Thursday, November 29, 2007
Untitled (04230001)
Guy's comment about eyes in this post got me thinking about expression, and about the limited range of emotion we often see in portraits. This is not a photo that I'd give to Kate's mother, but to me the eyes say something that you don't necessarily see when the rest of the face is more expressive. I'm curious if it only works for me because I know the subject so well.
Permalink / posted by and copyright of matt~ : 1:14 PM
Comments:
I went back to look at the version that you posted on your blog. If it is the same, then the Stills background does it no favours. When I first saw this I was really struck by the way that the coat and the skin tones interacted to the benefit of both. The version on your blog fair jumps off the page.
As to your question, I don't think that a single portrait shot can put across much about a person. We see universal signals (smiles, or whatever) and read into them the same things as we do in real life. The difference is that a portrait doesn't change. It doesn't drop its guard or get tired or change mood. We anchor on the portrait as if it were the person yet it isn't, and even if unposed it is only the person very briefly. So the eyes here, direct, focussed, and lively, may or may not be indicative of something.
As Colin said, it comes across better on the blog page -- I suspect it is just the background making the difference, but it is quite noticeable.
The eyes here are definitely a strong element of the portrait, but you probably get more "information" from them than I do, not knowing the subject. I find the glasses and the distortion they create of interest. I'm unsure about whether or not I'd like it better without them given the way they cut across the eye area and break up the line of the cheek. But then they also draw even more attention to the eyes.
There were two versions of this photo, but the one posted here is identical to the one on my site, although I had to check the histograms to be sure. I don't know if it's the black background or the white border or both, but it does look different on my site.
I am variance with the others over how this looks on either site: on your site the white frame interrupts one's viewing. Here, I was struck on first seeing it by the dark coat and how the rest of the picture and the background were rooted by that; a sensation that is lost with the frame. This is a gentler picture with a certain look of timelessness.
Anyway, back to the task in hand. First of all, I'm not sure why this doesn't pass the mother test, unless that it is a cultural thing! I am now going to disagree with previous comments again in that I think that you are right about the eyes, irrespective of whether the rest of the face is more expressive or not; although the 'blank canvas' probably works in favour of what you are saying. I find the most striking feature of the portrait (apart from the coat!) is the line of the left cheek by the ear and the hairstyle next to it: a slight angular severity and suppression of the detail of the hair (almost a style from years back), but softened by the DOF, serves to set off the eyes. There isn't a problem with the glasses interfering with the eyes here.
I know what Colin is saying about how much one gets out of portraits but I don't take as hard a line as him. Of course, what you see is your interpretation unless the subject has been extraordinarily honest in telling what she was thinking about!
This is a very good portrait and should be mother-in-law friendly!
This has a very 'dated' and formal feeling - unlike many of your previous portraits of Kate. Could almost pass for a school photograph. It's all a little too dark and may I say sinister.
Kate's eyes are a strong feature of the portrait and the frames of the glasses are clear of the bits that matter. I don't mind the distortion of her cheek, it is what happens whe you wear real glasses.
The DoF has softened her neck well. I am uncertain of the lighting near her ear & hair.
'I'm not sure why this doesn't pass the mother test,'
John, it doesn't pass the mother test because it is perhaps a bit dark, as Guy pointed out.
Well, mothers-in-law (and Guy, I would humbly submit!) need educating! Even allowing for the fault of Rex's little play of light on the ear, I have no feeling that this is too dark, either photographically or as in sinister. But clearly opinions differ. I think that this is one of (if not) the strongest of your portraits, followed closely by the clothes horse.
I'm not entirely sure that Guy's 'sinister' comment was meant as a criticism. I wouldn't go so far as to say this is sinister, but it isn't exactly happy. I've no idea what Kate is thinking here, but her life has been stressful of late, so it's entirely possible that she is thinking something sinister. She does, however, like the portrait, regardless of the sinister aspect.
'even if unposed it is only the person very briefly'
Every photo is something seen very briefly. I'm not sure that the brevity makes it any less indicative of the whole, but I think I know what you are driving at. The challenge of portraiture is to make something that 'drops its guard,' but that might be a bridge too far for a single portrait.
Every photo is something seen very briefly. I'm not sure that the brevity makes it any less indicative of the whole
All I meant was that some things can change faster than others, and some things have more voluntary control over how they appear in that instant.
This makes portraiture one of the most difficult genres in which to get something indicative in my opinion. Trees, or gondolas (scanning the next two pictures upwards) don't present such a time based challenge.
I am bothered by the glasses and the intersection of the top eyelids, not to be petty, but something about where these two places intersect. The image on this blog with the gray background does make this image more somber than your blog. I guess we can get into a bunch of stuff about framing, matting and the context of the image with regard to its viewing. Having had a custom picture frame shoppe for six years, we became accuatly aware of the framing and preception issues.
Not a criticism just a feeling I got from looking at the 'mood' of the shot. Perhaps 'darkly haunting' may have been a little 'gentler'?
Post a Comment
As to your question, I don't think that a single portrait shot can put across much about a person. We see universal signals (smiles, or whatever) and read into them the same things as we do in real life. The difference is that a portrait doesn't change. It doesn't drop its guard or get tired or change mood. We anchor on the portrait as if it were the person yet it isn't, and even if unposed it is only the person very briefly. So the eyes here, direct, focussed, and lively, may or may not be indicative of something.
The eyes here are definitely a strong element of the portrait, but you probably get more "information" from them than I do, not knowing the subject. I find the glasses and the distortion they create of interest. I'm unsure about whether or not I'd like it better without them given the way they cut across the eye area and break up the line of the cheek. But then they also draw even more attention to the eyes.
Anyway, back to the task in hand. First of all, I'm not sure why this doesn't pass the mother test, unless that it is a cultural thing! I am now going to disagree with previous comments again in that I think that you are right about the eyes, irrespective of whether the rest of the face is more expressive or not; although the 'blank canvas' probably works in favour of what you are saying. I find the most striking feature of the portrait (apart from the coat!) is the line of the left cheek by the ear and the hairstyle next to it: a slight angular severity and suppression of the detail of the hair (almost a style from years back), but softened by the DOF, serves to set off the eyes. There isn't a problem with the glasses interfering with the eyes here.
I know what Colin is saying about how much one gets out of portraits but I don't take as hard a line as him. Of course, what you see is your interpretation unless the subject has been extraordinarily honest in telling what she was thinking about!
This is a very good portrait and should be mother-in-law friendly!
The DoF has softened her neck well. I am uncertain of the lighting near her ear & hair.
John, it doesn't pass the mother test because it is perhaps a bit dark, as Guy pointed out.
'even if unposed it is only the person very briefly'
Every photo is something seen very briefly. I'm not sure that the brevity makes it any less indicative of the whole, but I think I know what you are driving at. The challenge of portraiture is to make something that 'drops its guard,' but that might be a bridge too far for a single portrait.
All I meant was that some things can change faster than others, and some things have more voluntary control over how they appear in that instant.
This makes portraiture one of the most difficult genres in which to get something indicative in my opinion. Trees, or gondolas (scanning the next two pictures upwards) don't present such a time based challenge.