A portrait

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.

Alan Browne wrote:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...hp4-16-10f.jpg

You gotta be kidding? That's a *terrible* portrait.

The man has a simply wonderful face, with personality
written all over it, but virtually *none* of that is
handsomely captured by that shot. It may well be a
useful news photo, but as a portrait it has nothing of
value.

The reason is pretty simple too, lighting.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

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?


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.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

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.



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.



--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

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.

--
john mcwilliams

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?

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

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?

--
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.


It's always so hard to tell whether the photographer is deliberately doing
things a particular way for effect, or is simply incompetent, or competent
but unable to change certain aspects of the shot.

Overall the lighting is of course dismal. At the size presented in the link
it looks as if it may have been done deliberately (and somewhat cruelly) to
emphasize the subject's features, especially around his mouth. Zoom in a
little however and for me that impression is replaced by a feeling that it's
simply incompetence as the shadow areas are not dark enough to be
deliberate. I'd be generous an say it could have been that the lighting was
that way and the photographer could do nothing about it but the marks to the
left of his face are certainly something that could have been dealt with so
for me it's incompetence.

The composition is interesting and works quite well with the initial facing
out of shot completely negated by the eyes looking directly in at the
camera. The slightly lowered camera angle gives the subject power and
statesmanship, someone to be respected. All typical established attributes
of the up-the-nose shot and helped along by that slightly superior, or is it
disdainful, expression on his face.

I'd say this could have been a good shot with more attention to the details
like lighting and post production.

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?

--
lsmft

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.

The portrait itself? I've seen better.

Bob