have to say, I really like them, even more so after considering them for awhile. As others have said above, it is very likely that Close knows precisely what he's doing, and if his pictures have an certain "imperfection" about them, it's because he put it there. In fact, I think it's exactly this "imperfection" that gives the portraits their power. Despite the giant camera, they have an artless quality, almost a snapshot aesthetic, which would ordinarily make them well, snapshots, except... when was the last time you saw a snapshot of Robert De Niro, or Scarlett Johansson? And what is a snapshot but a picture of a place or a thing or a person that means something to you? A snapshot is something that's intimate, it is something that's close (no pun intended), and I think that is what's going on here; the perceived distance between these "extraordinary" people and us "ordinary" people has been seemingly obliterated, and it's not because the subjects have been made to look ugly, but because Close has simply refused to elevate them. And in my opinion, that's what makes the pictures wonderful. We look at them and realize that fundamentally, these people ARE ordinary. Any yet, this is no Enquirer Magazine debasing, for we also see that even in their "ordinary" state, these individuals have the innate worth that is the birthright of all beings. Oh, the humanity! I'm getting a little carried away here, but seriously, when I look at that picture of Scarlett, I don't think "Poor Scarlett," I think, "Oh! She's just a person in the world. Like me." And I think that's a beautiful thing.

  8. #28
    adelorenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Posts
    457

    Re: Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

    Another thing to keep in mind is that Chuck Close is a painter. Normally what he does with these photographs is turn them into much larger paintings. So if you think Scarlett's nose is too big now imagine what it would look like when it's bigger than your head.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    grand rapids
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    that's frickin' awesome.



    I'm not saying Chuck doesn't know how to light a portrait but just because someone has been doing something for decades does NOT mean they are experts in every aspect. I work with people on occasion who have been shooting movies or lighting people for decades who just aren't good at it. I guess their personalities got them this far. Same goes for any line of work.
    If chuck wanted them to look awful (not just real) he succeeded by lighting them the way he did. As for the big noses, do they have noses that big in "real" life? No, they don't. Does the lighting used suit each celebrity or the shape of their face?
    I haven't seen any of the 20x24's* in person but it seems that most of the people using it are just treating it as a novelty snapshot and the quality worthy of the huge film and expense isn't there.


    *polaroids
    Last edited by vinny; 6-Feb-2014 at 08:45.

  10. #30
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Re: Chuck Close 20x24 Polaroids in Vanity Fair

    Quote Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
    IMO when you work with someone like Karen you have to relinquish control. I am not the client to demand that a portrait satisfy my ego. It is her vision and I am a subject.
    Thanks,
    Kirk

    at age 73:
    "The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep,
    And miles to go before I sleep"

Similar Threads

  1. Chuck Close -- Deguerotypist
    By Bill_1856 in forum On Photography
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 19-Nov-2010, 11:17
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 26-Jul-2009, 13:19
  3. Chuck Close show at SF Moma - many photos
    By CXC in forum Announcements
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-Nov-2005, 10:46

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •