I think it's a good example of using a 135mm press camera lens for portraiture. It can be done without distorting features. This is a pretty nice informal shot in my opinion. Sharpness? Not a problem for me in this instance. If it was a studio shot, it would have been retouched. A couple of lines and a little facial fuzz don't detract from the eyes.
Peter Gomena
Maybe in Olan Mills... but not for what I do... Look up Richard Renaldi, Alec Soth, or Joel Sternfeld... think they'd soften up some facial features??Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr
Yeah, totally... It wasn't intended as a "beauty" shot... Just a portrait, to remember the person ya know? Something to focus on her, as a person. Ya know? Like I said, I look at and relate to a lot of the "realist" photographers... As mentioned in the earlier post, I don't think they would soften lines or blur our facial hair ya know? If anything I could have increased my DoF...
I like the highlights in her eyes.
What does Mimi think of the portrait?
Sharp is an aesthetic decision. Soft is an aesthetic decision. I can't say that one is right or wrong. They just are.
CDHolden's point about preferences, not just of women, but also these days many men, too, would be to have their portraits shot soft to hide imperfections (don't we all have 'em?) is worth considering. But that's vanity talking. Hence, I'm curious what Mimi thinks. Her strong gaze would suggest that she's comfortable with herself and not self-conscious about you pointing a big camera at her. Not everyone would react that way and that is part of the art of being a portraitist, isn't it?
Me, anyway, I think it's a nice portrait.
"do it or do not do it — you will regret both."
— Søren Kierkegaard
Rob Klurfield
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertklurfield
blog: http://hemi-sphericalaberration.blogspot.com/
I think this is halfway true... I think intent of the photograph is important... Was the picture for her? Or was it for me? For example Alec Soth shot a photograph of a mother a daughter in New Orleans... I doubt anyone would call it a beauty shot... but he shot it for himself...for his Sleeping By the Mississippi series... In which case I think his choices of aesthetic are appropriate.
I mean I don't expect everyone to come to this forum with a formal art history education or background, but there is a current tradition here... It's something to consider.
I didn't mean to suggest that her opinion was the deciding factor. No, once someone gives you permission to make an image of them, I think you own the result (including the consequences of any bruised feelings) and can do with it what you like (unless of course the sitter is paying for the privilege in which case what they think might matter more than what you or I think).
It's not a glamor shot, but she does look beautiful and I personally appreciate the aesthetic here.
Curious, how did it match your own visualization? Did the results match what you wanted?
Again, I like the shot. Your choice looks valid to me. Others might disagree. F**k 'em.
And, in my book, no one ever should have to feel the need to defend their choices or opinions just because they choose to post a pic here or anywhere else.
I'm new at LF and have plenty to learn, so opinions are mostly those of a 35mm guy learning his way around here.
My wife recently seems to have come to accept that not every image I make of her will make her look beautiful (no Hollywood hair lights here). But she's gotten to be cool with it. She's my test case lately. Not a statistically meaningful sample size.
If you captured the essence of Mimi, then you did good.
"do it or do not do it — you will regret both."
— Søren Kierkegaard
Rob Klurfield
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertklurfield
blog: http://hemi-sphericalaberration.blogspot.com/
Yeah totally. I love it. ;-)
Then, what else do you need to know? The only thing left to worry about is when you're next subject comes for a visit.
Do you give your subjects prints? I'm thinking I should start.
"do it or do not do it — you will regret both."
— Søren Kierkegaard
Rob Klurfield
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertklurfield
blog: http://hemi-sphericalaberration.blogspot.com/
I don't normally. I did some portraits for my Thesis project and meant to give them prints. I've since lost their contact info. Next time maybe?
-a
dbla,
I misunderstood. When you compared "realism" to "fuzzy smoothness", I understood you to mean that a sharp rendition is more realistic, meaning closer to the way human vision works, than a softer rendition, which of course, is not accurate. It seems you meant to refer to the brand of "Realism" practiced by some other photographers who identify unnatural sharpness with reality. Either way, I disagree with the fundamental proposal that sharpness is somehow more real than unsharpness. I sometimes prefer a sharp rendition to a softer one, but I make no claim that it's more "realistic"; in fact, it's just the opposite, which is precisely the attraction, for me. See attached example; sharp- definitely; realistic- not so much. (Please excuse the dusty scan).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks