Jeff has an honesty in his work I rarely, if ever achieve.

The best I can do is try and catch them off guard... I can't wait to start scanning some new pics, soon. This was with an F3, I think, and a 75-150mm f3.5 Series E. Sarah is an actress.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), September 29, 2000

Answers

what's not honest about this shot? the lady is laughing openly and freely, and you did a great job of capturing the moment. she is gorgeous, and that (as most here are now aware) is the most important factor, imnsho.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), October 02, 2000.

Well, maybe it counts in a shot like this?...but I don't really understand what you mean otherwise...that gorgeous is necessary? if so, what is gorgeous to you?

sorry if I'm lost on this...

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), October 03, 2000.

well, shawn, consider this: if this woman was plain and obese, would you have made an effort to produce her image, given the same existential conditions? if so, why? what is the point in taking a picture of an unattractive lady in a bar, *assuming* that the image of the lady is the only subject of the picture? obviously, if you have a different purpose, such as a documentary for any nearly infinite reasons, or if she is your friend or cousin and you want to produce a basic recordation of her personage, then you take the shot and so be it. but i don't think you would submit the solo photo for critique on this forum. finally, i recognize the weakness in my position, or at least what i consider to be the primary shortcoming: where the hell do i get off deciding who is "gorgeous"? well, i suppose the only straight answer is that i think there are ideals held by the majority of posters here of who is or isn't attractive, and my bet is that one could summon a "sense of the forum" that would be acceptable to them that would include the lady in your image. now, my cousin, the subject of "sailor boy", may be another, more problematic, subject...at any rate, the questions of photographic philosophy often raised by these images are, i think, the source of interesting comment.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), October 03, 2000.

I may have sounded defensive/politically correct unwittingly there, Wayne. Sorry :-(

If she WAS 'not gorgeous' i probably would not have been shooting her; you're right.

I also get the sense that you, like many on this forum, have a...larger...view of what is gorgeous/beautiful etc. And in that sense, then yes, definitely, there must be something gorgeous (my proposition, not putting words in your mouth) in every photograph. even if it is the beauty/gorgeousness of The Ugly or Worse.

and o yeah, she was gorgeous as well...:-) (saying that pretending to be Liberace...!)

ps thanks for calling it honest. something I've often felt missing is the candidness of Jeff's 'poses'. I guess the fact that I remember chasing her around all night, and that she was posing for so much of it, left me a little blind to the freedom of her here.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), October 03, 2000.

The "candidness" of my photos comes from non-stop conversation. It's finding out what interests them, why they are wherever they are...it's sure not about photographic ability.

I think this one works, even though there's some unsettling spots by her left ear (earing? dust? easily fixed, whatever they are). I understand Wayne's point, I try to find beauty in everyone...

Vegetable Seller, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), October 04, 2000.

Wayne is making an excellent point here. My first thought when seeing your picture was that the subject is posing. Have you noticed that some people just pose all the time, no matter what? Traditionally "gorgeous" women like your subject are often very self- conscious and conscious about being watched, about their appearance at all times etc. The fact that she is an actress further contributes to this form of behaviour, I should think. I4ve noticed that your subjects are almost always young gorgeous women, so obviously a comparison to Jeff who photograps all sorts of people - I feel tempted to say REAL people :) - is hard to make. I4m not criticizing your choice of subjects, because you sometimes do wonders with them, just laying down the facts the way I see it.

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), October 04, 2000.

...no sense in criticizing what I've already come to realize myself, Cristel, by which I mean, no offence was taken. I have a portfolio full of young women; the only male in it is my 'attractive' brother.

It is something which has always bothered me. I seem to 'do' photography as a means of escape; yet when I look at others' photos, I am not at all drawn in by 'beauty' in the narrow sense (of young, beautiful women), but rather by photographers who shoot "real" people. Maybe I'm incapable of being a photographer of "real" people; honestly, I just don't know. One thing I DO KNOW, is that others are impressed by pictures of beautiful women, and the amount of alcohol I've occasionally had to consume in order to do the shoot in the first place leads me to belive, in the past, I've often been more concerned with what others think/may think, than what is actually what I myself what in a photograph.

As a side note, most of the women I've photographed, when people see them in real life, they often say "she looks a lot better in your pictures", a horrible thing to say, of course; but maybe I see beauty differently, and yet channel this vision through a pair of eyes which hopes to have some who look at my photos seeing the beauty I saw in the first place, which they may not have otherwise seen.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), October 04, 2000.

Well Shawn, if you make them look better than real life, you must be good :) I haven4t worked much with models myself, but lately I4ve come to realise the truth of something my friend Andy Laycock once said: - There is nothing worse than making a beautiful person look ugly! I was acutely aware of this last Thursday when I was dragging a 17 year old first time model all over town, shooting clothes, make-up and cell-phones in terrible lighting conditions and bland clothes- rack settings for advertising purposes. The pics are in the paper today, and I4m not alltogether happy with all of them - wish I had a little of your appreciation of female beauty :)

Oh yes - Andy also recently accused me of trying to create crowd pleasers. He was right. Some of us just need to be reminded sometimes, that4s not a bad thing. I wonder how a picture looks if it comes straight from your heart Shawn?

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), October 04, 2000.

I'd like to think some of my pictures come from my heart. But I'm usually so far removed that chances are, most are totally devoid of anything 'truly true' to my heart. The rare exceptions--my best friend's daughter and my best friend, who are the subject of so many photographs of mine, though (or because of the fact?) I am only there to be with them, really, but I just happen to be carrying my camera with me.

I find it hard to take heartfelt pics of 'hotties', even if at some level I am trying to get the world to see their beauty as it 'affects' me, which is probably not really heartfelt at all.

Sad to say.

I've just entered into buying A Leica CL and at least one lens. I am very excited. I've hardly shot in over a year (blaming cameras/gear, really...), but maybe 'all of the above' is the reason why.

How could I go from loving Rembrandt, Van Gogh, blue and rose Picasso, to...this...without a backlash against myself?

What I want most (I think, inside) is to shoot real people, but I have to find the courage for that first.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), October 04, 2000.

will someone please explain to me why beautiful people are *not* "real people"? how can the value of a work of art depend upon the bone structure or bank account of the persons in the image?

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), October 04, 2000.

Wayne, I don4t think we were discussing bone structure or bank accounts - I think we were talking about posing and self- consciousness versus honesty. I confess I made a generalisation, but I still think it holds - mostly :) I guess, to me, "real" people are people who take themselves for granted and are not trying to create any illusions about themselves, because it just hasn4t entered their minds that they should need to be any different than they are. Many, if not most, of us are that way when we think we4re not being watched. Yet, in front of a camera we pose - it4s like as if a set of conventions is pouring out of the lense - "walk this way, talk this way". I guess that4s why candid portraits are so appealing. As I said above, some people are just compulsive posers and not as much fun - IMPO :)

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), October 04, 2000.

I think you can make any of the women I shoot 'real' or not; or any subject for that matter. They are real, afterall, but being interpreted in a way which is a little less real than say HCB. The 'real-ness' comes from the photographer-photographed, their relationship, which is determined in my case by the objectivity I usually bring, the lack of real-ness.

Or something like that.

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), October 05, 2000.

...which begs the question, what kind of relationship did HCB have with someone running screaming in a war zone who was completely oblivious to HCBs camera/existence. Maybe then the photographer- photographed relationship has something to do with...who knows...god, magic, HEART...?

-- shawn (seeinsideforever@yahoo.com), October 06, 2000.