Emotive Portrait Photography

Hi guys,

I've been really getting into emotive types of portrait photography, i.e. those types of images wich really leave the viewer thinking about a photo.

It's quite hard to actually describe the effect, but if you do a google on photographers like Andrzej Dragan or Irving Penn you'll see what i mean.

Anyway, I've just finished working on this shot, which I must admit took ages in PP



Big version HERE

Anyway, I'd really like you guys to study the photo and let me know what effect it has on you, i.e. what feelings it stimulates.

If your interested I've written a little bit about 'emotive' portraits over on my blog:

Imagespike

Cheers,

Matt

Matt Halstead said:

Anyway, I'd really like you guys to study the photo and let me know what effect it has on you, i.e. what feelings it stimulates.

Click to expand...

Hi Matt,

You (he) look(s) depressed ...

The Dragan effect is very effective, but it has become a bit of an overused tool. However, when used with restraint, and on an image that could also survive well without it, it does lend a gloomy/grungy atmosphere to the scene. I like the portrait, but a little less of the effect might work better for me (I like subtlety).

Cheers,
Bart

I like it a lot.

Matt,

This sort of photo always gets my attention and some time.

It gets a lot more time if it comes with a little information that tells me something about why. If the image is of a celebrity, no more is needed, Ditto if the subject's occupation, current activity, plight, or ? is indicated. This can be done with image content, a title, or some form of introduction.

For me, without some such info the subject can easily regress to being about PP or other some other technical trivia.

Matt
I second Bart - just adding a question:
how comes that Penn's Duchamp-portait - on your blog - works whithout extended post or hyperreal?

Firstly, thanks for all the comments guys, much appreciated.

Winston Mitchell said:

Matt,

This sort of photo always gets my attention and some time.

It gets a lot more time if it comes with a little information that tells me something about why. If the image is of a celebrity, no more is needed, Ditto if the subject's occupation, current activity, plight, or ? is indicated. This can be done with image content, a title, or some form of introduction.

For me, without some such info the subject can easily regress to being about PP or other some other technical trivia.

Click to expand...

Hi Winston, in my opinion what information yuou decide to append to an image largely depends on what the intended use of the image is. For example reportage work, where it is important that the viewer understands the context and story behind an image.

I don't think that such an approach is necessary for Fine Art Portraiture, as in the case of this image, I want the viewer to formulate their own impressions about the image, and not be influenced by any contextual text.

@ Michael, for me the Duchamp-portait works largely because of the very strong composition and contemplative pose, with this latter point being further emphasised by the eyes being closed which is a very strong statement for a portrait i.e. the eyes being the strongest focal point etc.

As i said on my blog, extended PP is not required at all, however for me it is a look that I like and one that works very well for my style of photography. The extent of any PP is clearly a subjective issue, some people like it like me, others prefer less treatment like Bart.

cheers,

Matt Halstead said:

The extent of any PP is clearly a subjective issue, some people like it like me, others prefer less treatment like Bart. cheers,

Click to expand...

Matt
you' re rising a interesting question here, therefore I don't feel to let it go on 2nd page of the forum, and - playing a bit of devil's advocat, I don't agree on your quoted statement: it's not personal anymore, when aesthetics override the content, despite the personal preferences.

I personally don't belive that a personal calligraphy, or style of photography is bound to some aesthetical effects or a maybe a plugin. While I'm not saying that from your picture but speaking more generally - in the case of the plugin, shouldn't we be thankfull towards the software engineer?

Why do we need to "pop" up every photo and can't take them as what they are and search within that reality some strong statements?

Titles and introductions! Impactful image v. portrait that speaks some truth.

Matt Halstead said:

Firstly, thanks for all the comments guys, much appreciated.

Hi Winston, in my opinion what information yuou decide to append to an image largely depends on what the intended use of the image is. For example reportage work, where it is important that the viewer understands the context and story behind an image.

I don't think that such an approach is necessary for Fine Art Portraiture, as in the case of this image, I want the viewer to formulate their own impressions about the image, and not be influenced by any contextual text.

Click to expand...

Matt,

Am I wowed? Yes! But then what? How do I move from that point. It's not like i'm seeing another Magritte image after having travelled to almost every recent exhibit in so many museums around the world. For those I have the books of the exhibit and a library of memories and many scholarly articles to refer to. So to your remarkable picture which for sure, no one will fail to look at. To start with, I'm impressed by the demanding noticeability of your well engineered portrait. I like it and am impressed. So I just need to know where to place my thoughts and how to reference what I find.

I do not really know a body of your work enough to simply place the relevance of it and evaluate its significance without sufficient introduction. That's why we have, for at least the lesser folk like me, at least, introductions and titles. I do appreciate the link to your blog. It's educational and interesting to learn how photographers tackled the stage dramatic portrait in the past. However, that was then and this is now and furthermore, that was their time and now it's yours. We might pay homage to them, learn from them but I'd say let's perhaps show how we might depart from where they reached. What should we should look out for in your new "Matt" approach to the strong emotive portrait.

Yes, I've heard so many tell us say "The art should speak for itself!" Well, that's fine if it's a Gaugin painting, a Brahms Walz, another Duchamp toilet, a Frank Gehry building or a Maddonna Bra Dress!

The fact is that in these cases, we already know the language of the artists works. After a few exhibits and when it comes to retrospective of my work, (how I wish), maybe I'll need neither introduction nor a title, LOL!

Why is your father shown that way? How does it bring his character forward to us? Is it true that it represents him better than the photograph you made with all the imagination, skill and emotional motivation you have devoted to this just in the taking of the picture the right way? IOW, without a whole workflow to bring out wrinkles and make the eye pop? As you yourself point out, Irving Penn took extreme pains to set up the mood at the time of the photograph.

I'm not saying that the processing effects are not effective. The question is why do you think your pictures benefit as portraits this way? I think that we can accept the rough concept that the job of the portrait is to convey some communication of the essence of a person and their place in our culture to the world.

So here, in this case, we have to look to your own knowledge of you father to find out if you did a good job or not. I do not know your father. Is he, indeed, that sinister and tested by life where pressures have carved stress into his features? Only you can tell us in what way the admittedly very impactful image you deliver represents your father's inner person that he and his loved ones live with or or the outer face the rest of the world experiences?

I feel that if you can help us connect the dots, you will acquire a host of new followers.

Asher

Michael Fontana said:

Matt

I personally don't belive that a personal calligraphy, or style of photography is bound to some aesthetical effects or a maybe a plugin. While I'm not saying that from your picture but speaking more generally - in the case of the plugin, shouldn't we be thankfull towards the software engineer?

Why do we need to "pop" up every photo and can't take them as what they are and search within that reality some strong statements?

Click to expand...

I second this! This processed and contrived look certainly isn't emotive for me at all, it just presents a barrier. The only image I like is the B&W David Lynch portrait, i'll drink to that one - clarity anyone?!

Using a technically impressive effect in a context of a person: a dilemma

Paul Abbott said:

I second this! This processed and contrived look certainly isn't emotive for me at all, it just presents a barrier. The only image I like is the B&W David Lynch portrait, i'll drink to that one - clarity anyone?!

Click to expand...

Paul,

When one is startled by an impressive effect, it risks overshadowing the subject and the concept itself. However, Picasso did that, making his own language which he generously acclimatized us too through many many pictures.

Here, the barrier is not the processing. It maybe the context and our preparation that is not addressed sufficiently. With the right description of the subject, it might be that the private, family or public persona is indeed represented well. My issue is that I have no guide to my approach to go beyond the obviously impressive technical achievement to


just how this might express anything of the subject, so well known by only the photographer here. so I hold in obeyance whether or not the effect is worthwhile. At the moment it's an eye catcher and impressive but I can't go further as to it's functionality.

Still, if Matt, the talented photographer, (who has labored on it), has evoked, at least within himself, the experience he imagined the picture would deliver, then it's Arc of intent has been completed for him, the artist. However, the Arc of Communication, to us, at least, is still not completed. So, (perhaps just for now), we cannot experience that intended benefit.

Hi Michael, and Asher thanks for the comment.

When producing an image I always set out to create striking photos. If your objective is like mine then as the creater of that image only you as the creator will know when your work is complete.

For some individuals that satisfaction will come as soon as the film is developed or the exposure is recorded to the memory card. For these individuals the objecvtive is met purely through the untouched photograph.

For others, like myself the photograph out of the camera marks the starting point of further work. The post processing for me ends when I am satisfied that i have met my objective - the creation of a striking image. On some occassions the PP is a very short process e.g. exposure refinements, or on other occasions like with this image the processing is a very long and complex process.

@ Michael specifically - I don't ever use Plugins only the core elements of Photoshop. If I could find a one click plugin which was capable of yielding the results I sometimes require then prehaps the software engineer would get a mention. It would certainly save me weeks of work.

@ Asher specifically - for reasons beyond my comprehension and any rational logic, you somehow determined that the image is of my father although i don't recall ever stipulating this!! Incredible
;-)

My father agreed to model for me and in some shots he was lauging and in this shot he pretended to look stern (feigning a loss of patience with my constant snapping!). If i wanted to portray my father in his natural state then it would probably be a shot of him laughing as he is a very fun man, not as shown here. the photo here was never meant to be 'of my father'.

When reviewing all the photos, from a purely technical point this shot was the one that stood out the most for me and this is why I chose it.

Asher Kelman said:

Paul,

When one is startled by an impressive effect, it risks overshadowing the subject and the concept itself. However, Picasso did that, making his own language which he generously acclimatized us too through many many pictures.

Here, the barrier is not the processing. It maybe the context and our preparation that is not addressed sufficiently. With the right description of the subject, it might be that the private, family or public persona is indeed represented well. My issue is that I have no guide to my approach to go beyond the obviously impressive technical achievement to

• understand,
  
  
• experience and
  
  
• feel

just how this might express anything of the subject, so well known by only the photographer here. so I hold in obeyance whether or not the effect is worthwhile. At the moment it's an eye catcher and impressive but I can't go further as to it's functionality.

Still, if Matt, the talented photographer, (who has labored on it), has evoked, at least within himself, the experience he imagined the picture would deliver, then it's Arc of intent has been completed for him, the artist. However, the Arc of Communication, to us, at least, is still not completed. So, (perhaps just for now), we cannot experience that intended benefit.

Click to expand...

Many thanks for saving me the time with such an eloquent response ;-).

@ Paul, I just visited your website and thoroughly enjoyed your photography, in particular your monochrome work. I would be interested to hear why you decide to desaturate some of your images?

@ Asher, I understand your desire for an explanation to the image, however if i am honest the articulation of my motivations and thoughts is something that I struggle with. Recently my portrait work has developed quite dark undertones, and I am unsure why this is, apart from the fact it is deliberate, be it through processing or deliberate model choice.

This lack of language even presents itself when naming my portrait images, a process which normaly takes about 5 seconds and relates to whatever is in my head when i need to title the image. Now that you know this fact how important is the title of an image now?

Regardless of my poor communication sills, my arc of intent was fully satisfied by the image. Prehaps I need to be less selfish with my work!

hhhmm, it seems a shame that the conversation has dried up on this thread, i found it quite interesting.

Cheers,

not really, Matt but toooo busy till end of week...

Use of odd, edgy, unique or "trademark" image-making technics in making and art.

Hi Matt,

The style you have cottoned on to is not unnoticable. Like pre-made commercially available "artistic effects", such maneuvers can get attention but also a lot of protests that the artist has not put their own craft into the work.

I have been thinking a lot about this because the idea of a personal and edgy processing preference set is, after all, what makes one's pictures stand out from the masses. So where and why should one do this and not end up being knocked about as merely using some "effect" or filter "Trick". Jerry Aveneim, uses a Profoto Magnum top half blocked and angled close up to the subject's face. That gives a wonderful look. but is it for me to just take that and use it. Just because the effect id delivered by lighting and not a post processing methodology, is one more "kosher" than the other.

Look at Dwayne Oakes' landscape work, here and here, for example. I think that the way he handles his mid-tones is fitting to the subjects he loves, natural woodlands with wildlife occasionally in the image somewhere. I personally admire his dedication to the subjects he photographs and his devotion to the esthetics of his on going body of work.

Now I have heard objections to that! Why? He uses some "effect"! Of course he does, but so do we all if we have our own mind view that we craft into a work of art. That imaginative creation in one's mind cannot, I believe, simply correspond to the nature of the image designed by a group of brilliant engineers in Germany, Taiwan, or even Japan! We have chances of crafting our own presentation of our ideas with subject choice, lighting, etc at the time of the shot but also in post-processing of the negatives) or files or paper it's printed on.

Yes, you knurled effect on the face is derived from someone else's work. But do you have to modify it or is it sufficient to use it as your needs dictate?

My belief is that if the effect is relevant to the subject and a body of work, not a one-off, and one has one's own concept-driven fingerprints on the methodology and its organically connected to one's point of view and concept, then go for it!

However, you may have to educate viewers to your language by your body of work and your references to other works beforehand.

Asher

Hi,

when I look on the picture, I'm thinking about the style (effect) you obviously used - but not about the person itself. The pictures you refer to in your blog gain attraction the other way round.

Wolfgang Plattner said:

Hi,

when I look on the picture, I'm thinking about the style (effect) you obviously used - but not about the person itself. The pictures you refer to in your blog gain attraction the other way round.

Click to expand...

Wolfgang,

What does it take for you/us to accept the effect as part of the photograph and get beyond that barrier?

Asher

Can we ever really credit one individual for developing a specific style or effect?

Whilst I agree that some photographers have become extremely succesful on the back of one style, this does not mean that they were responsible for it.

There are a variety of interesting effects that can be employed by photographers, and it is down to the photographer to utilise whatever effect and how much (if any) they believe acheives the desired look.

Its interesting to read the earlier post by Wolfgang:

'when I look on the picture, I'm thinking about the style (effect) you obviously used - but not about the person itself'

in my opinion the processing is inseperable from the image, it is the processing combined with the photograph that creates the final image, and it is this final image which is viewed.

Having said that, is it necessarily a bad thing Wolfgang is curious about the post processing? Whilst it was not my intention to have people wondring about the effect, I see that as no bad thing simply an unexpected benefit of the image.

What does bother me is when people incorrectly assume that the effect has been used simply for the sake of it, because it is a simple to acheive via a plugin or action.