At the risk of "portrait overdosage", may I suggest this photographer's works also
ok, this guy is better... jus wondering...i have dis question for a long long time...no photographer can tell me a good satisfying answer...
Why some photographers like to blur their image a little blur?
Remember what a photograph is? A biography of the subject - landscape, still life, people.Originally Posted by Max 2.8
What would you do if you see a photograph that says everything it "wants" to say? What would you do if your sole participation is merely just an audience? How interesting would that image be if your participation and engagement is not required?
The Japanese have something called Haiku. Example:
Blades of grass,
And a grasshopper,
Its legs broken.
In these poems, there is a certain vagueness about them. The skeleton made, but flesh needed to be added. Here is where the participation of the reader is required. There is active dialogue between the photographer and the viewer through the image. There is engagement
If we look at one of Cartier-Bresson images. The one of the smug-looking boy with two loaves of bread. Why was the boy smug? Obviously related to the bread. But why? Engagement is sought, and we are drawn into it.
So good images not only tell a story, but engages the viewer,.
One of the ways photographers chose to engage the viewer is to "de-focus" the image, adding an aura of mystery. See the images of What's his name (the guy who acted as the vulcan, Mr Spock in Star Wars) His book is called "Sheikila", or something like that. A lot shadows, blurred images and sense of mystery. Whether it works or not is another matter. Sometimes it does. At other times, it may be too pretentious.
Interesting topic to raise to be sure... and i reckon everyone has their 2 cents.
"Student" (A misnomer surely!) has brought to the forefront, some very good points for alot of us to think about.
On my part, a good portrait means that when looking at one, the viewer thinks that the picture is well made. It must have punch, may it be colour, composition or that something extra that makes us go "wow".
As it is, more often than not, we have alot of pictures where the subject will overwhelm the picture. I'm not even sure if that just made any sense but the viewer is automatically drawn the subject and not the picture and everything else becomes secondary...
Well, as it stands, good & bad is relative & subjective so, what works for me might not for another. Take Bill Henson's works for example... Max, maybe it would help if you took a look at his shots and share with us if you thought they were any good?
"High Wired, Dream Sired"
I am trying to learn from the works of these established photographer stefan - rohner, philippepache, & Bill Henson as mentioned by student and wolfgang.
I hope to get more inputs to develop my own style hence from this pics of mine (did post it sometime back) can someone give me more directions.
I do not want to remain as a point and shoot and wait for magical moment photograher.