There are lots of unusual things about this image. The DOF, the hotspots, etc. If your goal is to create a "correct" image then these are things to address.
However I don't find the image to be "painful to look at" nor do I find it devoid of interest. I'm trying to find the quote but a wise man once said that "style is simply a mistake you keep on making over and over."
I think the image is much more interesting than most posted on this forum, even if its purely technical merits might be debated. Consider the feedback above as valuable and correct from a certain perspective, but don't allow your desire to make images that aren't "wrong" prevent you from continuing to make interesting photographs.
Good post Evan and I think the title here is also important. I mean if you want to make portraits like everyone else then make portraits like everyone else. That's easy to do. I think this is more in line with a real character study were the title is important to the portrait. I guess the question becomes wrong to who?
My mind starts asking why the light and the dark? Hmmm maybe the stories like the man are a bit of both? The wrinkles in the brow suggest an intensity as do the eyes but the kinda smirky smile suggests a playfulness. Duality of personality? Makes me think. Interesting photographs always make think.
I would like to see this in the context of other portraits made by eke. Not the usual glam look alike stuff we usually see. So I say for this bold coloring outside the lines this image is worth a little time to spend with. This definitely moves beyond the obvious.
Love this quote by Avedon:
"Youth never moves me. I seldom see anything very beautiful in a young face. I do, though - - in the downward curve of Maugham’s lips, in Isak Dinesen’s hands."-Richard Alvedon
and this one to:
"My photographs don’t go below the surface. They don’t go below anything. They’re readings of the surface. I have great faith in surfaces. A good one is full of clues. But whenever I become absorbed in the beauty of a face, in the excellence of a single feature, I feel I’ve lost what’s really there…been seduced by someone else’s standard of beauty or by the sitter’s own idea of the best in him. That’s not usually the best. So each sitting becomes a contest." - Richard Avedon
It gives the shot the feeling that he's "in your face" close. Blurry nose and ears is not how we see people and it takes attention away from him.
Interesting.
For what it's worth, I intentionally shot it that way. Notice that the eyes are perfectly in focus...that's what I wanted the viewer to see first and be drawn in by. Then as the rest of the face faqlls out of focus, the viewer is allowed to roam around his features. To me, his face is like the rings you see when you cut open a tree bark that give you an indication of what the tree has been through.
@Evan, thanks. I intentionally used the speckled light to match with the peaks and valleys of his face.
In your face and making someone uncomfortable viewing it, if that is the intent, can be a good thing. I don't get painful to look at from this image at all. I think this could have some real impact at 6 ft X 4 ft kinda Chuck Close-ish or even like Avedons West portraits.
airfrogusmc wrote:
In your face and making someone uncomfortable viewing it, if that is the intent, can be a good thing. I don't get painful to look at from this image at all. I think this could have some real impact at 6 ft X 4 ft kinda Chuck Close-ish or even like Avedons West portraits.
Thanks for the feedback, but the intimacy was intentional.
For what it's worth, I intentionally shot it that way. Notice that the eyes are perfectly in focus...that's what I wanted the viewer to see first and be drawn in by. Then as the rest of the face faqlls out of focus, the viewer is allowed to roam around his features. To me, his face is like the rings you see when you cut open a tree bark that give you an indication of what the tree has been through.
@Evan, thanks. I intentionally used the speckled light to match with the peaks and valleys of his face.
****************
I know you intentionally did it that way ... that's obvious enough from the tack-sharp focus on the eyes (nice job in that regard BTW) ... I just think it's over-done and I'm relating that to you by telling you how the image impacts me.
I'm not opposed to close-up intimate portraits with shallow DOF ... some of my favorite shots of my kids are just that ... but all things can be taken to an extreme where it is more detriment than help. YMMV
On the other hand, if you like the "in your face" feel to the image and that is what you were after, then you did very well in portraying that. This would be a great technique to use with an obnoxious comedian for instance.
I don't know if you really wanted feedback or just wanted to share an image you are really proud of. I've held off from commenting, but thought I'd add my two cents.
Shooting this tight in his face like this, I think there's a place for it. I can like these types of shots. The spreckled lighting absolutely does not work for me, and you say you did it to match the peaks and valleys of his face, but I don't see it like that at all. Most of the of bright spots are up on his forehead and upper head, whereas the peaks and valleys, if you will, are more in his face, his checks, chin.
You said the eyes are sharp because you want the viewer to go there first, but honestly, the eyes are rather dark and monotone, and my eyes are pulled to the bright spots up on his upper forehead and upper head, not to his eyes. I think if you had used more conventional lighting, this shot would be really really good, but I'd like to see more light in his eyes if you want to draw the viewer there.
Hope this helps in some small way.
eke2k6 wrote:
Interesting.
For what it's worth, I intentionally shot it that way. Notice that the eyes are perfectly in focus...that's what I wanted the viewer to see first and be drawn in by. Then as the rest of the face faqlls out of focus, the viewer is allowed to roam around his features. To me, his face is like the rings you see when you cut open a tree bark that give you an indication of what the tree has been through.
@Evan, thanks. I intentionally used the speckled light to match with the peaks and valleys of his face.
I think it was Ernst Haas that said I would rather make crappy images that look like mine than pretty pictures that look like everyone else. Of course we all know he made amazing photographs. But they do look like his and bare little resemblance to most of what we see or would be deemed acceptable on the world wide web (thank gawd).
All kidding aside this sort of thing raises interesting questions for me: how do we know when a "flaw" is actually the beauty mark on Cindy Crawford's lip?
I wrote a little bit today about the quest to make photographs that aren't "wrong." It can lead to a pretty sterile place.
I don't know if those weird dappled blown highlights on his temple are beauty marks. I don't know if the shot would work with more reasonable DOF. I don't know if this shot is great "art" (whatever that means). What I do know is the shot is overall more intriguing to me than countless other images I've seen posted here without discernible "flaws" in technique. We as critics have the luxury of sitting here and saying:
-I think you should shoot him at a more comfortable distance
-I think you should shoot him with more reasonable DOF
-I think your lighting should be more even without the dappling
-I want more light in his eyes
-etc.....
And then we wind up with exactly the same headshot everyone else takes. Its the line between art and craftsmanship. If the goal here was to create a marketable business headshot or a glamour piece, the shot is a failure. If the goal is to make something interesting, I'm putting my marker down that its a success either despite or because of its "flaws."
I could just hear Witkins family when he started his journey. "Why can't you make those pretty pictures like______ does?" The real question is how does a photographer or any artist muster the courage to follow their own path which may or may not be understood by many?
I don't believe in any form of "sameness". I don't believe we should always use this type of lighting, or shoot at any given angle, or from any given distance. I don't believe in any form of photographic perfection where all the right things are in focus, the exposure is just what the majority of us think it should be, or the composition follows the rule of thirds, etc. etc. etc. blah, blah, blah. Perfection is boring. There's already too much of that in our world, too much striving for it, the ideal of what a bunch of people think of as perfect.
I love the closeness of this shot. I also appreciate the imperfections of his face, that is where his stories lie.
But having said that, I still think that photographs can often be improved. In this case, I stand behind my thinking that the spreckled lighting takes attention away from his face. Our eyes are drawn to bright spots in photographs, so any bright spots should be purposeful. The OP said he wanted the visual attention on his eyes, and I'm simply stating that the bright spreckled lighting is counter-intuitive to that goal. That's it.
