Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Abdulrahman Aljabri on April 23, 2010, 02:44:54 pm
-
Who are the best portrait photographers? By portrait i am strictly referring to a picture made to present a person, no life style, nude, fashion, etc; its all about the person in the picture and it can be studio or location.
What, I am looking for are the most elegant well made photos of people. The sort of photos that make you stare in awe not just for their beauty but also for the fact that the photographer was able to transform your average ceo, activist, politician etc into an interesting figure. I am referring to pictures that show a blend of excellent lighting, posing, setting and expression to create the best portrait.
So, who are the best portrait photographers? And just to make it simple think in terms of best business portrait or family portrait photographer etc.
Thanks in advance!
-
Richard Avedon, period. He is probably better known his (excellent) fashion photography, but he's done some of the best portraits of celebrities and some outstanding photos of laypeople.
I especially like his photos of Marilyn Monroe (http://arjandj.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/avedon_monroe.jpg) and Brigitte Bardot (http://patriciasilva.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/bardotchristiesavedon.jpg).
-
.
-
Thanks feppe,
I am not sure why people keep mentioning Avedon. I understand he had an impact on photography in his time, but relative to what is being produced today his pictures do not have much impact. Just to use the two pictures as an example, they don't come across as amazing. Am I missing something?
On the other hand, Patrick Demarchelier produces amazing beauty and fashion Pictures. I am looking for photographers at his caliber but in portrait.
-
one of my favs
http://www.marcogrob.com/portfolio/portraits/index.php (http://www.marcogrob.com/portfolio/portraits/index.php)
-
Abdulrahman
You are really pushing the boat out here: nearly all the current portrait people I can think of are associated with fashion/celebrity shooting. If you seek older generation ones - then you could do worse than look at Cecil Beaton who, of course, also did fashion and theatre.
You mention Avedon with a touch of disappointment - which I share - and I also feel little affection for the work of Karsh (of Ottowa, even!); with the former because I sense a touch of cruelty and for the latter because he might as well be shooting jet engines or giant turbines. He is, to me, the industrial photographer of portraiture.
I suppose the problem with your quest is that you are excluding the very markets/genres that do use portrait photographers...
Rob C
-
I am not sure why people keep mentioning Avedon. I understand he had an impact on photography in his time, but relative to what is being produced today his pictures do not have much impact. Just to use the two pictures as an example, they don't come across as amazing. Am I missing something?
You're definitely missing something if the Monroe picture doesn't speak to you. It's not me, either, as that photo is one of the best-known portraits of Marilyn - and there are literally thousands of those out there. For example, it's in the top 10 of google image search for her.
The photo to me is more of Norma Jeane Mortenson than Marilyn Monroe. Avedon explained background to the photo in some documentary they were showing at one of his recent exhibitions: she spent the day in his studio acting like Marilyn Monroe in front of the camera. After the shoot was over, she was sitting alone in a corner, with the facade gone. Avedon approached her with a camera, and she allowed him to take a photo of her in that state. And that's what's clearly captured. He explicitly said he wouldn't have even taken the photo if she didn't acknowledge his presence beforehand.
That should also put rest to Rob's critique about Avedon's alleged cruelty.
-
Nadar, Karsh, Irving Penn, Avedon, Beaton.
I do like Platon, Dan Winters, Ben Watts, and Martin Schoeller, but they are pop editorial, and not in the same league as the A list of dead guys I listed above.
Abdul, I think the problem you will have with this post is that portraits are very much a matter of taste and the psychology of the viewer. as an example, I don't like Patrick Demachelier at all, fashion, portrait, whatever, but I can see the appeal.
-
Jane Brown. Superb portrait 'tog.
clicky (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/JaneBown/JaneBown_gallery.swf)
-
My list
Historical: Irving Penn
Editorial: George Lange http://www.langephoto.com (http://www.langephoto.com)
Dutch contemporary: Frank Ruiter http://www.frankruiter.nl/ (http://www.frankruiter.nl/)
Classic portraiture: Tim Kelly http://www.timkellyportraits.com/ (http://www.timkellyportraits.com/)
Enchanting: Joyce Tenneson http://www.joycetenneson.com (http://www.joycetenneson.com)
-
Nadar, Karsh, Irving Penn, Avedon, Beaton.
I do like Platon, Dan Winters, Ben Watts, and Martin Schoeller, but they are pop editorial, and not in the same league as the A list of dead guys I listed above.
Abdul, I think the problem you will have with this post is that portraits are very much a matter of taste and the psychology of the viewer. as an example, I don't like Patrick Demachelier at all, fashion, portrait, whatever, but I can see the appeal.
TMARK - We do have similar taste, I would like to add:
Fazal Sheikh a portrait photographer with empathy his books Moksha and Ladli are masterpieces: http://www.fazalsheikh.org/ (http://www.fazalsheikh.org/)
August Sander should not be forgotten, for his impact on modern photography for artist like Avedon (American West)
Paolo Roversi love some of his close up portraits: http://www.paoloroversi.com/diaporama/photographs.html (http://www.paoloroversi.com/diaporama/photographs.html)
Nancy Burson - for her pioneer work on computer manipulated photography in the 1980 and her aging machine, where would Loretta Lux and Desiree Dolron be without her:
http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/first-and-second-beauty/ (http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/first-and-second-beauty/)
Nicholas Nixon his body of work on the Brown Sisters: http://www.photoeye.com/bookstore/citation...FTOKEN=70953879 (http://www.photoeye.com/bookstore/citation.cfm?catalog=DP745&i=0870707191&i2=&CFID=5164769&CFTOKEN=70953879)
Sally Man, Rineke Dijkstra, Bill Viola, Chuck Close, Thomas Struth, Hellen van Meene, the list is endless...................
I like this guy too:
http://www.yossimilogallery.com/exhibition...2_09-torb_eske/ (http://www.yossimilogallery.com/exhibitions/2002_09-torb_eske/)
http://www.plgallery.dk/default.asp?Doc=190 (http://www.plgallery.dk/default.asp?Doc=190)
I discovered this photographer today, I like the work:
http://www.birthepiontek.com/work/the_idea_of_north (http://www.birthepiontek.com/work/the_idea_of_north)
Cheers
TES
-
A few of my modern favourites -
Mark Tucker (http://www.marktucker.com)
Dan Winters (http://www.danwintersphoto.com/two.html)
Patrick Hoelck (http://portfolio.patrickhoelck.com/)
.
-
Sally Mann was the first who came to mind
-
penn
penn
penn
helmuth newton has great portraits
nadav kander (everytime i see more, i admire him more)
anton corbijn (pretty much "made" the band photo)
and really this list should have annie on it as well....she really defined at least a decade (like it or not)
-
Definitely! She is my favorite too~ I love her b/w portrait works, but her recent works seems too abstract and more like paintings but not photography.
Dustblue
Sally Mann was the first who came to mind
-
I would add everyone on your list as well. I never think of Paolo R and Sally Mann as portratists. Of course they are, but their work seems beyond a portrayal of a person.
TMARK - We do have similar taste, I would like to add:
Fazal Sheikh a portrait photographer with empathy his books Moksha and Ladli are masterpieces: http://www.fazalsheikh.org/ (http://www.fazalsheikh.org/)
August Sander should not be forgotten, for his impact on modern photography for artist like Avedon (American West)
Paolo Roversi love some of his close up portraits: http://www.paoloroversi.com/diaporama/photographs.html (http://www.paoloroversi.com/diaporama/photographs.html)
Nancy Burson - for her pioneer work on computer manipulated photography in the 1980 and her aging machine, where would Loretta Lux and Desiree Dolron be without her:
http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/first-and-second-beauty/ (http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/works/first-and-second-beauty/)
Nicholas Nixon his body of work on the Brown Sisters: http://www.photoeye.com/bookstore/citation...FTOKEN=70953879 (http://www.photoeye.com/bookstore/citation.cfm?catalog=DP745&i=0870707191&i2=&CFID=5164769&CFTOKEN=70953879)
Sally Man, Rineke Dijkstra, Bill Viola, Chuck Close, Thomas Struth, Hellen van Meene, the list is endless...................
I like this guy too:
http://www.yossimilogallery.com/exhibition...2_09-torb_eske/ (http://www.yossimilogallery.com/exhibitions/2002_09-torb_eske/)
http://www.plgallery.dk/default.asp?Doc=190 (http://www.plgallery.dk/default.asp?Doc=190)
I discovered this photographer today, I like the work:
http://www.birthepiontek.com/work/the_idea_of_north (http://www.birthepiontek.com/work/the_idea_of_north)
Cheers
TES
-
Newton, Nadav, Corbijn and Annie too.
Annie WAS 1985 to 2001 for US editorial portraits. Many are really amazing. Her show was fantastic, and A Photographer's Life was a great book.
penn
penn
penn
helmuth newton has great portraits
nadav kander (everytime i see more, i admire him more)
anton corbijn (pretty much "made" the band photo)
and really this list should have annie on it as well....she really defined at least a decade (like it or not)
-
Arnold Newman
-
I am not sure why people keep mentioning Avedon. I understand he had an impact on photography in his time, but relative to what is being produced today his pictures do not have much impact. Just to use the two pictures as an example, they don't come across as amazing. Am I missing something?
For me Avedons best work is his personal work, I like the series about his father the most:
http://www.richardavedon.com/#s=0&a=0&...mp;p=8&at=0 (http://www.richardavedon.com/#s=0&a=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&p=8&at=0)
Talking abouth fathers, here is an amazing project by Phillip Toledano:
http://www.dayswithmyfather.com/ (http://www.dayswithmyfather.com/)
I am mostly into personal project about portraits, but I also enjoy good editorial or commercial photographers:
Jim Rakete: http://www.eyed.de (http://www.eyed.de)
Brigitte Lacombe: http://www.brigittelacombe.com/index.php (http://www.brigittelacombe.com/index.php)
Marco Grob, Dan Winters, Nadav, Annie like others have mentioned
Older and historical portraits:
Nadar, Julie Margaret Cameron, UMBO,
-
I am not familiar with the work of any of the photographers mentioned... but has anyone seen any work by Constantine?
I saw some of her work on a pub wall in Port Isaac, and she captures the character of her subjects well... of course you would only appreciate this if you knew the people depicted.
-
http://www.chrisbuck.com/ (http://www.chrisbuck.com/)
http://www.olafblecker.de/ (http://www.olafblecker.de/)
-
Irving Penn truly a master ...
-
Abdulrahman
You are really pushing the boat out here: nearly all the current portrait people I can think of are associated with fashion/celebrity shooting. If you seek older generation ones - then you could do worse than look at Cecil Beaton who, of course, also did fashion and theatre.
If you like Classic-era photography such as the work of Cecil Beaton, you owe it to yourself to check out Horst as well... http://www.horstphorst.com/ (http://www.horstphorst.com/). As usual, the website doesn't do him much justice- I went to an exhibition of his prints a few years ago which really impressed me.
Cheers, Hywel
-
You're definitely missing something if the Monroe picture doesn't speak to you. It's not me, either, as that photo is one of the best-known portraits of Marilyn - and there are literally thousands of those out there. For example, it's in the top 10 of google image search for her.
The photo to me is more of Norma Jeane Mortenson than Marilyn Monroe. Avedon explained background to the photo in some documentary they were showing at one of his recent exhibitions: she spent the day in his studio acting like Marilyn Monroe in front of the camera. After the shoot was over, she was sitting alone in a corner, with the facade gone. Avedon approached her with a camera, and she allowed him to take a photo of her in that state. And that's what's clearly captured. He explicitly said he wouldn't have even taken the photo if she didn't acknowledge his presence beforehand.
That should also put rest to Rob's critique about Avedon's alleged cruelty.
I have also read a similar expression of disquiet attributed to one of the supermodels - I think it was one of the girls in the last Pirelli that he did - but as I have no real idea where the quotation actually lies now, I can't give a link to it. It could perhaps have been in one of my French PHOTO mags, but as I have been weeding them out over the past few months I am no longer sure I still have the issue in question, although I may have, and if I do I shall return to the thread and speak the name.
Anyway, my personal opinion isn't really from reading anybody else's views - it's from looking at the series he did across the States of all those various unfortunates up against white backgrounds, guns and snakes and unfortunate physical problems all to the fore. If that wasn't cruelty, then what the hell was it? Reminds me of other snappers playing what I perceive as the same voyeuristic game up in the Appalacians and calling it art because the cabins also show lots of wood detail; sure, art, with a capital E for exploitation. Why does Arbus spring to my mind, other than she was yet another one of us to take herself out?
As for Avedon's shot of Marilyn - I tend not to put too much weight on soundtracks. But it sure does speak to me - the picture; the problem is what it says to me about Avedon. Perhaps a gentleman wouldn't have shot it in the first place? My idea has always been that if you photograph women, you do it to make them look as good as you can unless they are playing a rôle in some dramatic work that demands the opposite; they are open to enough slings and arrows as it is - old Papa Time ain't no pal to most of them, nor to many of the males, either, when I consider the lies from my mirror. That that particular frame is so well known is not because she looks good in it... But then, others have also photographed the fading Marilyn with little sensitivity or grace; part of the press game of building you up so that they can later burn you down. Even when you are dead. Plus ça change.
Ciao
Rob C
-
Reuven Afanador http://www.art-dept.com/artists/afanador/ (http://www.art-dept.com/artists/afanador/)
Mark Tucker http://www.marktucker.com (http://www.marktucker.com)
Gustavo Marx http://www.gusmarx.com (http://www.gusmarx.com)
Danny Turner http://www.danman.com/ (http://www.danman.com/)
Mark Seliger http://www.markseliger.com/ (http://www.markseliger.com/)
Mark Anderson http://www.markandersonphoto.com/ (http://www.markandersonphoto.com/)
Stephen Kennedy http://www.stephenkennedy.com (http://www.stephenkennedy.com)
Karsh
Penn
Avedon
-
Andrew MacPherson
http://www.macfly.com/ (http://www.macfly.com/)
-
Today: Irving Penn
Yesterday: Richard Avedon
Tomorrow: ??
-
In my view In the American West is an empathetic work, not exploitative at all. Same with Arbus. I think they are treating their subjects with dignity and an empathy which may not translate well across cultures, even one as close as our English cousins.
Speaking of treating subjects with respect and a gentle hand: Alec Soth's Niagra: http://www.photoeye.com/bookstore/citation...FTOKEN=91978820 (http://www.photoeye.com/bookstore/citation.cfm?catalog=DP362&i=&i2=&CFID=9296820&CFTOKEN=91978820). I'm not sure if these small book previews do the portraits justice, but the portraits are really tender when tney could have been exploitative. So I nominate Soth top the list.
I have also read a similar expression of disquiet attributed to one of the supermodels - I think it was one of the girls in the last Pirelli that he did - but as I have no real idea where the quotation actually lies now, I can't give a link to it. It could perhaps have been in one of my French PHOTO mags, but as I have been weeding them out over the past few months I am no longer sure I still have the issue in question, although I may have, and if I do I shall return to the thread and speak the name.
Anyway, my personal opinion isn't really from reading anybody else's views - it's from looking at the series he did across the States of all those various unfortunates up against white backgrounds, guns and snakes and unfortunate physical problems all to the fore. If that wasn't cruelty, then what the hell was it? Reminds me of other snappers playing what I perceive as the same voyeuristic game up in the Appalacians and calling it art because the cabins also show lots of wood detail; sure, art, with a capital E for exploitation. Why does Arbus spring to my mind, other than she was yet another one of us to take herself out?
As for Avedon's shot of Marilyn - I tend not to put too much weight on soundtracks. But it sure does speak to me - the picture; the problem is what it says to me about Avedon. Perhaps a gentleman wouldn't have shot it in the first place? My idea has always been that if you photograph women, you do it to make them look as good as you can unless they are playing a rôle in some dramatic work that demands the opposite; they are open to enough slings and arrows as it is - old Papa Time ain't no pal to most of them, nor to many of the males, either, when I consider the lies from my mirror. That that particular frame is so well known is not because she looks good in it... But then, others have also photographed the fading Marilyn with little sensitivity or grace; part of the press game of building you up so that they can later burn you down. Even when you are dead. Plus ça change.
Ciao
Rob C
-
In my view In the American West is an empathetic work, not exploitative at all. Same with Arbus. I think they are treating their subjects with dignity and an empathy which may not translate well across cultures, even one as close as our English cousins.
I see no reason to doubt your opinion as genuine - you might even be right about taste travelling well or not. But I'm afraid that I can't see beyond what's on the paper and what's there doesn't make me a happy guy.
On the other hand, I don't see Sally M. as exploitative; I see her as able to do happy snaps with the ability to take them to an entirely different level altogether from that usually understood by the term. As records of a growing up - wonderful.
Jane Bown was ever a British favourite and Annie L. is certainly gifted too, though I'm not so sure about the book: I bought it a couple of days ago and have got about two-thirds of the way through and, so far, it doesn't pull my string as did the tv show on her life, which was what prompted me to buy the book. It may turn out that the last third has much more interesting material (in my view) but I can only take so much of her parents, sisters, kids and Susan Sontag, both subjects being of limited interest outwith the actual family circle. In fact, some of the Sontag shots in Venice don't even say anything good about her photographic technique - they are just shots that look as if they had to be taken for personal reasons but were never really considered shots in a sense of high photographic quality. Neither did I get any sense of why it was necessary to put in nudes of both Sontag and Annie herself.
Speaking of portraitists, what about good old Eve Arnold, who seems to have been overlooked? Boy, has she made some moving and definitive shots!
Rob C
-
Nigel Shafran
Kikai Hiroo
-
I know this might seem like heresy, but I think that Scott Schuman has a great style going, with The Sartorialist. I think he's the modern version of a portrait photographer -- mobile camera; fast on his feet; in tune with culture; making connections all day long. When i look back at those very early pictures of Avedon, in the white shirt and the skinny black ties, it sorta feels like the vibe of this Schuman guy. Imagine how many people that he's come into contact with over the years. I'm not saying he's making deeply soulful portraits, but I think he does make nice (yet brief) connections with people. You can see it in their eyes. He reminds me of a young Bill Cunningham.
http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/ (http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/)
And trust me, read the Comments of his posts. Sometimes, each one numbers over a hundred. And nobody's sitting there obsessing about pixels. They're looking at CONTENT. I think Schuman's got it going on.
(And imagine his line item for Studio Rental and Permits and 7b Rentals and Catering: ZERO! Find some great light, get five minutes with someone, shoot RAW, and be gone. Brilliant!)
-
Annie Leibovitz (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=annie+leibovitz&go=&form=QBIL&qs=AS&sk=SQ2&pq=annie+l&sp=3&sc=8-7)
Robert Maxwell (!)
-
Annie Leibovitz (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=annie+leibovitz&go=&form=QBIL&qs=AS&sk=SQ2&pq=annie+l&sp=3&sc=8-7)
Robert Maxwell (!)
Yes, she is the greatest.
Ok, she's got the crazy budgets. But her work is always outstanding.
She has some good ideas too.
Some that are very very close:
Norman Jean Roy
Art Streiber
Marco Grob
Mark Seliger
Rankin
Tim
-
I like Gregory Heisler.
Great photographer and funny guy. He tells good stories.
(http://prophoto.typepad.com/photos/gregory_heisler/h0264.jpg)
-
I know this might seem like heresy, but I think that Scott Schuman has a great style going, with The Sartorialist. I think he's the modern version of a portrait photographer -- mobile camera; fast on his feet; in tune with culture; making connections all day long. When i look back at those very early pictures of Avedon, in the white shirt and the skinny black ties, it sorta feels like the vibe of this Schuman guy. Imagine how many people that he's come into contact with over the years. I'm not saying he's making deeply soulful portraits, but I think he does make nice (yet brief) connections with people. You can see it in their eyes. He reminds me of a young Bill Cunningham.
http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/ (http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/)
And trust me, read the Comments of his posts. Sometimes, each one numbers over a hundred. And nobody's sitting there obsessing about pixels. They're looking at CONTENT. I think Schuman's got it going on.
(And imagine his line item for Studio Rental and Permits and 7b Rentals and Catering: ZERO! Find some great light, get five minutes with someone, shoot RAW, and be gone. Brilliant!)
Excellent, you are absolutly spot on. Great portraiture not pretending to be artist and still is. I see him as a kind of modern August Sander.
-
Yes, she is the greatest.
Ok, she's got the crazy budgets. But her work is always outstanding.
She has some good ideas too.
Some that are very very close:
Norman Jean Roy
Art Streiber
Mark Seliger
Rankin
Tim
Some of these photographers could also be on my other list: Worst Portrait Photographer...... crap but still successfull, you could also add photographers like Michael Grecco etc.
Cheers
TES
-
Jane Brown. Superb portrait 'tog.
clicky (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/JaneBown/JaneBown_gallery.swf)
Jane BOWN
Has always bemused me -a few snaps of famous people generally out of focus, in a bad way - no comprende why she is considered good
Generally arrogant about other press photographers - 'rushing off and not taking their time'
that the difference between working for a daily paper rather than a weekly one
I like her snap of Cilla Black however, because it required speed of observation..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gal...cture=354266995 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/gallery/2009/oct/18/jane-bown-60-years-portraits?picture=354266995)
S
-
Here's my take on so called "portrait photographers" who photograph celebrities. A portrait should tell a story about a person, sort of define a part of what makes them tick. My problem with photographers who photograph actors is that generally all we are getting, is actors doing what they do best. Acting. Very few if any photographs of actors are the least bit revealing of anything and the only reason we even look is because we "know" them. Much like if we saw a picture of someone we knew or were acquainted with, we would be more drawn to look at it because we already have some sort of relationship with them. Some people confuse that with being a good portrait.
So to me, a real portrait photographer or at least a good one can take a picture of someone we DON"T know and make it memorable or breathtaking. Naturally, Migrant mother comes to mind as well as the Afghan lady with the incredibly haunting eyes. To me these are portraits. They move you and draw you in. A human empathy thing is stirred in us.
When was the last time you were stirred by a celebrity "portrait". It's mostly just unremarkable and usually as banal as the people in the photograph. Having your work on the cover of a magazine, or a book out at Christmas doesn't make you a portrait photographer just a photographer who shoots celebrities.
The freak show aspect of so called "portraits" also at times may be interesting, like going into a UFO and looking around, but not necessarily too revealing about the subject. Avedon's, western stuff is like that, as well as some native American stuff and some of Penn's work. Interesting, photojournalistic to be sure, but not really a portrait.
I find that fashion photographers trying portraiture often have plastic look to their work much like their fashion work. There is an unaccessibility to it, it's often technically good but very stand off-ish. Quite the opposite of what portraiture should be.
So my take on it is, it has to move you, transport you, and hit the empathy spot in you, then it has a chance to be a good portrait.
I'm sure on this forum, your mileage will vary.
Michael
-
Here's my take on so called "portrait photographers" who photograph celebrities. A portrait should tell a story about a person, sort of define a part of what makes them tick. My problem with photographers who photograph actors is that generally all we are getting, is actors doing what they do best. Acting. Very few if any photographs of actors are the least bit revealing of anything and the only reason we even look is because we "know" them. Much like if we saw a picture of someone we knew or were acquainted with, we would be more drawn to look at it because we already have some sort of relationship with them. Some people confuse that with being a good portrait.
So to me, a real portrait photographer or at least a good one can take a picture of someone we DON"T know and make it memorable or breathtaking. Naturally, Migrant mother comes to mind as well as the Afghan lady with the incredibly haunting eyes. To me these are portraits. They move you and draw you in. A human empathy thing is stirred in us.
When was the last time you were stirred by a celebrity "portrait". It's mostly just unremarkable and usually as banal as the people in the photograph. Having your work on the cover of a magazine, or a book out at Christmas doesn't make you a portrait photographer just a photographer who shoots celebrities.
The freak show aspect of so called "portraits" also at times may be interesting, like going into a UFO and looking around, but not necessarily too revealing about the subject. Avedon's, western stuff is like that, as well as some native American stuff and some of Penn's work. Interesting, photojournalistic to be sure, but not really a portrait.
I find that fashion photographers trying portraiture often have plastic look to their work much like their fashion work. There is an unaccessibility to it, it's often technically good but very stand off-ish. Quite the opposite of what portraiture should be.
So my take on it is, it has to move you, transport you, and hit the empathy spot in you, then it has a chance to be a good portrait.
I'm sure on this forum, your mileage will vary.
Michael
My thoughts as well
each of us having a different definition of what a portrait is.
It's sad that a celebrity subject validates a photo, and many a photographer's career.
So very few of their images are memorable, let alone belong in a book or on a wall.
-
So my take on it is, it has to move you, transport you, and hit the empathy spot in you, then it has a chance to be a good portrait.
I agree with a lot of what you are writing.
You should have a look at Fazal Sheikh a portrait photographer with empathy his books Moksha and Ladli are masterpieces, real stories not faking celeb or fasion.
http://www.fazalsheikh.org/11_ladli/online...on_en/start.php (http://www.fazalsheikh.org/11_ladli/online_edition_en/start.php)
http://www.fazalsheikh.org/10_moksha/onlin...on_en/start.php (http://www.fazalsheikh.org/10_moksha/online_edition_en/start.php)
Cheers
TES
-
Today: Irving Penn
Perhaps a minor point: Irving Penn died October, 2009.
-
Painters do it so much better (http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/Bacon/FBFaces.html)
Oh well, Klaban, if you take this great master (one of my favorite painters) you put the level to the genious; it is not easy to beat, even in the painting.
Maybe Araki ?
-
Painters do it so much better (http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/Bacon/FBFaces.html)
But then, painters never have to prove they are producing art - they just are, even when it's poor art. That instantly gives them a pretty cool advantage. Were a snapper to emulate the Bacon paintings you showed in your link, perhaps by shooting through a distorting glass or into one of those funny mirrors, it would be put down as gimmick. No-win situation?
À propos de nothing relevant - or not - I saw on France24 that the striking Greeks have blocked port access for some tourist returning to their cruise boat; hmmmm, who needs volcanic ash?
Rob C
-
But then, painters never have to prove they are producing art - they just are, even when it's poor art. That instantly gives them a pretty cool advantage. Were a snapper to emulate the Bacon paintings you showed in your link, perhaps by shooting through a distorting glass or into one of those funny mirrors, it would be put down as gimmick. No-win situation?
So you're saying this (http://www.zoadordanet.blogger.com.br/funny%20baby.jpg) is art?
No flaming please
-
Folks, this has been a great thread, and the suggestions I have been getting are pretty good, much better than on FM forum.
Regarding the definition of a portrait. Isn't a portrait made to provide the subject with an picture of themselves? Don't most people want the best picture of themselves?
In that sense, should not the best portrait present the subject in the best way; with the most relaxed and confidant expression and pose. And make use of the best lighting and background to go along with the subject's appearance and clothing. Also to be different enough so it does not look like everyone's else portrait.
Some photographers want to dig deeper and to some how display the inner soul of the subject in the picture but that is not what most people want a portrait for. They just want a portrait to look good. In that sense the best portrait photographer is the one that makes people look their best with the right combination of lighting, pose, expression, background, etc. How you deiced to light the subject, turn their head, how high to have the camera, or how you interact with them and attain their interest are the kind of things that will ultimately make or break the picture. Get all those elements right and that will make an amazing portraits.
-
Folks, this has been a great thread, and the suggestions I have been getting are pretty good, much better than on FM forum.
Regarding the definition of a portrait. Isn't a portrait made to provide the subject with an picture of themselves? Don't most people want the best picture of themselves?
In that sense, should not the best portrait present the subject in the best way; with the most relaxed and confidant expression and pose. And make use of the best lighting and background to go along with the subject's appearance and clothing. Also to be different enough so it does not look like everyone's else portrait.
Some photographers want to dig deeper and to some how display the inner soul of the subject in the picture but that is not what most people want a portrait for. They just want a portrait to look good. In that sense the best portrait photographer is the one that makes people look their best with the right combination of lighting, pose, expression, background, etc. How you deiced to light the subject, turn their head, how high to have the camera, or how you interact with them and attain their interest are the kind of things that will ultimately make or break the picture. Get all those elements right and that will make an amazing portraits.
IMO this is exactly the recipe of boring and unintresting portraiture.
You can get your inspiration from: http://tinyurl.com/3xygezc (http://tinyurl.com/3xygezc)
OR you can get inspiration from: http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2008/02/what_m...great_portrait/ (http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2008/02/what_makes_a_great_portrait/)
It is your choice.....
-
Painters do it so much better (http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/Bacon/FBFaces.html)
Other great classic painters dealing with portrature
Lucian Freud
Frank Auerbach
Alberto Giacometti
Helene Schjerfbeck
Gerhard Richters
IMO great portraiture have to be an artist statement - it needs to say more about that maker of the image than the subject.
-
Folks, this has been a great thread, and the suggestions I have been getting are pretty good, much better than on FM forum.
Regarding the definition of a portrait. Isn't a portrait made to provide the subject with an picture of themselves? Don't most people want the best picture of themselves?
In that sense, should not the best portrait present the subject in the best way; with the most relaxed and confidant expression and pose. And make use of the best lighting and background to go along with the subject's appearance and clothing. Also to be different enough so it does not look like everyone's else portrait.
Some photographers want to dig deeper and to some how display the inner soul of the subject in the picture but that is not what most people want a portrait for. They just want a portrait to look good. In that sense the best portrait photographer is the one that makes people look their best with the right combination of lighting, pose, expression, background, etc. How you deiced to light the subject, turn their head, how high to have the camera, or how you interact with them and attain their interest are the kind of things that will ultimately make or break the picture. Get all those elements right and that will make an amazing portraits.
What you describe is a consumer product, which of course has its place, but its not art.
-
Some of these photographers could also be on my other list: Worst Portrait Photographer...... crap but still successfull, you could also add photographers like Michael Grecco etc.
Cheers
TES
Nahh TES, Grecco is not in the same league
-
Back in 2002 there was a Richter retrospective at MoMA. It blew me away. I went back three times, I stayed by myself until the museum closed. It made me shakey, a little sweaty.
Freud the Elder is my fav. portrait painter.
I dig the rest of your list as well.
I'd like to add Frank Ochenfels to the list of portrait shooters.
T
Other great classic painters dealing with portrature
Lucian Freud
Frank Auerbach
Alberto Giacometti
Helene Schjerfbeck
Gerhard Richters
IMO great portraiture have to be an artist statement - it needs to say more about that maker of the image than the subject.
-
Folks, this has been a great thread, and the suggestions I have been getting are pretty good, much better than on FM forum.
Regarding the definition of a portrait. Isn't a portrait made to provide the subject with an picture of themselves? Don't most people want the best picture of themselves?
In that sense, should not the best portrait present the subject in the best way; with the most relaxed and confidant expression and pose. And make use of the best lighting and background to go along with the subject's appearance and clothing. Also to be different enough so it does not look like everyone's else portrait.
Some photographers want to dig deeper and to some how display the inner soul of the subject in the picture but that is not what most people want a portrait for. They just want a portrait to look good. In that sense the best portrait photographer is the one that makes people look their best with the right combination of lighting, pose, expression, background, etc. How you deiced to light the subject, turn their head, how high to have the camera, or how you interact with them and attain their interest are the kind of things that will ultimately make or break the picture. Get all those elements right and that will make an amazing portraits.
No. That's what I do and what it's called is a NICE portrait. Someone wants me to take a pretty picture of them or of their family or children. What we do after years of experience and training in lighting and posing is produce something that they can show their friends and be proud of.
That however is not a GREAT portrait. It's just a nice one.
Lets say we have an executive and he needs a portrait of him and his fellow executives individually photographed, and he wants his fancy new office building in the background. We could easily take a nice picture of him, good lighting, dramatic, good flattering pose, etc and do all his people the same way. Every picture would be nice but in essence all the pictures look pretty much the same. They are interchangeable. Well they are nice portraits but not really portraits because they didn't really reveal too much about anybody, they just looked nice.
There are a few things you have to remember. Who is paying the bill is very often the determining factor in what is produced. Lets take a portrait photographer or good photojournalist who is working for some publication. They may be, or should be, trying to take a portrait to show the soul ( I hate that definition but you get the idea) of the subject. The resulting picture may or definitely may not, flatter the subject but may indeed be a true and great portrait. The publication may love it and the subject may hate it.
On the other hand if a photographer is hired by the subject, you can be sure that the portrait needs to be flattering, or your reputation as a portrait photographer will suffer. Obviously the trick is to try to get both elements to align, but very often finances can get into the way. Most people cannot afford to have a photographer hang around them for a day or longer to have the photographer know and understand them enough to get great portraits of them, so we settle for nice.
With us it's usually our personal work is where we work on GREAT and sometimes our clients love them.
Michael
-
I know this might seem like heresy, but I think that Scott Schuman has a great style going, with The Sartorialist. I think he's the modern version of a portrait photographer -- mobile camera; fast on his feet; in tune with culture; making connections all day long. When i look back at those very early pictures of Avedon, in the white shirt and the skinny black ties, it sorta feels like the vibe of this Schuman guy. Imagine how many people that he's come into contact with over the years. I'm not saying he's making deeply soulful portraits, but I think he does make nice (yet brief) connections with people. You can see it in their eyes. He reminds me of a young Bill Cunningham.
http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/ (http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/)
And trust me, read the Comments of his posts. Sometimes, each one numbers over a hundred. And nobody's sitting there obsessing about pixels. They're looking at CONTENT. I think Schuman's got it going on.
(And imagine his line item for Studio Rental and Permits and 7b Rentals and Catering: ZERO! Find some great light, get five minutes with someone, shoot RAW, and be gone. Brilliant!)
Yes, I enjoy his photos, but ultimately they're about the clothes, not portraits of the people.
-
Other great classic painters dealing with portrature
Lucian Freud
Frank Auerbach
Alberto Giacometti
Helene Schjerfbeck
Gerhard Richters
IMO great portraiture have to be an artist statement - it needs to say more about that maker of the image than the subject.
How about the greatest of them all? Rembrandt van Rijn? Even today I see many photographs trying to emulate not only his type of lighting but also (maybe even more so) the gorgeous toning that is in many of his paintings.
My favorites change over time, there are many that have made images I really like. To name a few; Annie Leibovitz, Jock Sturges, Sally Mann, Edward Weston, Fazal Sheikh, Stephan van Fleteren, etc..
-
How about the greatest of them all? Rembrandt van Rijn? Even today I see many photographs trying to emulate not only his type of lighting but also (maybe even more so) the gorgeous toning that is in many of his paintings.
My favorites change over time, there are many that have made images I really like. To name a few; Annie Leibovitz, Jock Sturges, Sally Mann, Edward Weston, Fazal Sheikh, Stephan van Fleteren, etc..
YES, I saw a Rembrandt exhibition at the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam and it mada an everlasting impression on me.
You have a great tradition of portrature in your Country, in photography I would mention:
Rineke Dijkstra
Hellen van Meene
Koos Breukel
Annaleen Louwes
Bert Teunissen (domestic landscapes portrait)
Sanne Sannes (the erotic portrait, an old favorite, reminds me of Anders Petersens work)
Dustbak, do you happen to know any of these artist in person ?
Cheers
TES
-
YES, I saw a Rembrandt exhibition at the Rijks Museum in Amsterdam and it mada an everlasting impression on me.
You have a great tradition of portrature in your Country, in photography I would mention:
Rineke Dijkstra
Hellen van Meene
Koos Breukel
Annaleen Louwes
Bert Teunissen (domestic landscapes portrait)
Sanne Sannes (the erotic portrait, an old favorite, reminds me of Anders Petersens work)
Dustbak, do you happen to know any of these artist in person ?
Cheers
TES
It took me years to start really appreciating the work of him. Only several years ago I started to notice the various toning he uses in his portraits. This is so beautiful and still even with post processing in PS hard to achieve.
Only Hellen van Meene I know personally but not well. She comes from the same city as I do. I like the work of Bert Teunissen. Not sure whether I really like the work of Rineke Dijkstra often I do and sometimes I don't depending on the mood I am in. Frankly almost everybody has work I like, mostly for different reasons. I always try to see the why in images and see the good things in them.
-
My favorites change over time, there are many that have made images I really like. To name a few; Annie Leibovitz, Jock Sturges, Sally Mann, Edward Weston, Fazal Sheikh, Stephan van Fleteren, etc..
Thanks for Stephan van Fleteren, I did not know his work before, I like it a lot and just ordered his book Portret 1989-2009.
It took me years to start really appreciating the work of him. Only several years ago I started to notice the various toning he uses in his portraits. This is so beautiful and still even with post processing in PS hard to achieve.
I love the darkness of his portraits - or should I say the dark parts of the portraits, so vivid.
Frankly almost everybody has work I like, mostly for different reasons. I always try to see the why in images and see the good things in them.
You are a wise man, I tend to be pissed off by bad work. Perhaps because I care too much......
-
Painters do it so much better (http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/Bacon/FBFaces.html)
Now we have Photoshop, and cameras that can produce sharpish two foot by three foot pictures, we have (at last) the tools to "do it" as well as painters.
...is anybody else contemplating tackling the "swagger-portrait" market... and carrying on where the 17/18th century master left off?
-
Now we have Photoshop, and cameras that can produce sharpish two foot by three foot pictures, we have (at last) the tools to "do it" as well as painters.
IMO a good portrait has little to do with sharpness.
...is anybody else contemplating tackling the "swagger-portrait" market... and carrying on where the 17/18th century master left off?
http://www.charlesfreger.com/ (http://www.charlesfreger.com/)
-
So you're saying this (http://www.zoadordanet.blogger.com.br/funny%20baby.jpg) is art?
No flaming please
I'm thinking: it's a damn good Bacon!
Rob C
-
No. That's what I do and what it's called is a NICE portrait. Someone wants me to take a pretty picture of them or of their family or children. What we do after years of experience and training in lighting and posing is produce something that they can show their friends and be proud of.
That however is not a GREAT portrait. It's just a nice one.
Lets say we have an executive and he needs a portrait of him and his fellow executives individually photographed, and he wants his fancy new office building in the background. We could easily take a nice picture of him, good lighting, dramatic, good flattering pose, etc and do all his people the same way. Every picture would be nice but in essence all the pictures look pretty much the same. They are interchangeable. Well they are nice portraits but not really portraits because they didn't really reveal too much about anybody, they just looked nice.
There are a few things you have to remember. Who is paying the bill is very often the determining factor in what is produced. Lets take a portrait photographer or good photojournalist who is working for some publication. They may be, or should be, trying to take a portrait to show the soul ( I hate that definition but you get the idea) of the subject. The resulting picture may or definitely may not, flatter the subject but may indeed be a true and great portrait. The publication may love it and the subject may hate it.
On the other hand if a photographer is hired by the subject, you can be sure that the portrait needs to be flattering, or your reputation as a portrait photographer will suffer. Obviously the trick is to try to get both elements to align, but very often finances can get into the way. Most people cannot afford to have a photographer hang around them for a day or longer to have the photographer know and understand them enough to get great portraits of them, so we settle for nice.
With us it's usually our personal work is where we work on GREAT and sometimes our clients love them.
Michael
Very realistic summing up of the business.
Rob C
-
Dick, I dare say if you gave Leonardo da Vinci the latestgreatestmultimegapixeldigitalcapturecamera he'd bang out masterpiece after masterpiece, but in most hands the only thing being banged out by the latestgreatestmultimegapixeldigitalcapturecameras is sharper and more detailed shite.
I agree with what you say... and 60Mpx (or even 40) can seem far too much for portraiture (even full length), unless you re-touch every pore... but, if someone wants a portrait to be the main focus in the main room of a £1M house, and they are paying you real money for it, they would expect quality (artistic and technical).
-
Thanks for Stephan van Fleteren, I did not know his work before, I like it a lot and just ordered his book Portret 1989-2009.
I love the darkness of his portraits - or should I say the dark parts of the portraits, so vivid.
You are a wise man, I tend to be pissed off by bad work. Perhaps because I care too much......
You will love that book. I have it here and the images are moving. I used to be the same way until I realized in this way it is very easy to get poisoned by the negativity you create while getting pissed off over bad work. It will always also have an impact on your own work. Better just not look at it, turn away and look at something else I try to not get pissed off and succeed most of the time
-
I agree with what you say... and 60Mpx (or even 40) can seem far too much for portraiture (even full length), unless you re-touch every pore... but, if someone wants a portrait to be the main focus in the main room of a £1M house, and they are paying you real money for it, they would expect quality (artistic and technical).
My father in law is a fairly well known artist over here (painter, sculptur and diamond/gold smith). He made a whole series of paintings based on 0.3MP images from an ancient Sony blown up to 2m x 1.2m. Together with the handmade frame they were awesome.
Not always a need for lots of details or technical perfection, people too often forget their creativity. Admittedly, I am no different but I try to keep this in mind and try to put emotion into what I do. I hope I have mastered technique well enough to be able to forget about it..
-
...I hope I have mastered technique well enough to be able to forget about it..
I look forward to being good enough to concentrate on the subject rather than the equipment!
-
I look forward to being good enough to concentrate on the subject rather than the equipment!
....
Hasselblad H3D11-50 and 50-110mm zoom, CF adapter, 4 Metz flashes.
Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Sling that lot out and get a nikon D3 - then you can concentrate on the subject
maybe dont bother with the D3 and get a compact camera (http://www.terryrichardson.com/)
S
-
Arnold Newman
Yup I would go with Newman too, Sally Mann her family pictures and the Holywood studio guys.
Kevin.
-
Thanks everybody for your feedback. I have finally finished going through all the names and links. I hope I did not miss anybody, but some photographers do not have online galleries so its hard to tell how good they are. The ones I liked the most are (in no specific order):
http://www.danman.com/ (http://www.danman.com/)
http://www.art-dept.com/artists/roy/ (http://www.art-dept.com/artists/roy/)
http://www.markseliger.com/ (http://www.markseliger.com/)
http://www.stephenkennedy.com/ (http://www.stephenkennedy.com/)
http://www.rankin.co.uk/ (http://www.rankin.co.uk/)
http://www.marcogrob.com/ (http://www.marcogrob.com/)
I also liked:
http://martinschoeller.com/ (http://martinschoeller.com/)
http://www.marktucker.com (http://www.marktucker.com)
http://www.artstreiber.com/ (http://www.artstreiber.com/)
The ones I did not like are all the old photographers that have either celebrity or just boring and blank expression (so called soul diggers) portraits. Soooo many of them were mentioned here under the pretext of "art".
The one thing that I was surprised not to find is an amazing portrait photographer. Amazing portraits do exist and I see them every once and while (ex: Monte Zucker's two books covers portraits). They are usually made with beautiful or dramatic lighting, interesting environments/setup, and awesome expressions and poses. I am curious why since those pictures exist why isn't there a photographer that specializes in making them.
-
i would ad here in europe:
http://www.nadavkander.com (http://www.nadavkander.com)
or
http://www.niko-schmidburgk.de (http://www.niko-schmidburgk.de)
-
The ones I did not like are all the old photographers that have either celebrity or just boring and blank expression (so called soul diggers) portraits. Soooo many of them were mentioned here under the pretext of "art".
Thanks for the insult. Next time I won't take the time to help you compile a list you could have come up with using Google.
-
Thanks for the insult. Next time I won't take the time to help you compile a list you could have come up with using Google.
Agree TMARK! Found Abdul's list completly inadecuate WAMR. What's the point of pointing users list in a forum where everybody is giving their thoughts like: and the winners are...? well, it probably makes feel superior or what?
JZ, American gangster TV... coca-cola, double burger with cheese, museum.
One day, Salvador Dali voted the painters he liked and disliked but first: That was pure provocation, and second: that was Salvador Dali.
As often, the celebrity of some disturbs the sleep of others in their averageness. IMHO.
-
I look forward to being good enough to concentrate on the subject rather than the equipment!
Interesting Dick.
In my understanding, there are 2 important factors into your post.
1) The equipment have to be mastered to forgot about it, but i found that there are equipments that help you to forget (or serve you), and others that are just an hassle, whatever level of technique you can get.
2) On the other hand, my humble experience is showing me that there is also a choice to make, exactly like you decide to drive your car at a particular time,
and this choice is just writen in your post's sentence. Just a matter of deciding it, because no doubt that you are probably good enough. So why looking forward something that is already there? So it's just doing what you are looking for now, in the present time, regardless of the technique you desire to acheive. IMHO.
-
Thanks for the insult. Next time I won't take the time to help you compile a list you could have come up with using Google.
lol, are you serious?
Agree TMARK! Found Abdul's list completly inadecuate WAMR. What's the point of pointing users list in a forum where everybody is giving their thoughts like: and the winners are...? well, it probably makes feel superior or what?
JZ, American gangster TV... coca-cola, double burger with cheese, museum.
One day, Salvador Dali voted the painters he liked and disliked but first: That was pure provocation, and second: that was Salvador Dali.
As often, the celebrity of some disturbs the sleep of others in their averageness. IMHO.
are you also serious? where did you read winners? it was about what I liked
there was enough people here calling peoples work that I liked "average" "terrible" "poor" and yet you are so bothered that I expressed my opinion about work you like in simpler terms, so much so that you go on this rant?
-
lol, are you serious?
are you also serious? where did you read winners? it was about what I liked
there was enough people here calling peoples work that I liked "average" "terrible" "poor" and yet you are so bothered that I expressed my opinion about work you like in simpler terms, so much so that you go on this rant?
Abdul, of course you expressed your tastes, that's not what I disliked at all. In your post there is a kind of "classification", and that is where I disagree.
Not that I'm thinking that you are not free to write what you want to, but I'm also free to express a disagreement.
This is what I found discreminating as other member mentionned.
"The ones I did not like are all the old photographers that have either celebrity or just boring and blank expression (so called soul diggers) portraits. Soooo many of them were mentioned here under the pretext of "art".
Sounds you have superior knowledge, frankly.
Not big deal, not very important, just a remark.
-
TMARK
Glad to find your site - added it to my 'fav' list. In particular, I liked very much the Jack Daniels collection and, in the advertising set, I was very taken with the mood/execution of Compaq Computer's (23/24) girl on the water.
You have what I would describe as a very American style of photography - a way of looking at photographic images that I do not feel common within the European school.
Good work.
Rob C
-
TMARK
Glad to find your site - added it to my 'fav' list. In particular, I liked very much the Jack Daniels collection and, in the advertising set, I was very taken with the mood/execution of Compaq Computer's (23/24) girl on the water.
You have what I would describe as a very American style of photography - a way of looking at photographic images that I do not feel common within the European school.
Good work.
Rob C
Agree,
the Jack Daniel's serie is brillant.
Also like the minimalist look of the website. Picture are the center, not the design. I always like this approach.
Generaly, I love the way he uses DOF. PP also is very high level.
Feel very close to this photographic approach.
Actually, I'm learning a lot from TMARK.
Yes, great work.
Edit: PS: Also there are lots of great pictures in his blog. Really enjoy!
-
Hey thanks for the kind words but I'm not Mark Tucker!
T
TMARK
Glad to find your site - added it to my 'fav' list. In particular, I liked very much the Jack Daniels collection and, in the advertising set, I was very taken with the mood/execution of Compaq Computer's (23/24) girl on the water.
You have what I would describe as a very American style of photography - a way of looking at photographic images that I do not feel common within the European school.
Good work.
Rob C
-
Fred,
I'd love to take credit it but alas I am not Mark Tucker. I dig his work.
T
Agree,
the Jack Daniel's serie is brillant.
Also like the minimalist look of the website. Picture are the center, not the design. I always like this approach.
Generaly, I love the way he uses DOF. PP also is very high level.
Feel very close to this photographic approach.
Actually, I'm learning a lot from TMARK.
Yes, great work.
Edit: PS: Also there are lots of great pictures in his blog. Really enjoy!
-
Fred,
I'd love to take credit it but alas I am not Mark Tucker. I dig his work.
T
I thought Dick was Mark?
-
I thought Dick was Mark?
No - in the beginning there was Mathew, Mark, Luke and Johnnie B. Goode. The rest is confusion. Clearly.
Rob C
-
Fred,
I'd love to take credit it but alas I am not Mark Tucker. I dig his work.
T
What a confusion!! Sorry about that TMARK.
In fact one day I was looking for your website, and I was 90% sure you were Mark Tucker.
It's what we call in french: mettre les pieds dans le plat. (put the feet into the plate)
-
Mark, must have a lot of fun reading this. ( and I know that he does check LL )
BTW He IS one of the greatest portrait shooters. He created my portrait in just five minutes and it is the best portrait I ever had in my life.
Andre
-
Mark, must have a lot of fun reading this. ( and I know that he does check LL )
BTW He IS one of the greatest portrait shooters. He created my portrait in just five minutes and it is the best portrait I ever had in my life.
Andre
can you post it?
-
can you post it?
Here it is.
http://www.marktucker.com/2/Artist.asp?Art...p;Akey=MPEGN7AE (http://www.marktucker.com/2/Artist.asp?ArtistID=27916&Akey=MPEGN7AE)
-
Mark, must have a lot of fun reading this. ( and I know that he does check LL )
BTW He IS one of the greatest portrait shooters. He created my portrait in just five minutes and it is the best portrait I ever had in my life.
Andre
Hey Andre, great work too. Like the personal works a lot.
------------------------
But guys, why all the wesite I've been watching so far are using Flash? Specially AS3 ?
I've been in the past a flash guru, when I was a designer so I'm not against it. But when they implemented AS3 I gave up this path.
I mean, using proper html, Andre's or Mark's website will be 10 times faster, stable and with full browsers coverage, IPAD and phones compatible etc...
With the html 5, and what's going on in the next generations, even for videos speaking, I strongly recommend you call your favorite designer and ask him or her to
redo the website in html with a proper CMS.
Ps: I'm serious about it, there are changes in the air where flash is going to suffer. Taking the train now is better IMHO.
-
My post about Flash websites has been writen without many diplomacy; want to ad here that I expressed my idea with all the respect in mind for one's choice and as Klaban said, without intention to offend.
Flash has opened doors and became very fashionable. Maybe too much IMO.
Lots of platforms are using it. But since AS3, it is heavy, unstable and has compatibility problems.
My criticisms where aimed from a user's frustration, when a work is worth the look and you just stuck into the thumbs loadings etc...
I have a very good conection at home, and the experience is sometimes painfull.
When we are talking about high end pro work, it is just frustrating.
On the contrary, just have a look at Klaban's website made with html and compare how fast, immediate it is! What's the most pleasant experience?
Do you have to wait for thumbnails with the little "loader"? Etc...
This is a proof of what I was saying. There are of course many more.
His web site can be view in any platform also.
I can assure you that most of the websites I've been watching so far under flash would run really faster, I mean immediate, with just Html code.
The new mediums like phones, Ipad are telling us also that the Flash supremacy is about to end soon.
I just think that these are serious questions that are worth considering from now.
Regards.
-
I look forward to being good enough to concentrate on the subject rather than the equipment!
Hasselblad H3D11-50 and 50-110mm zoom, CF adapter, 4 Metz flashes.
Sinar P3 monorail view camera, Schneider Apo-digitar lenses
Sling that lot out and get a nikon D3 - then you can concentrate on the subject
maybe dont bother with the D3 and get a compact camera (http://www.terryrichardson.com/)
S
I have a Leica Dlux 3, which I am considering replacing with a GF 1,
...I had thought about a D3X... but I could put the money towards a CFV39 for a back-up system (on my ELD, 500 and Flexbody).
...and my business plan is to concentrate on work that you cannot do (well) with a DSLR!
-
Thanks for kind words.
Please check if this is any better, it is not finished still a lot of work to do but we are working to make it more user friendly.
It is 99% java script.
http://AndreNapierStudio.com (http://AndreNapierStudio.com)
-
Thanks for kind words.
Please check if this is any better, it is not finished still a lot of work to do but we are working to make it more user friendly.
It is 99% java script.
http://AndreNapierStudio.com (http://AndreNapierStudio.com)
Hi Andre.
I guess the 1% flash residual is located in the index.
It's faster with no doubt, although not immediate as it should be.
Sorry Andre: I'll be direct, but I think that's the best way to be usefull.
The main problem I saw is that the thumbs are not displayed with the required definition, they are blured and you understand that professionaly,
when you are in "fashion" and see the blured thumbnails, it is just not possible. Do not allow that happen in your website. Java is ok BUT sometimes a little amateur issues like the Jquery lightboxes that are used in any wordpress stuff. This is because they are open-sources and it's difficult to fall on a really serious gallery system.
Again, watch Klaban thumbs= razor sharp. There is no script (that I can recognize) on Klaban website, and that changes A LOT the speed.
I smell also that probably, the pics are directly put into the web with a non-optimized web resolution using a downsampling?? because the time to open a pic is really long.
In fact as long as in the flash version. Thumbs appear faster, but then we are back on the same problem.
Not sure about that but it smells a reduction process very drastic. An AD will give up in 3 minutes because of the slowness.
Then, do not know for sure, but have the feeling also that there is an Ajax platform behind the scene. That is my interpretation but it might not be the case. In fact, to resume, there is an "overdosis" of Script. No matter if the script in question is Action Script or JavaScript, but a script has to be implement with caution. In a presentation? fine. In a gallery=NO (or you need to be a guru). The reason is simply because of speed, compatibility and stability.
IMHO.
Cheers.
-
Thank you,
I wish I would understand anything anything that you just said. I am a complete ignorant when it comes to it but I will forward it it to my web master.
Thanks again.
Andre
-
Thank you,
I wish I would understand anything anything that you just said. I am a complete ignorant when it comes to it but I will forward it it to my web master.
Thanks again.
Andre
oh oh...hope is friendly with you and does not feel offensed easyly .
I mean, the thumbs are very important. As the owner of your work, you can't let that happen IMO. This is your image. And the webmaster has to understand it, like it or not.
Look what proper html can do (Klaban kind of platform), and compare with 2 browsers as a user the experience.
Good luck anyway. Hope it will be helpfull for you.
Cheers.
-
Look what proper html can do
my site is completely HTML, with a dash of CSS and Javascript.
/adam
-
my site is completely HTML, with a dash of CSS and Javascript.
/adam
Really impressed by the quality of your work in arquitecture.
Added in my favorites.
Edit: Ps: hey, big format quality can be seen even downsampled for the web. Now there is no doubt for me about that fact.
-
Thanks for kind words.
Please check if this is any better, it is not finished still a lot of work to do but we are working to make it more user friendly.
It is 99% java script.
http://AndreNapierStudio.com (http://AndreNapierStudio.com)
Andre,
Weddings, not weedings (in Packages and Pricing drop-down menu).
-
BJNW
Wow, Thank you very much. That is a big one. I do not know how we missed it having a person hired just for writing and checking the spelling.
It is probably because the misspelling reflects how I feel about shooting weddings.
I took a look at the thumbs and they do look awful. Something had to go wrong because non of us in the studio remember it looking this way before.
The website is in beta stage and we do not promote it yet. Any tips highly appreciated.
Andre
http://AndreNapierStudio.com (http://AndreNapierStudio.com)
-
Really impressed by the quality of your work in arquitecture.
Added in my favorites.
Edit: Ps: hey, big format quality can be seen even downsampled for the web. Now there is no doubt for me about that fact.
Thanks!
Be careful!, a few of them are done on Nikon/Canon
I know I'm guilty, but I do not think we should hijack this thread with too much web design, - it have been a very good one, for the most part, I especially enjoyed the postings from tesfoto and TMARK - Thanks a lot!
/adam
-
Thank you,
I wish I would understand anything anything that you just said. I am a complete ignorant when it comes to it but I will forward it it to my web master.
Thanks again.
Andre
I wish I understood anything like that too; in fact, that sort of technical ignorance (mine) is what is constantly getting in my way. I just don't seem to have the sort of mind that either finds it interesting or understandable; I have no idea why some minds really enjoy and grasp it all. Thank God that they do, though!
Before I retired, the last paid people shots were on Kodachrome and the last commerical non-moving subject was on Velvia. I had no fears and, in retrospect, I seem to have been flying by the seat of my pants: I seldom plotted anything ahead and did it mostly on the wing. Perhaps that explains why I believe that, had digital methodology been the norm back in the 50s, I would never have heard of LuLa today. I might even have been a rich old man (next year, next year, still too young to qualify!) doing something else.
Rob C
-
Thanks!
Be careful!, a few of them are done on Nikon/Canon
I know I'm guilty, but I do not think we should hijack this thread with too much web design, - it have been a very good one, for the most part, I especially enjoyed the postings from tesfoto and TMARK - Thanks a lot!
/adam
I've seen the CanNikons intrusions
You are right. This topic about portrait is great. No more web design. Actually, I've been trying to be helpfull to Andre directly in his mail because that was not the right thread and did not want to inundate the topic with more datas. (web design could be a good section by the way).
-
I've seen the CanNikons intrusions
You are right. This topic about portrait is great. No more web design. Actually, I've been trying to be helpfull to Andre directly in his mail because that was not the right thread and did not want to inundate the topic with more datas. (web design could be a good section by the way).
Yep, and perhaps only you and Keith will understand any of it!
;-) or, alternatively, ;-(
Rob C