| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/18/2008 01:19:16 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
... 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 ? ... |
On DPChallenge it doesn't matter. Until maybe afterwards and some viewers/voters find out they've been misled.
Prime example is the Blue Ribbon winner from the Street Smarts challenge.
 , by  bassbone.
From the "Photographer's Comments": "I shot this in my basement and tried to make it look a bit like a subway platform or other urban area where street performers may be. I pulled out the same 'costume..."
Not trying to pick on Peter, this is just one example I happen to remember of a "setup" shot emulating some "environment".
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 01:59:35 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
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 ? |
Seeking or stating the truth in an environmental portrait is neither a goal nor a requirement. In the fist EP challenge DrAchoo posed himself in a cemetery as a grave digger, truth? no. EP, sure.
Originally posted by Gordon:
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 ? |
Awareness isn't mutually exclusive to EPs, only an element. A candid subject can certainly be aware that they are being photographed. An EP does not require that the subject be looking into the camera, either.
An EP requires that the subject be involved, or as I said earlier, engaged, in the process and the end result. Simply telling someone you are going to be taking pictures of them, IMO, doesn't get you to EP. In your example, anything could be an environmental portrait. I'm saying there is more to the technique than that. If you acknowledge that there is a difference between a candid and an EP, then you have to be able to qualify the differences. One person's candid is not another's EP.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 02:40:19 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
An EP requires that the subject be involved, or as I said earlier, engaged, in the process and the end result. Simply telling someone you are going to be taking pictures of them, IMO, doesn't get you to EP. In your example, anything could be an environmental portrait. I'm saying there is more to the technique than that. If you acknowledge that there is a difference between a candid and an EP, then you have to be able to qualify the differences. One person's candid is not another's EP. |
I agree with your earlier point, that truth isn't something we can hope for here, because there's no way to evaluate it at voting time. I think a real, good EP does have an element of truth to it about the person, or at least appears to communicate some truth.
So an EP has to have the appearance of some truth about the person being portrayed.
I agree that simply informing someone you'll be taking pictures, or not, doesn't make an environmental portrait. I agree that the subject being aware or not is neither here nor there for an EP. Candid or posed, doesn't matter.
One of these I'd consider an environmental portrait, the other I wouldn't. One tells me something about the people in the image, the other doesn't. One is candid, the other isn't.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2008 03:04:54 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
One of these I'd consider an environmental portrait, the other I wouldn't. One tells me something about the people in the image, the other doesn't. One is candid, the other isn't.
|
The first one is not an EP, IMO. Not even a portrait for that matter.
The second one is.
I think you are saying the reverse, maybe?
Without knowing much information, the second one could be a furniture designer from Colorado. In that context, a perfectly valid EP. Whether he is or not is another matter.
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 15:05:21. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 03:30:32 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
The first one is not an EP, IMO. Not even a portrait for that matter.
The second one is.
I think you are saying the reverse, maybe?
Without knowing much information, the second one could be a furniture designer from Colorado. In that context, a perfectly valid EP. Whether he is or not is another matter. |
I think I maybe am, yes. The first one is a true reflection of the character and lifestyles (in some part) of the people in it. To me that makes it more of a portrait than the second one, which while still a portrait, doesn't say a lot about me (well it might, but it isn't constructed to). The first certainly isn't a formal, posed portrait, but it is a portrayal of the subjects. At the risk of using dictionary defintions, which always seems the refuge of the weak argument, A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant. The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the person. I tend to think EPs play down that predominant feature of the face, as aspects such as gesture or activity come to the fore.
Again, I don't believe in the context of DPC the reality of the truth of an EP can be evaluated at all, so there is a disconnect in my mind between EP as a challenge subject and EP as a real, useful, honest, meaningful EP. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 03:50:58 PM · #31 |
I'm open to anything...candid, posed...any environment as long as it connects somehow to the subjects personality even on a less obvious level. For me it doesn't have to be a spot on thing like a Plumber under a sink where the connection is right there...spoon fed.
My last entry did well at 6.4 and I was happy that a good number of people found the connection I was trying to make, so it was a minor victory.
Bobby (The Boxer, as he's called) is a Bar-Back, Bouncer, Fix-It, Maintenance guy in my neighborhood and has worked at about 5 local bars at one point or the next. A very nice guy but I wouldn't advise you do anything wrong in a bar that he's working at or you'll find pain very quickly. My picture was a statement about Boxing as a career and my view of it as a dead-end road to take. I also had Paul Simons "The Boxer" very close to mind when I took the shot so while it wasn't straight forward, I thought the point was subtle and poignant. I'd LOVE to see images like that by the dozen...by the hundreds.
Good Luck Everyone and let's hope for a great Challenge.
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 15:59:27. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:04:07 PM · #32 |
| To me an environmental portait would be one that the envronment tells me something about the individual. And when it comes to portraits, a portrait that has eye contact with the lense would do better than one that wouldnt. I personally dont think candids are portraits. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:09:42 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
I personally dont think candids are portraits. |
They are or they can be. They just aren't formal.
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 16:10:06. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:10:39 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
I personally dont think candids are portraits. |
So you couldn't take a candid portrait of someone ?
I always end up at that supreme court definition for portraits, I know them when I see them.
I have a hard time ruling out entire styles of photography as not portraits or portraits.
I can imagine some extremely telling environmental portraits that maybe don't even have the person in the frame, yet could tell you volumes about the person. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:14:29 PM · #35 |
Environmental portrait ?
Candid ?
None of the above ?
//bp0.blogger.com/_3lGQfAFTXFc/R9_wfFh3hbI/AAAAAAAAA8A/ld8C5D1uG84/s1600-h/elifencebest.jpg
Better off in the fences challenge ? :) (from here btw, not mine unfortunately)
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 16:16:10. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:19:46 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
I personally dont think candids are portraits. |
So you couldn't take a candid portrait of someone ?
I always end up at that supreme court definition for portraits, I know them when I see them.
I have a hard time ruling out entire styles of photography as not portraits or portraits.
I can imagine some extremely telling environmental portraits that maybe don't even have the person in the frame, yet could tell you volumes about the person. |
My take is that even though a candid portrait can happen, the individual knows that about the camera just may not be posing for it.
A portrait to me means that the individual is aware of the camera and is posing for it.
Candid to me the individual is completely oblivious to a camera.
Candid Portait, the user is aware of the camera just not posing for it.
The picture to me is not a candid. To me the picture was posed for.
Environmental Portrait? not in my opinion.
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 16:21:46. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:25:43 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
I personally dont think candids are portraits. |
Then I'm in trouble....
You know I chose Environmental Portraits because I need work with this aspect of my photography... Especially since My last one. But mine is totally staged.... |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:28:51 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
The picture to me is not a candid. To me the picture was posed for. |
You can tell ? |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:31:10 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
The picture to me is not a candid. To me the picture was posed for. |
You can tell ? |
Yep, I could be wrong. But it looks staged to me. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:40:24 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
A portrait to me means that the individual is aware of the camera and is posing for it.
Candid to me the individual is completely oblivious to a camera.
|
People CAN be fully aware of the camera and be perfectly candid at the same time.
I think your definition is incorrectly narrow...just an opinion, of course. I would hope that people would be willing to see or at least be understanding of some other possibilities. That's not to say that everything is fine, good and fair but expand the box even if you're not willing to get out of it.
Message edited by author 2008-03-18 17:30:25. |
|
|
|
03/18/2008 04:46:36 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
A portrait to me means that the individual is aware of the camera and is posing for it.
Candid to me the individual is completely oblivious to a camera.
|
People CAN be fully aware of the camera and be perfectly candid at the same time.
I think your definition is incorectly narrow...just an opinion, of course. I would hope that people would be willing to see or at least be understanding of some other possibilities. That's not to say that everything is fine, good and fair but expand the box even if you're not willing to get out of it. |
Thats the beauty and I guess the fustration of some with photography (like all arts). It is completely subjective. I think we all have our definitions on what is what and what is not. I tend to think outside the box quite often, just that if you ask me for a starting point on what to expect. I would tell you that my definitions of what I expect are above. Doesnt mean I would not consider a candid to be a portrait, just that I have to have some direction on what I believe.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 01:18:06 AM · #42 |
I guess I am REALLY confused! I interperated "Enviornmental Portrait" as a nature thing! Could not
for the life of me figure out why the first comment I got was; "...not a portrait". Removed description of challenge entry currently in voting I LOVED it!
I thought that it was a -perfect- Removed description of challenge entry currently in votingHa ha! Is my face red! Little nervous about the next challenge b/c I often interperate things wrong!
I DID read the directions though...and STILL that was what I came up with! Ha ha! Better luck next time
I guess! : )
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 |
Message edited by L2 - Please don't reveal your entry during voting, thanks!. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 02:48:38 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
A portrait to me means that the individual is aware of the camera and is posing for it.
Candid to me the individual is completely oblivious to a camera.
|
People CAN be fully aware of the camera and be perfectly candid at the same time.
I think your definition is incorectly narrow...just an opinion, of course. I would hope that people would be willing to see or at least be understanding of some other possibilities. That's not to say that everything is fine, good and fair but expand the box even if you're not willing to get out of it. |
Thats the beauty and I guess the fustration of some with photography (like all arts). It is completely subjective. I think we all have our definitions on what is what and what is not. I tend to think outside the box quite often, just that if you ask me for a starting point on what to expect. I would tell you that my definitions of what I expect are above. Doesnt mean I would not consider a candid to be a portrait, just that I have to have some direction on what I believe. |
Interesting. My model was fully aware of the camera...in fact posed quite unnaturally...and yet was given a comment about it being too candid. So going on the above description...my image is a total confusion.
|
|
|
|
03/20/2008 03:35:33 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
A portrait to me means that the individual is aware of the camera and is posing for it.
Candid to me the individual is completely oblivious to a camera.
|
People CAN be fully aware of the camera and be perfectly candid at the same time.
I think your definition is incorectly narrow...just an opinion, of course. I would hope that people would be willing to see or at least be understanding of some other possibilities. That's not to say that everything is fine, good and fair but expand the box even if you're not willing to get out of it. |
Thats the beauty and I guess the fustration of some with photography (like all arts). It is completely subjective. I think we all have our definitions on what is what and what is not. I tend to think outside the box quite often, just that if you ask me for a starting point on what to expect. I would tell you that my definitions of what I expect are above. Doesnt mean I would not consider a candid to be a portrait, just that I have to have some direction on what I believe. |
But it doesn't have to be. You're making it subjective by abitrarily requiring that it meet critiera that has nothing to do with capturing one's likeness. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 03:55:11 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by Gordon:
One of these I'd consider an environmental portrait, the other I wouldn't. One tells me something about the people in the image, the other doesn't. One is candid, the other isn't.
|
The first one is not an EP, IMO. Not even a portrait for that matter.
The second one is.
I think you are saying the reverse, maybe?
Without knowing much information, the second one could be a furniture designer from Colorado. In that context, a perfectly valid EP. Whether he is or not is another matter. |
In my opinion the first one isn't a portrait because even though it tells me something about them, they are in the act of performing and not being their normal selves.
The second photo could be a portrait, if the sofa in the middle of nowhere was very telling about the person sitting on it. If that's not the case I would consider it another "performance" and thus not a true portrait. Now if it was the actor Jim Carry on that couch, it probably would be a portrait since it would at the very least match his public persona if not his true self.
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 05:55:56. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 07:18:06 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by yanko:
The second photo could be a portrait, if the sofa in the middle of nowhere was very telling about the person sitting on it. If that's not the case I would consider it another "performance" and thus not a true portrait. Now if it was the actor Jim Carry on that couch, it probably would be a portrait since it would at the very least match his public persona if not his true self. |
I'm of the school(which offers NO Degree) that ALL poses are performance even to a slight extent and if anything, you lose some of the subjects true personality when they pose. Some models do pull it off well, actors especially.
"Give me Candids Or Give me Death!!!"
-Patrick Henry (Photographer)
I actually like posing people very casually and then capturing them at a candid moment when they think that I'm not shooting. The in between moments are what I would be going for...burn the rest...lol.
Comment from Posthumous: "ahhh... serene... it's funny because it has a very natural feel to it but on second thought she would never pose that way unless she were having her picture taken. So that makes it a portrait, but it doesn't dawn on me right away......
Every time I look at this, I get the same sense of vertigo as it shimmers between candid and portrait. I doubt other people will have that reaction, though."
Not a candid, for sure but certainly relaxed.
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 09:22:33. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 08:17:57 AM · #47 |
It's trying to catch up with my Harsh Environments entry.
Votes: 114
Views: 186
Avg Vote: 6.5000
Comments: 11
eta: oops, wrong thread
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 08:18:58. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 09:18:27 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by yanko:
In my opinion the first one isn't a portrait because even though it tells me something about them, they are in the act of performing and not being their normal selves.
The second photo could be a portrait, if the sofa in the middle of nowhere was very telling about the person sitting on it. If that's not the case I would consider it another "performance" and thus not a true portrait. Now if it was the actor Jim Carry on that couch, it probably would be a portrait since it would at the very least match his public persona if not his true self. |
It could be said that we are always performing when there is a camera pointing towards ourselves, or indeed always performing when there are other people around at all. That's maybe why the 'unguarded' moment can be so prized as being telling about a person. In the second case, its only an EP, depending on the character of the subject ? I wonder how you tell that from the photo - isn't that what the photo communicates ? :)
I posted this ASMP link to their environmental portraiture gallery in another thread - they have musicians performing there. It's a tighter crop on a particular musician, but it is certainly taken from mid-performance. Now they don't have a lock on the definition of EP either, but that is mostly what a lot of their members do.
Maybe it isn't so easy to draw a nice box around EP after all.
Message edited by author 2008-03-20 09:19:53. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 09:45:47 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I posted this ASMP link to their environmental portraiture gallery in another thread - they have musicians performing there. It's a tighter crop on a particular musician, but it is certainly taken from mid-performance. Now they don't have a lock on the definition of EP either, but that is mostly what a lot of their members do.
Maybe it isn't so easy to draw a nice box around EP after all. |
It's a shame that you didn't post that link earlier (pre-Challenge) and that every person entering the Challenge be forced to study each image.
I wish there were some formal pre-Challenge discussions so people could really get on board with things. Formal being the important factor...not just five guys banging around thoughts on an ignored thread. |
|
|
|
03/20/2008 09:52:27 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I posted this ASMP link to their environmental portraiture gallery in another thread - they have musicians performing there. It's a tighter crop on a particular musician, but it is certainly taken from mid-performance. Now they don't have a lock on the definition of EP either, but that is mostly what a lot of their members do.
Maybe it isn't so easy to draw a nice box around EP after all. |
It's a shame that you didn't post that link earlier (pre-Challenge) and that every person entering the Challenge be forced to study each image.
I wish there were some formal pre-Challenge discussions so people could really get on board with things. Formal being the important factor...not just five guys banging around thoughts on an ignored thread. |
This is a pre-challenge thread clearly titled on the upcoming challenge. What would you like to do to make it "formal"? |
|
