This was taken last year in Hong Kong on the Star Ferry

-- charles curry-hyde (charles@chho.com.au), April 07, 2001

Answers

What...

What have I done - the URL is a photo.net page...?

-- Charles Curry-Hyde (charles@chho.com.au), April 07, 2001.

-- Preston Wilson (preston_wilson@mail.com), April 07, 2001.

This should close the center tag that was left open in the first post.

-- Preston Wilson (preston_wilson@mail.com), April 07, 2001.

has anyone got any comments on the picture?

-- Charles Curry-Hyde (charles@chho.com.au), April 11, 2001.

Well, since I've seen your Leo picture I can compare- there's really nothing happening in this one- sometimes pictures can be perfectly focused and exposed, and yet seem stillborn.... you have to know when you've got a picture of the soul of your freind, and when you've just got a picture of a guy on a ferry. I think this is an instance of the latter, so really no one knows quite what to say about it. but yoiu should get some good responses to "Leo..."

We've talked about eye contact in people pictures before- some seem to think its not necessary but I think if you have it, you almost can't lose....

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), April 11, 2001.

i've been thinking about this. I know what you mean about still born pictures and tend to agree on this point. My question is - if a portrait's (or any picture's) job is to tell a story as it is seen by the photographer, what about one that tells a story of non- engagement? If a person chooses not to look one squarely in the eye/lens as a form of engagement by antipathy is there a value in portaying this?

Leo and david are, as these pictures suggest, opposite sides of the coin. In these two moments they were interacting in very characteristic ways.

Any thoughts?

-- charles curry-hyde (charles@chho.com.au), April 13, 2001.

I don't know if this photo is 'stillborn' or not, but I do think it may have missed its intended mark. To me, the central point of conflict, or engagement, (or dis-engagement) is not between the photographer and the subject, or the subject and the world, but between the subject and the guy reading the paper behind him! Done slightly differently, this could have been a great environmental portrait-- how david (I presume your friend on the left) interacts/does not interact/relates to the people around him on the ferry. It's *almost* there, but the connection between the two is not strong enough to make this photograph work (thought it is enough to distract me from its intended subject). Next time, make it clear what is the conflict in the photograph... here I sense you tried to make it "david vs. the world" but it didn't come across as such. Just some food for thought.... --Josh

-- Josh Wand (josh@joshwand.com), April 13, 2001.