A portrait

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:11:22 +1200, Peter Huebner

You don't know who Al Sharpton is? Shame on you.

Next, you'll be telling us you don't know who Martin Luther King was.

Do you know who Fred Nile is?
Shame on you.

(and stop googling)

--
Jeff R.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
This week's portrait for discussion.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...hp4-16-10f.jpg
(Jennifer Altman, Washington Post)

It would be a delight if it could be discussed without reference to the
man's beliefs, politics or race.

Let's focus on the portrait.



It's tough to ignore a person's politics and beliefs. However, without
commenting on his race, politics or beliefs, IMHO a good portrait should
reflect the man or the photographer's impression of the man. This one
succeeds. I certainly shows his real personality, as I perceive it.




--
Peter

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:54:09 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: This week's portrait for discussion.
:
: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...hp4-16-10f.jpg
: (Jennifer Altman, Washington Post)
:
: It would be a delight if it could be discussed without reference to the
: man's beliefs, politics or race.
:
: Let's focus on the portrait.

Al Sharpton used to be fatter than me, but a couple of years ago he lost
about
100 pounds and has kept it off. That's admirable, regardless of his
politics.



He also had a lot more hair in those days and a different style.
I also had a lot more hair in those days.
He still has a lot more hair than I.

--
Peter

On 10-04-16 18:34 , John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-16 18:11 , John McWilliams wrote:
alt.photography out.
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-16 16:50 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-04-16 12:54:09 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

This week's portrait for discussion.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...hp4-16-10f.jpg
(Jennifer Altman, Washington Post)

It would be a delight if it could be discussed without reference to
the man's beliefs, politics or race.

Good luck with that.
You sure pick provocative characters, don't you?

I see the photo first.

Whatever.

Let's focus on the portrait.

Personaly I think it is not good as a portrait.
I find the lighting, perspective, maybe camera position, just don't
work
for me.


I'm with duck on both points.


Can't raise an original thought there John?

So eager to make a wee little slight that you double post, Alan?

No, I just forgot that you like to edit distribution so I re-issued it
corrected. My fault for not checking the first time. I did cancel the
first edition within a minute or so, but they propagate so fast these days.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
This week's portrait for discussion.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...hp4-16-10f.jpg
(Jennifer Altman, Washington Post)

It would be a delight if it could be discussed without reference to the
man's beliefs, politics or race.

Let's focus on the portrait.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

A most unusual shot. As a formal portrait, I don't think it works. First,
there's not enough emphasis on his face and eyes (my own preferences as
portrait targets),
the large dark shadow on and under his chin notwithstanding .

Second, his suit detracts from the shot -- it takes up too much of the
picture relative to the face and head, and it looks like it doesn't quite
fit (see the wrinkles in the
vest). And, as was noted by others, the tie isn't straight.

Third, it looks like the power failed for at least some of the lighting.

In my opinion, all of the above draw the eye away from the subject and
provide too many things other than the man to focus on.

Finally, what I can see of the eyes have a "dopey, 'what am I doing here?'
look". If fact, if the stripes on the drape in the back ran horizontally
rather than vertically,
this would make a pretty good mug shot.

Sorry, but, to me, there's just too much related but unimportant stuff going
on and drawing attention away from man himself. The job of the portrait
photographer
is to "cut through" that unimportant stuff to get to the subject.

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-16 18:34 , John McWilliams wrote:


So eager to make a wee little slight that you double post, Alan?

No, I just forgot that you like to edit distribution so I re-issued it
corrected. My fault for not checking the first time. I did cancel the
first edition within a minute or so, but they propagate so fast these days.


That'd make you all too eager.....

IAE, why all the damn x-posting?

--
lsmft

On 10-04-17 11:36 , John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-16 18:34 , John McWilliams wrote:


So eager to make a wee little slight that you double post, Alan?

No, I just forgot that you like to edit distribution so I re-issued it
corrected. My fault for not checking the first time. I did cancel the
first edition within a minute or so, but they propagate so fast these
days.


That'd make you all too eager.....

No, just too trusting in my fellow man. No good deed goes unpunished.


IAE, why all the damn x-posting?

a photograph transcends all the posted groups. I could have gone
further but the groups I listed cover film, digital (SLR's) as well as
the photo group which is equipment agnostic.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

Alan Browne wrote:
This week's portrait for discussion.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...hp4-16-10f.jpg
(Jennifer Altman, Washington Post)

It would be a delight if it could be discussed without reference to the
man's beliefs, politics or race.

Nice. I might have lightened the shadows just a tad. Or maybe it's
just the monitor I'm using.

It's obviously a technique that wouldn't work on a lot of people, but
with his face I think it works quite well, empphasizing the most
notable features.
--
Ray Fischer

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

a photograph transcends all the posted groups. I could have gone further
but the groups I listed cover film, digital (SLR's) as well as the photo
group which is equipment agnostic.

You are a clueless tit.

FU trimmed to alt.photography

--
Charles E Hardwidge

In article , docnews2011
@gmail.com says...

You don't know who Al Sharpton is? Shame on you.

Next, you'll be telling us you don't know who Martin Luther King was.




So I googled him. No, this is not somebody who gets a huge amount of
publicity outside the US (or North America at any rate). I _may_ have
heard his name mentioned once or twice, never seen a picture of him.

Do you know about the political history of Josef Ratzinger? His
connections with Franz Josef Strauss? The big sellout of Bob Hawke?
How Roger Douglas who couldn't manage a pig farm came to a position of
power where he could turn his country's economy around and ruin tens of
thousands people's livelyhood?

??? G'wan then! -P.