Nope, not for me.I always felt this type of editing (I'd bet my boots on a little "Detailed" in Snapseed, or very similar anyway) just doesn't work for human shots...
I like the pose but her face looks dirty. I'm not a fan of the hdr type of processing, or cranking up the clarity slider, not for portraits. The other two portraits are much nicer.
Works for me, this is an image that would be used to communicate the darker things in life, depression, anger, fear and the things that cause them. Not everything has to be pretty.
Interesting, in some ways it is more real which is why we tend not to like it. We have become too accustomed to perfection of the skin and hair and smoothing of the features. The image is not as pretty as the others but I think it's great as well and gives her more soul than the perfect images.
Interesting shot. I think it would look more witchy if you held composition but shot wider. But thsts just me. For this I would like to see the nose just a tad longer. Keep up the fun shots! David
I like it more the second time, especially after reading the negative comments.. It provoked powerful responses, as it is a powerful photograph. As far as the use of heavy post; when the underlying image is lighted and executed well, I enjoy the experimentation. This hardly falls into the instagram hipster category.
ChazL, calm down. Explain what's got your Fruit of the Looms all bunched up. Not all portraits have to be flattering and fancy. It's okay to play around with stuff. Really.
Look at all the photos together and this one stands out because it is different. I came back here after reading the later post where you ask yourself if your intention is always to flatter. This photo does not flatter neither does it take away from her beauty. It's honest. I think the processing suits the pose. I hope that makes sense. The others are great too in my opinion, each for their own reasons.
I agree with Anonymous. Seriously. I'm not understanding what you're looking at, Kirk. I can't imagine any woman being flattered by this rendition. Especially in comparison with the others. This one, especially in the thumbnail view, looked like a Dragan treatment.
And why would you arbitrarily decide that every portrait needs to flatter or please the sitter? Do you think the majority of Avedon's black and white work was made to please the person in front of the camera? How about the crying baby shots by Jill Greenwood? Your definition of a portrait is too narrow. Go back and look at lots of the portraits artists made in the last century with their cameras and try to wrap your mind around the idea that I paid for this portrait, not the subject. I made an image I like. That was my goal.
Much more challenging, and so much more rewarding. This is a very intimate and compassionate portrait. I think your presence in this picture is stronger but gentler.
My drawers (and their contents) are in fine fettle, but your concern is much appreciated. ;-)
Seriously, its hard to see past the post-processing here; the filter effects undermine this portrait. I agree with you that some very powerful portraits DO NOT flatter their subjects. What (virtually) all good portraits have in common, though, is that they evoke in the viewer a visceral response to the subject.
Here, the filter effects are incongruous. Dani is a beautiful women. She's in a pensive pose and appears to be lost in thought. Your lighting is flattering and emphasizes her strong, regular features. All of this serves to evoke feelings of desire, attraction, and admiration in the viewer.
The filter effects undermine this. Every line and blemish is emphasized. The skin tones make Dani look haggard and unhealthy. The extreme levels of micro-contrast draw the viewer's attention away from the subject and to the over-the-top processing of the print (or .jpg) itself.
I'm not saying that these effects are BAD in and of themselves. (I'm all for playing around with stuff). They might be perfectly appropriate if you were creating a portrait of someone that you found distasteful. But you would then choose different lighting, a different expression, a different posture and point-of-view so that your expression was consistent.
Hey, it's just one picture. I find your other shots of Dani to be lovely. And It would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything. But since you asked, I wanted to give you the rationale behind my response.
Be well, and thanks for an always-interesting blog.
24 comments:
Interesting post. I like the gritty feel and detail; all the more so because her complexion withstands the hyper detail and contrast with ease..
Nope, not for me.I always felt this type of editing (I'd bet my boots on a little "Detailed" in Snapseed, or very similar anyway) just doesn't work for human shots...
Nope.
I like the pose but her face looks dirty. I'm not a fan of the hdr type of processing, or cranking up the clarity slider, not for portraits. The other two portraits are much nicer.
Yikes!
Kirk, please remove this post, you are doing Dani a great disservice.
Pierre.
Works for me, this is an image that would be used to communicate the darker things in life, depression, anger, fear and the things that cause them. Not everything has to be pretty.
Well, it's hip. Or is it passe? Where/when does one end and the other begin? Oops. I've done it again. Must learn to engage brain, then type.
Very strange. To my eye, this has an atmosphere of death or old age about it. Not sure if that was the intention, or just my warped mind!!
I think not. And it think she would approve. Sorry you feel this way. Best to not be too prissy about photography.
It's always in flux. Give us five more years and ring lights will come back into style...
Interesting, in some ways it is more real which is why we tend not to like it. We have become too accustomed to perfection of the skin and hair and smoothing of the features. The image is not as pretty as the others but I think it's great as well and gives her more soul than the perfect images.
Whoa, wish I had not seen this one!
Interesting shot. I think it would look more witchy if you held composition but shot wider. But thsts just me. For this I would like to see the nose just a tad longer.
Keep up the fun shots!
David
I like it more the second time, especially after reading the negative comments.. It provoked powerful responses, as it is a powerful photograph. As far as the use of heavy post; when the underlying image is lighted and executed well, I enjoy the experimentation. This hardly falls into the instagram hipster category.
No. No. No, no, nooooooo. (But the other portraits of Dani that you've posted are lovely).
You people wouldn't know art if it bitch slapped you. Tuck doesn't have to always do pretty. It's okay just to do art.
ChazL, calm down. Explain what's got your Fruit of the Looms all bunched up. Not all portraits have to be flattering and fancy. It's okay to play around with stuff. Really.
Fabulous. Simply oozes character.
Look at all the photos together and this one stands out because it is different. I came back here after reading the later post where you ask yourself if your intention is always to flatter. This photo does not flatter neither does it take away from her beauty. It's honest. I think the processing suits the pose. I hope that makes sense. The others are great too in my opinion, each for their own reasons.
I agree with Anonymous. Seriously. I'm not understanding what you're looking at, Kirk. I can't imagine any woman being flattered by this rendition. Especially in comparison with the others. This one, especially in the thumbnail view, looked like a Dragan treatment.
And why would you arbitrarily decide that every portrait needs to flatter or please the sitter? Do you think the majority of Avedon's black and white work was made to please the person in front of the camera? How about the crying baby shots by Jill Greenwood? Your definition of a portrait is too narrow. Go back and look at lots of the portraits artists made in the last century with their cameras and try to wrap your mind around the idea that I paid for this portrait, not the subject. I made an image I like. That was my goal.
Much more challenging, and so much more rewarding. This is a very intimate and compassionate portrait. I think your presence in this picture is stronger but gentler.
Kirk:
My drawers (and their contents) are in fine fettle, but your concern is much appreciated. ;-)
Seriously, its hard to see past the post-processing here; the filter effects undermine this portrait. I agree with you that some very powerful portraits DO NOT flatter their subjects. What (virtually) all good portraits have in common, though, is that they evoke in the viewer a visceral response to the subject.
Here, the filter effects are incongruous. Dani is a beautiful women. She's in a pensive pose and appears to be lost in thought. Your lighting is flattering and emphasizes her strong, regular features. All of this serves to evoke feelings of desire, attraction, and admiration in the viewer.
The filter effects undermine this. Every line and blemish is emphasized. The skin tones make Dani look haggard and unhealthy. The extreme levels of micro-contrast draw the viewer's attention away from the subject and to the over-the-top processing of the print (or .jpg) itself.
I'm not saying that these effects are BAD in and of themselves. (I'm all for playing around with stuff). They might be perfectly appropriate if you were creating a portrait of someone that you found distasteful. But you would then choose different lighting, a different expression, a different posture and point-of-view so that your expression was consistent.
Hey, it's just one picture. I find your other shots of Dani to be lovely. And It would be a boring world if we all agreed on everything. But since you asked, I wanted to give you the rationale behind my response.
Be well, and thanks for an always-interesting blog.
-Chaz
Post a Comment