Photos [photo] portraits

just to see what people think of my portraits of a few of my friends. i like them, just wanted some feedback from those who know neither me or the subjects of each portrait

#1


#2


#3

 

The first thing I notice, is that they're out of focus. On the last two, especially the last one, you can clearly see that the focus is too far back. In fact, the shoulders are sharp on teh last one. It just makes it obvious that this was in no way intentional. On camera flash is also probably the least flattering light source you can use to photograph people. They're over-exposed also.

Interesting crop on shot 1, but the others leave me cold.

All in all though, I get the feeling they're just snapshots taken in a pub or someplace, turned black and white, and contrast turned up a little.

Shot 2 I just don't see the merit in. It's clearly way out of focus, and not even creatively so. It just reminds me of the images you find on your phone after a night out

Is that too harsh?

Sorry.. just the way I see them.

 

thats cool, and that's essentially what they are, i've just been trying to be creatively more fine art as opposed to the perspective you guys come from where a good shot has to be technically good..

nevermind

 

GA, don't take Pooke's comments to hard. I think I see what you are saying with the artsy take, but I think that does need to be balanced with *some* technical aspects. While most of the people here are focusing on the techincal side, don't let that stop you from playing around. I certianly don't think Pooke ment to do that. But the use of B&W, OOF and other things work a whole lot better when not in a pub, drinking with friends. I think the ideas you are working with are better explored when the variables are more under your control (read as less beer). That being said, the lady in #3 is a cutie and it would have more interesting had you played with DOF, while being in focus. Or maybe overexposing it. But #2 is what it is......not to say I don't have a few GBs, um, MBs of similarly bad images.
I can give you a healthy tip though, "nevermind" is a bad habit to get into in a creative field. You will need to get a tough skin, and be able to listen with out taking it personaly. The hardest part is not the comments you will get, but being open enough to the possibility of them being right.

Edit: Pooke has an incredibly valid point about the onboard flash. For anything more then sublte fill, it's pants. Really look into a flash gun and bouncing/diffusing.

 

I agree with JJ and Pook, artsy shots are all well and good if thats your "bag" but they need to be in focus to work. I really like huwlex's style of shots/effects, they would work well on those kinda portraits.

 

First you have to learn the rules so you know when to break them! Some of the best photo's in the world are accidental shots but i dont see anything here which lifts them past what they are, out of focus snap shots.
Also bear in my mind with this primarily being a computer tech site we tend to err on the technical side.

 

To qualify as art of any kind.. in my mind anyway... there has to be some kind of story, or meaning behind what you create. In a way, I see what you're trying to do... you trying to take a snapshot style image, and turn it into art, which isn't a new idea: People like Juergen Teller have been doing that for years, and to be honest, most people think what he does is unmitigated rubbish.. you tread a fine line when you take a snaphot, and try and turn it into art.


Unless you can thoroughly justify it, people WILL just say it's a snaphot.. anyone can do that. The difference between what Teller does and you have done, is that there's irony, narrative, and some semiotic meaning to it. By placing someone in a very unlikely situation, or doing something that would be ironic for them to do, and THEN taking in a style of a snapshot. The key word there tho, is IN THE STYLE OF A SNAPHOT. Teller, and people like him are actually very talented photographers and if you look at their work, while seeming like a snaphot, are STILL technically sound. Much the same can be said about Martin Parr.. they look like snaphots, but they're not. Yours ARE snaphots. You didn't plan them as a concept, they really are snapshots, and you've just made them black and white.. because all fine art is black and white, right?

If you feel that to be art, you have to eschew anything technical, you're being naive.

"i've just been trying to be creatively more fine art as opposed to the perspective you guys come from"

This does lead me to belive that you feel no technical prowess is involved in making art (and also that what I do is NOT art), and anyone that displays it is by default not an artist? The phrase "The arrogance of ignorance" sprang to mind when I read your comment above.

Kind of makes me wonder therefore where someone like Cartier-Bresson fits into all of this. He took snaphots essentially... but they had A) narrative, and content, and B) they were technically sound. This also means that Elliot Erwitt wasn't an artist either, or Dorothea Lange... but it DOES mean that my Mum is an artist.. she doesn't give technicalities a second thought when she creates images.

If you're gonna say that it's art you're creating, you have to be able to justify it as such, and to be honest, I think you'd struggle. I'm not saying that everything everyone posts in here is art either.. the same can be said for anyone. If you're gonna say it's art, be prepared to say why it's art, and not a snaphot. Likewise, people who create technically superb pieces of work have to do the same thing.. is it art, or just a demonstration of your technical abilities with no underlying emotion, story, or meaning.

As a photography student, you must be used to criticism, and if you're not, then get used to it, because if you want to work as a photographer, you're gonna have to learn to BATHE in critcism, and accept that if you show your work to people, not everyone is going to like it. Speaking as someone who's been through the whole student process (ND, BA Hons, MA) trust me... your work is gonna get raped, or at least it should be, or your tutors are doing you a disservice.

Go ask your tutors what they think of those images.

 

In any job or profession (actually life as a whole) you have to take criticism, if you can't take it you'll never improve.

I get criticized one hell of a lot because I'm a student and am not fully knowledgeable about stuff, I take the Crit., I improve my knowledge.

 

Its worse when you are doing stuff that is in the public eye too, I'm a graduate management consultant for a system testing consultancy and therefore very few people see the work and therefore any criticism is accurate and from people much more experience than me.

 

I like #1, did you make her cry because it looks like she's about to. It's an interesting picture, but it needs a context surrounding it other than a forum post, if you get me.

2 and 3 are too out of focus and a bit too.. uhh.. blair witch.

 

And that was NOT art!

 

i never said technically sound photos are not art. i have an abundance of controlled photography. i wanted to step away from it. i've never ignored people's criticism. why do you think i've put them on here. to get people's honest opinion maybe.

 

Well, you ARE asking a load of "technically accurate for a living" people

 

Fair point. You just seemed a bit defensive. Apologies if that was not the case. It's often difficult to get someone's true intent in a forum, which is how most flame wars start.

For shots like that to work, you need really strong story. For instance, if these were a few shots from a series about a bunch of kids who did Parkour (just a totally random suggestion) then maybe, when the story develops throughout the series, the hard core black and white (dare I say it.. Blair Witch) feel may have lended to the highly urban, slightly outlawish nature of the sport... if it can be called a sport. See what I mean? Your mates sat in a pub tho?.... just seems like an afterthought that can't be justified.

 

Although, if you reshot the whole night, with everyone naked; that might be art.

 

pr0n more like

 

still art