| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/12/2008 10:37:01 AM · #1 |
| Sure wish this was Advanced Editing like the last one. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 11:11:33 AM · #2 |
Went out today and the best shot I got today was the guy's back..
And yeah advanced would have been fun.
edi: And the best pic for the challenge I've taken a week earlier.. doh
Message edited by author 2008-03-12 11:13:48.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2008 11:29:35 AM · #3 |
i have a few ideas already! keep an eye on me, 3 out of my 4 best scoring challenges were portrait challenges...;-)
btw i think basic editing is fine for portrait stuff otherwise people would try to do HDR on their photos *lol* |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 11:51:33 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 12:49:24 PM · #5 |
Yeah, I took a good one for this challenge... oh a couple years ago
 |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 09:05:37 AM · #6 |
I am confused. Is this challange supposed to have a person in it? btw, I don't know what some abbrev. mean, what does
LOL mean? |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 09:11:57 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by jjsmom:
I am confused. Is this challange supposed to have a person in it? btw, I don't know what some abbrev. mean, what does
LOL mean? |
Yes, it is supposed to be a portrait of someone in their own environment. If you are still unsure, have a look at the link above for "Environmental Portrait 1".
lol = laugh out loud |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 12:05:00 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by jeger:
Originally posted by jjsmom:
I am confused. Is this challange supposed to have a person in it? btw, I don't know what some abbrev. mean, what does
LOL mean? |
Yes, it is supposed to be a portrait of someone in their own environment. If you are still unsure, have a look at the link above for "Environmental Portrait 1".
lol = laugh out loud |
What he says.
Many folks were disappointed when their protraits of flowers or of people outside in the "environment" didn't score so well.
Environmental Portrait is a specific technique that shows a PERSON and you learn more about the person by the environment that surrounds them.
ETA - While not a specific requirement, Environmental Portraits work best when the subject is engaged and fully aware of the fact they are being photographed.
Candids of people doing their work or otherwise in an environment that defines them, yet they are unaware that they are being photographed, does not qualify as an Environmental Portrait IMO.
Message edited by author 2008-03-13 12:08:05. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 06:26:46 PM · #9 |
My second attempt was a flop too.. My subject was pretty cool too but the lighting came out crap. So, the person in the picture has to be looking at the camera? I mean, today, my subject kept doing what his job was but he obviously knew I was clicking away, I was practically in his face..
[after I asked for permission of course]
Message edited by author 2008-03-14 18:29:56.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 06:49:11 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Candids of people doing their work or otherwise in an environment that defines them, yet they are unaware that they are being photographed, does not qualify as an Environmental Portrait IMO. |
I humbly disagree. A portrait is simply capturing one's likeness. There is no requirement that it be staged. Satisifying the environmental part would be tricky with a candid but if you knew the subject well or studied it long enough that could be accomplished as well. I would even go as far as to say that is the better process to take if the goal is to capture a true portrait of the person. When the subject knows they are being photograph they begin to change and with it the chance to capture their true essense. What you are left with is more of the idea of the person rather the person itself. That is not to say I'm going to vote down staged shots because that's silly but I will favor those that are more honest and real that I feel is much more difficult to accomplished in a staged setting (and kudos to those who can do it). Just my two cent of course.
Message edited by author 2008-03-14 18:50:28. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 07:08:19 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Candids of people doing their work or otherwise in an environment that defines them, yet they are unaware that they are being photographed, does not qualify as an Environmental Portrait IMO. |
I humbly disagree. A portrait is simply capturing one's likeness. There is no requirement that it be staged. Satisifying the environmental part would be tricky with a candid but if you knew the subject well or studied it long enough that could be accomplished as well. I would even go as far as to say that is the better process to take if the goal is to capture a true portrait of the person. When the subject knows they are being photograph they begin to change and with it the chance to capture their true essense. What you are left with is more of the idea of the person rather the person itself. That is not to say I'm going to vote down staged shots because that's silly but I will favor those that are more honest and real that I feel is much more difficult to accomplished in a staged setting (and kudos to those who can do it). Just my two cent of course. |
Richard, you illiterate sl . . . never mind. ;-)
Of course that was my opinion. Look at the work of some of the masters at Environmental Portrait, Annie Leibovitch comes to mind.
I'm not saying that the subject should be looking into the camera, necessarily, but the subject should be aware that they are being photographed. Otherwise, it's a candid and not a portrait. And it doesn't have to be staged either. But you are correct, your definition would work fine, but runs the risk of being too candid. But then I;m sure you could pull it off! ;-)
The challenge for the photographer is to bring out the essence of the subject through the photograph. Making the subject feel at ease is part of that exercise.
My original post was more directed at people who are new to the technique and might think they are supposed to take a portrait of a flower or of a person in nature due to the multiple understandings of the word "environmental"
In the first Environmental Portrait challenge, many people ranted in the thread for that challenge that DPCers don't think outside the box enough if they don't think you can take a portrait of a flower. I was just trying to give a heads up for that. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 08:28:54 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Candids of people doing their work or otherwise in an environment that defines them, yet they are unaware that they are being photographed, does not qualify as an Environmental Portrait IMO. |
I humbly disagree. A portrait is simply capturing one's likeness. There is no requirement that it be staged. Satisifying the environmental part would be tricky with a candid but if you knew the subject well or studied it long enough that could be accomplished as well. I would even go as far as to say that is the better process to take if the goal is to capture a true portrait of the person. When the subject knows they are being photograph they begin to change and with it the chance to capture their true essense. What you are left with is more of the idea of the person rather the person itself. That is not to say I'm going to vote down staged shots because that's silly but I will favor those that are more honest and real that I feel is much more difficult to accomplished in a staged setting (and kudos to those who can do it). Just my two cent of course. |
Richard, you illiterate sl . . . never mind. ;-)
Of course that was my opinion. Look at the work of some of the masters at Environmental Portrait, Annie Leibovitch comes to mind.
I'm not saying that the subject should be looking into the camera, necessarily, but the subject should be aware that they are being photographed. Otherwise, it's a candid and not a portrait. And it doesn't have to be staged either. But you are correct, your definition would work fine, but runs the risk of being too candid. But then I;m sure you could pull it off! ;-)
The challenge for the photographer is to bring out the essence of the subject through the photograph. Making the subject feel at ease is part of that exercise.
My original post was more directed at people who are new to the technique and might think they are supposed to take a portrait of a flower or of a person in nature due to the multiple understandings of the word "environmental"
In the first Environmental Portrait challenge, many people ranted in the thread for that challenge that DPCers don't think outside the box enough if they don't think you can take a portrait of a flower. I was just trying to give a heads up for that. |
True. What you describe is most ideal for the challenge. My only point is "candid" and "portrait" are not mutually exclusive. Ed Clarke scored a 6.9 in the last environmental portrait challenge with an obvious candid (and portraiture) yet didn't receive any 1s or 2s in the process so I'm just saying.
Message edited by author 2008-03-14 20:29:33. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 10:46:07 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Of course that was my opinion. Look at the work of some of the masters at Environmental Portrait, Annie Leibovitch comes to mind.
|
It's weird reading this. Annie Leibovitz would be the last person I'd consider an environmental portraitist. Most of her images seem so contrived and staged. Extremely well done in that context but typically not honestly showing the person's environment. Some of her work I suppose does, but I'm thinking of Whoopi Goldberg in a bath of milk, or David Lynch in the leaf suit, Jack White as a carnival knife thrower with Meg White on the target, Lennon around Yoko. None of those really strike me as environmental portraits. Conceptual portraits, editorial portraits, yes.
The recent shots of the Queen might at first be considered environmental too, but she doesn't wear the full regalia every day or even many days. I'd love to see true environmental portraits of the Queen, surrounded by corgis, probably wearing welly boots and about to hop in a land rover. Leibovitz was far from getting access to do that style of environmental portraiture there.
It'll be interesting to see the entries. I do agree that it isn't somehow related to the environment or green movement. Someone holding a flower or bemoaning acid rain isn't generally an environmental portrait. If it was Al Gore then maybe.
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 10:47:48. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 11:15:58 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Someone holding a flower or bemoaning acid rain isn't generally an environmental portrait. If it was Al Gore then maybe. |
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 11:30:30 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Candids of people doing their work or otherwise in an environment that defines them, yet they are unaware that they are being photographed, does not qualify as an Environmental Portrait IMO. |
Free your mind. There are wonderful possibilities everywhere. I think you'll have a richer experience if you don't negate a whole set of images based on a strict definition. You may not prefer it but Candid Portraiture can be far more telling than a more formal picture and if you really have an interest in understanding a person, take it as it comes. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 11:32:47 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Candids of people doing their work or otherwise in an environment that defines them, yet they are unaware that they are being photographed, does not qualify as an Environmental Portrait IMO. |
Free your mind. There are wonderful possibilities everywhere. I think you'll have a richer experience if you don't negate a whole set of images based on a strict definition. You may not prefer it but Candid Portraiture can be far more telling than a more formal picture and if you really have an interest in understanding a person, take it as it comes. |
I think there could be plenty of examples of candid portraits that are environmental portraits too, where the subject isn't fully aware or engaged with the camera. A somewhat archetypal example would be a newspaper seller in a kiosk, surrounded by the magazines he was selling, or in the act of selling to a customer. It defines his environment, his job, where he works and would be quite telling, with or without engagement with the lens.
Or I suppose a shot of me in front of these twin screens, lit by their pallid glow typing away for 14 hours a day. Is it less or more of an environmental portrait if I'm complicit in the image being made ?
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 11:34:31. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 11:36:34 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The recent shots of the Queen might at first be considered environmental too, but she doesn't wear the full regalia every day or even many days. I'd love to see true environmental portraits of the Queen, surrounded by corgis, probably wearing welly boots and about to hop in a land rover. Leibovitz was far from getting access to do that style of environmental portraiture there.
|
Its funny you should mention trying to get the Queen to dress down, because Liebovitz got in trouble with the queen for asking her to reduce her royal regalia, she tried to get her to remove the tiara, but that just wasnt going to happen. She said that her ideal was shooting her in jeans. On a horse. In the palace.
Interesting video of the two of them working with, or against each other is on YouTube.
Oddly Leibovitz's more personal work, especially her images of Susan Sontag are usually environmental, images of the woman of the printed work surrounded by books or pages of manuscript
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 11:46:41. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 11:37:04 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Candids of people doing their work or otherwise in an environment that defines them, yet they are unaware that they are being photographed, does not qualify as an Environmental Portrait IMO. |
Free your mind. There are wonderful possibilities everywhere. I think you'll have a richer experience if you don't negate a whole set of images based on a strict definition. You may not prefer it but Candid Portraiture can be far more telling than a more formal picture and if you really have an interest in understanding a person, take it as it comes. |
A somewhat archetypal example would be a newspaper seller in a kiosk, surrounded by the magazines he was selling, or in the act of selling to a customer. It defines his environment, his job, where he works and would be quite telling, with or without engagement with the lens.
|
Semi-Candid...right?
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 11:37:48. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 11:42:39 AM · #19 |
I'm actually in the process of doing a bunch of these for a photo essay to present to my local camera club. Unfortunately some of the cooler ones were done a DAY before the frickin' challenge was announced. :(
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 11:50:08 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Of course that was my opinion. Look at the work of some of the masters at Environmental Portrait, Annie Leibovitch comes to mind.
|
It's weird reading this. Annie Leibovitz would be the last person I'd consider an environmental portraitist. Most of her images seem so contrived and staged. Extremely well done in that context but typically not honestly showing the person's environment. Some of her work I suppose does, but I'm thinking of Whoopi Goldberg in a bath of milk, or David Lynch in the leaf suit, Jack White as a carnival knife thrower with Meg White on the target, Lennon around Yoko. None of those really strike me as environmental portraits. Conceptual portraits, editorial portraits, yes.
|
Every example you mentioned IS an environmental portrait. If they aren't what is, in your opinion?
I guess a better description of environmental portrait would be that the environment is a major element of the protrait. It doesn't necessicarly have to give you the subject's life story, but should tell you something about their personality or who thay are. All of you expamples you stated do that. Environmental portraits are staged, that's my point. The subject is aware they are being photographed and is engaged with the photographer to get the right shot.
Robert Seale is a good firend of mine and also an expert at environmental portrait, namely with sports figures.
//www.robertseale.com/
Everyone of his EPs are staged and he worked with each subject to get the right environment, mood and statement.
If he and Annie Leibovitch aren't Environment Portrait photographers, then I've missed the mark completely. But I don'tthink I have. ;-)
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 11:51:39 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Its funny you should mention trying to get the Queen to dress down, because Liebovitz got in trouble with the queen for asking her to reduce her royal regalia, she tried to get her to remove the tiara, but that just wasnt going to happen. She said that her ideal was shooting her in jeans. On a horse. In the palace.
Oddly Leibovitz's more personal work, especially her images of Susan Sontag are usually environmental, images of the woman of the printed work surrounded by books or pages of manuscript
|
I'd seen the video with the Queen before. The thing with the tiara was stupid though - the whole point of everything she was wearing for that shoot was that it was overbearing and regal. Pulling off the tiara doesn't change that, it just shows a lack of understanding of the customs being demonstrated in front of her. That was the full on formal dress robes. The tiara is part of it. Removing it would just look half dressed, not dressed down. Sort of like wearing a kilt without a sgian dubh.
The horse in the formal rooms thing is similarly ludicrous, not 'environmental'. It would be much in line with her other very staged images though. It would probably be iconic. It would be dramatic. It wouldn't say much about the person (other than they let Leibovitz talk them in to doing it)
It's true about her images with Sontag. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 11:56:47 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Every example you mentioned IS an environmental portrait. If they aren't what is, in your opinion?
I guess a better description of environmental portrait would be that the environment is a major element of the protrait. It doesn't necessicarly have to give you the subject's life story, but should tell you something about their personality or who thay are. All of you expamples you stated do that. Environmental portraits are staged, that's my point. The subject is aware they are being photographed and is engaged with the photographer to get the right shot.
Robert Seale is a good firend of mine and also an expert at environmental portrait, namely with sports figures.
//www.robertseale.com/
Everyone of his EPs are staged and he worked with each subject to get the right environment, mood and statement.
If he and Annie Leibovitch aren't Environment Portrait photographers, then I've missed the mark completely. But I don'tthink I have. ;-) |
Robert's shots are excellent, from what I remember - they show sports men and women typically with the equipment of their sports. The images tell you something about that person. I can tell from his page who the basketball player is, who the baseball player is, who the gymnast is. From that image of Jack White throwing knifes, what can I tell about him? What does the bath of milk tell you about Whoopi Goldberg's day to day existence ? What about Jack & Meg White involves circus performance ? They are images staged and created in Liebovitz's mind, to create dramatic portraits, make a statement, make an impact. Not to tell you much about the person or their life.
By your definition, an environmental portrait is anything staged that shows more than the person's body ?
I tend to think an environmental portrait should communicate something about who the person is and how they live their life, or their work, or their personality.
The Liebovitz pictures strike me more as using celebrities as actors within sets or stories that she's come up with, not ones that are from the person's own life. Her Disney images are another fine example of that. Would you consider those environmental portraits too ?
Joey Lawerence's images spring to mind here as well. They show people, with an environment around them. Are those environmental portraits in your definition ? Just trying to understand.
The John Lennon and Yoko image does on reflection seem to be more of a real environmental portrait, you see something of their relationship and connection to each other in that image (true or not)
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 12:05:59. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 12:02:49 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The horse in the formal rooms thing is similarly ludicrous, not 'environmental'. It would be much in line with her other very staged images though. It would probably be iconic. It would be dramatic. It wouldn't say much about the person (other than they let Leibovitz talk them in to doing it)
|
The thing I find fascinating with the idiotic things she get people to do is that they seem to distill down who they are partly because of how they react to the ridiculous situation they are put in. Her images of Woopi Goldberg, Bette Middler, Arnold Swartznegger, and especially the naked John Lennon use the placing of the subject in shocking situations to break out of the ridgid plane of photographer/subject to reveal something deeper about the personalities involved. It sort of reminds me of some strange fraternity hazing ritual, deeply weird but some how it evokes strong feelings, that make for arresting photographs.
But not anything that would suit the current challenge. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 12:38:40 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Every example you mentioned IS an environmental portrait. If they aren't what is, in your opinion?
I guess a better description of environmental portrait would be that the environment is a major element of the protrait. It doesn't necessicarly have to give you the subject's life story, but should tell you something about their personality or who thay are. All of you expamples you stated do that. Environmental portraits are staged, that's my point. The subject is aware they are being photographed and is engaged with the photographer to get the right shot.
Robert Seale is a good firend of mine and also an expert at environmental portrait, namely with sports figures.
//www.robertseale.com/
Everyone of his EPs are staged and he worked with each subject to get the right environment, mood and statement.
If he and Annie Leibovitch aren't Environment Portrait photographers, then I've missed the mark completely. But I don'tthink I have. ;-) |
Robert's shots are excellent, from what I remember - they show sports men and women typically with the equipment of their sports. The images tell you something about that person. I can tell from his page who the basketball player is, who the baseball player is, who the gymnast is. From that image of Jack White throwing knifes, what can I tell about him? What does the bath of milk tell you about Whoopi Goldberg's day to day existence ? What about Jack & Meg White involves circus performance ? They are images staged and created in Liebovitz's mind, to create dramatic portraits, make a statement, make an impact. Not to tell you much about the person or their life.
By your definition, an environmental portrait is anything staged that shows more than the person's body ?
I tend to think an environmental portrait should communicate something about who the person is and how they live their life, or their work, or their personality.
The Liebovitz pictures strike me more as using celebrities as actors within sets or stories that she's come up with, not ones that are from the person's own life. Her Disney images are another fine example of that. Would you consider those environmental portraits too ?
Joey Lawerence's images spring to mind here as well. They show people, with an environment around them. Are those environmental portraits in your definition ? Just trying to understand.
The John Lennon and Yoko image does on reflection seem to be more of a real environmental portrait, you see something of their relationship and connection to each other in that image (true or not) |
I think we're saying basically the same thing. You seem to be taking issue in whether or not Annie L was successful in comminicating the essence of the subject. In her case, most of her subjects are very familiar to everyone, so the challenge for her is showing some quirky side of their personality that may not be something we normally think of with these particular subjects.
With Robert's work, putting a sports figure in the equipment of their sport is a very obvious way of making the connection. Be does a good job of that.
My original point in my post was there can be a fine line between a portrait and a candid. The staging and subject awareness are key differences, IMO. whether or not the photographer is successful in capturing the essence of the subject is a matter of execution and the perception of the viewer. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 12:47:23 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
I think we're saying basically the same thing. You seem to be taking issue in whether or not Annie L was successful in comminicating the essence of the subject. In her case, most of her subjects are very familiar to everyone, so the challenge for her is showing some quirky side of their personality that may not be something we normally think of with these particular subjects.
With Robert's work, putting a sports figure in the equipment of their sport is a very obvious way of making the connection. Be does a good job of that.
My original point in my post was there can be a fine line between a portrait and a candid. The staging and subject awareness are key differences, IMO. whether or not the photographer is successful in capturing the essence of the subject is a matter of execution and the perception of the viewer. |
I think though there is a distinction, between showing something that actually is their character and them playing a role. I could easily hire a model to swing a baseball bat or strum a guitar. I could take the same shot with a sportsman or a musician. If they held it properly, would you be able to tell if it was something about them you were seeing or something completely artificial ? Would one be an environmental portrait and the other a fictional/ dramatic portrait ? Or are they both environmental portraits, but one truthful and the other a lie ?
I think the notion of candid vs subject awareness is also a hard line for the viewer to judge. I've got plenty of what might look like candid shots of people, where I've asked for permission beforehand. Shot for long enough and most people will start to ignore you and get back to what they were doing. The subject then doesn't look complicit, just involved in what they are doing. For example, if I walk up to someone playing a sax on a street corner and ask if I can take some pictures, then proceed to do so. Does it cease to be an environmental portrait when they stop looking at the camera and start playing their instrument, getting back into the music ? Or is it a better environmental portrait ? |
|
