KRP

I know this has been discussed here several times. I liked this photo very much, the subject did not. I think in many ways it comes down to the way we look at ourselves, and the way we look at others.

-- mike rosenlof (mike_rosenlof@yahoo.com), February 07, 2001

Answers

I read about Imogen Cunningham not wanting to personally deliver her printing work to her customers because of this. In accompanying a photograph of her aged father, she wrote (paraphrase) "Give me a homely man for he has no illusions about himself." Kind of the same thing here. It's like hearing your voice on a tape recorder. There is nothing in the way this person looks that would make her look "bad" from an objective viewpoint. I guess the expression of dissatisfaction with a portrait by its subject speaks an entirely different story than the portait itself. My mother has to put on lipstick before she'll let anyone take a photograph of her, or else she gets angry as if the photographer is trying to show her in a bad light. Some of my favorite photographs of her are ones she can't stand.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), February 07, 2001.

I will pick up on Tony's comment:

I have a video of Imogen Cunningham in which she says the "problem" with portrait photography is that most people don't like themselves.

Edward Weston put a big sign in his studio window in Carmel California stating: "Unretouched Portraits." He grew very tired of trying to make a living making old ladies look like young babes (my paraphrase!)

Does that tell you something?

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), February 07, 2001.

There are only two kinds of portraits - those done to please the subject, and those done to please the photographer. You first have to decide which you are doing.

I really don't do portraits - partly because of this problem. However, I'd contrast this shot with this one that I posted before (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00477t).

It isn't a portrait of Vic as he actually looks face-to-face so much as how he sees himself. That's why he liked it.

I can visualize several other ways to shoot your subject. But what were you attempting to portray?

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), February 08, 2001.

Well on this one you seem to be looking at her from about two feet under her chin, which unnecessarily exagerates it, her neck and her mouth. These features are probably prominent to begin with, and shes probably sensetive about them, which may be why she doesnt like it..

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), February 09, 2001.

no wonder the subject doesn't like it

...it stinks. Period. No self respecting woman would like this picture of themselves. Guys don't care about pictures of themselves. At least they don't usually articulate it. They just punch out the photographer. Women are very vain and touchy about how they look especially in a photo. Women like soft non revealing lighting with lenses especially designed to take off not only years but pounds. The lighting in this image sucks. As does the pose. I have a print of my wife that looks just like this one. I love it. She threatens to cut off my balls if she sees it hanging on my bulletin board at work. This gal is a nice looking woman. Make an image that brings out that beauty to it's fullest. She's worth it. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), February 11, 2001.

James, how do you know she is a nice looking woman if the portrait doesn't already portray it?

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), February 11, 2001.

Maybe she wasn't happy about the contrast level. Too black and not smooth enough. Too harsh maybe; that's what I'm trying to say. I would agree about the camera position. Go here for some good tips if you feel like it. With her not so perfect complexion (who has one after 15?), a soft filter would have been nice. I was told a story once about someone who would leave his Zeiss lenses on the shelf (front element up) to collect dust and thus ruin the superb sharpness of them but add the soft quality he desired in portraits. Isn't it hell when our lenses are too sharp? ;) I use a Tiffen Soft FX 3 for this kind of shot.

-- Colin Miller (ckmiller@pond.net), February 11, 2001.

Thanks everybody. I appreciate the comments.

There were two complaints she expressed to me. (1) She's not smiling. (2) She has a "droopy eye" (from looking at the photo, I'm not sure which, but she knows). In any case, that's what she told me. I can't say if other factors affected her opinion or not... I thought the blotchy skin (I think it was a recent sunburn) would bother her, but she seemed to shrug that off. Kind of an interesting point on what people see, or don't see.

Let's see, what was I trying to show? A late 30's woman looking attractive without a "glamour" approach. I think people are at their best as they really are. Sorry, I have no interest in soft filters and the like. There's a reason I don't get paid to do photography. :-) I do agree with the "raise the camera position" that was mentioned.

The original is pretty sharp. 4x5 film, modern 210mm lens. Lighting was open sky. The dark background is from large shrubs deeper in the shade. I printed on Ilford Warmtone FB and then toned that in Selenium at a relatively high concentration. It's scanned as B&W, so you don't see the tint. It came out fairly brown. I like the result.

I do have a "smiling" negative. Maybe I'll have to print it one of these days...

-- mike rosenlof (mike_rosenlof@yahoo.com), February 13, 2001.

I admit I've been 'lurking' here for a little while, and looked at this picture several times before deciding to post a response. I like the photo. When I first saw it I was drawn to this lady - I thought her face showed warmth, kindness, generosity, a sense of humour... it looks to me as though she was about to smile. So I found it interesting that she doesn't like it because she's not smiling! I didn't notice the eye (which one?) or the skin. I also like the lighting... This from someone who's just learning about people photography and enjoys this forum - thanks!!

-- Janice Mackay (jmackay64@hotmail.com), February 16, 2001.