David, I'm glad you are nor offended by what we wrote - as none of the comments were meant to be so. Your shots are most definitely, and obviously, meant for commercial purposes. As I wrote in reaction to my first glimpse at the first shot, "Perfect!". You are an outstandingly talented commercial photographer, and yes indeed, your subjects were products, and as product shots, these are immaculate and flawless. I'm amazed by their perfection, and quite envious! :) You did your job incredibly well! And yes, they certinly are portraits and so have every right to be here in this challenge. I do think the rules said to try to make the shots more about the people and who they are. In your case, you actually did succeed in doing just that b/c these people ARE props! :)
Now, on a separate note, as far as the models are concerned, and this has nothing to do with you, your photography, or the challenge... wouldn't they, themselves, want to put some life into thier eyes? I mean, yes, they are the "hangers" for the clothes that are the real subjects, but still, if you look thru any better magazine (unless we're talking strictly catalog work), the supermodels have much emotion in thier eyes. There is strength, confidence, sex, etc. Your models all look like they are after catalog work. I'd think the performer would even want to show a glint of something in her eye as well - I mean if she's looking for acting roles, her head shot should advertise that she can act thru her eyes, no? I think if the first girl is looking for catalog work, this image will really do the job. I don't think it's going to sell a prospect on putting her in a perfume ad where the model really has to sell herself, so she'd have to have other shots that show her ability to emote, if she wants a well-rounded portfolio.
That all said, YOU are an incredible talent! ~ Warmly,
Lonnit
Thanks Olaf. And I certainly agree, in the context and company of all these EXCELLENT "Day in the Life" type portraits, my commercial portraits do take a back seat emotionally. In fact, by the time the fashion stylist, hair stylist, and make-up artist have finished their work, I have often felt more like I am taking a picture of a product than of a person (and certainly, in the case of this particular photograph, that is most definitely true). These photographs are more about a 'look' than an 'emotion', more about glamour than reality .. as they should be, of course.
Kindest Regards,
David
www.pbase.com/dwave
Olaf.dk
20-Jan-2004 21:11
David, as I wrote, I do think all your submitted photographs are excellent, and surely nobody in their right mind could claim that these are not portraits! I was digging deep in my feelings about your shots, in an attempt to offer someone on a much higher technical level than myself, namely you, some feedback that possibly could be of some worth. I think you just said the key-word when you wrote "commercial" - and I do think they all fit the bill perfectly, according to your explanation. Non-commercial photographers have the luxury of shooting what they want and when they want, they don't have to worry about fitting any bills [although the bills of their expensive hobby can be worry-some ;-) ]. This freedom, leaves more room for personal interpretations and maybe, ultimately, more interesting and moving photographs! --Olaf
Hi Olaf and Lonnit, thanks for your comments and I'm sorry for taking so long to reply. Except for this one (which was shot on location at the Highland Coffee House), the photographs were made in my studio. All four are different than most all the others that are part of this exhibition, and perhaps it would help you a bit if you understood what they are/have been used for.(?)
While I do have plenty of the "Day in the Life" kind of portraits (the kind that are clearly most prevalent here), these four all serve a commercial purpose (rather than a personal one). "Gina", for instance, was one of several shots done for a clothing designer. The portrait was all about the clothes, not about Gina herself. Still, while different than most here, it is, none the less, a portrait, yes?
The color head shot of "Susi" was also a commercial effort, in this case for the model herself. This is one of many, many shots we did together for her portfolio. It is not meant to show "Susi" the daughter, or sister, or mother, etc., it is really more about showing off her attributes (beautiful hair, eyes, skin, etc.), to agencies and prospective employers. To show them what she looks like 'in print'.
Finally, the black of white photos are of two opera singers. Both use these photographs as the head shot they include with their resumes, as well as for publication in newspapers and opera programs, etc. Neither is an attempt to show the 'personal' side of either woman. Rather, each is meant to give an audience a fair (but glamorous) rendering of the professional side of the person they are watching sing and act (so they have an idea of what they actually look like rather than only knowing them dressed in a horned helmet and wearing breastplates ;-)
Hope this helps a bit. Look at the photos again, if you have the chance, and see if they don't fit the bill they were intended to fit. They are not of the very personal "Snap Shot" or "Day in the Life" type of portraits that most are here, but they are, none the less, portraits, right? I really like these 4 photographs and posted them for that reason (as well as simply posting something that I knew would be a little different than the norm) :-)
If you have any further comments or questions, please tell me or ask me. I truly appreciate the feedback!!
Olaf, I think I might have to agree. These images are technically flawless and are magaizine quality. I'm stunned by there perfection but not feeling any emotion from the models. This one is more of an exception to the others here, it's a very fine piece and has much more going on. I'd be hard pressed to believe this was not a staged shot - not that there's anything wrong with a staged shot. But they all kind of remind me of those Christian singers that perform pop songs technically perfectly, but no matter what emotions the words are conveying, they've got those smiles plastered on thier faces. I'm not even saying it's the person behind the camera; I think it's more that the models are just manequin-like. I guess one could argue that the photographer must bring out some personality in the models, but really, the models have to have something going on behind the eyes. Utterly perfect technically - score 10 behind the camera. :) ~ Lonnit
Olaf.dk
15-Jan-2004 21:11
David, I keep wondering why nobody has commented on your excellent portraits. Is it because they are so technically perfect, that there is nothing left to say? Is it because people feel out of league when they see your shots? I can only speculate, but it also made me ask myself: why don't I comment? What photographic advice could I possibly offer someone who obviously knows how to take a portrait better than I do? When I look at your submitted shots here, there is no doubt that you are a highly skilled (studio?) photographer and all the images are impecable, but at the same time, I must admit that I am not touched or moved by them and I don't connect with your subjects. I think it is because they are so much "by the book", that they seem too familiar. We've all seem images like that before. In fact, in that there is a point: with this image being the exception, your shots all have the same familiar flavor - they are supposed to portray three different people, and therefore they should all have different flavors - but they all taste the same! I find this image to be the most interesting one to look at. Here the clothes and setting help me get a sense of what Gina is like. So, if you feel it is worth listening to a 99.9% amateur (photographywise) like me, my advice to you (based on only four of your shots, mind you) would be: You know the rules, force yourself to break them next time you pick up a camera! Hope I haven't made a total fool of myself, and that you can actually make use of what I've said. --Olaf
