Discussion in 'Appraisal Gallery' started by RobertCoombes, Aug 28, 2019.
Maybe you should stick to commenting on the photography rather than rating the subject?
I always gave my models prints of their choice and copies of publications in which they featured. However I have never paid a model not even the professionals, it was teamwork.
I find it difficult to separate the two - a technically perfect picture of an uninspiring subject, or a very poor shot of an inspiring subject, rarely work for me. But in this case the subject and excellent photography both attract my attention. Of course, both my reasons to be impressed are matters of personal opinion, which is something I believe is still allowed here.
In this case it was unnecessary to comment on what the model didn't have, surely?
Failing to separate the two in your head is fine, but you don't have to then comment, you could just keep it inside.
Personal opinion is always allowed, mine is that it's rather creepy and voyeuristic to open your comments with a judgement of the model's appearance as if she were a piece of meat.
I did my best with the single flash off a big brolly against thunder grey colourama background, but that would have been to no avail if Rosemary had not been lovely so Chester AP comments have been well received.
Despite suggestions that I was viewing the lovely Rosemary 'as if she were a piece of meat', as I believe you recognise the exact opposite was true. The first thought that came to mind was a memory of admiring the 14th and 15th century 'Madonna' portraits I saw in Siena and Florence many years ago. A timeless face perfectly captured.
I was baffled at the reaction to your reply.
One more from same shoot.
I think there is more of the model's character in this one: a completely different kind of shot.
The lighting appears to make the freckles less prominent: did the lady offer any opinions on which shot(s) she preferred?
Are the marks due to dust on the scanned negative, or damage?
Whichever it is, at least they can be retouched on the digital file, although it will take some time. I spent a long time 'cleaning up' a copy made using a DSLR of a damaged and faded 1950s monochrome contact print from a cheap 120 film camera (no negative was available), and the result looked surprisingly good printed 20 x 25 cm. The lady who was a child in the picture loved it.
Well, yes, that's maybe a PC interpretation. Mine would be that the comments are in line with any appraisal of a portraiture subject, from a personal POV. I think in praising a flower we are apt to comment on its perfection and freedom from the blemishes we so often see presented. But the tattoos and piercings comment is clearly a personal one. There are many very excellent shots that are entirely about those things and having either would not detract in any way from appreciation of the shot.
Fine if you believe in any way that this, "An attractive young woman with real eyebrows" is an appropriate critique of a photograph. Comparing the comments to those about an inanimate object (a flower) kind of makes my point though Mike. She's not a flower, she's a living person and maybe we should treat her as such. Is my response pointed, harsh, on the nose, out of place? Maybe, but I decided a couple of years ago that it was more important to be openly feminist than it was to be polite. The phrase 'politically correct' can go do one. I've heavily derailed a thread about a photograph, and I apologise to Robert for doing so, but I don't apologise for thinking we should focus on the photograph and not the physical characteristics of the living subject.
Interesting point though. So you don't think we should comment on the craggy features of a gnarled old male subject? Personally I think objectifying the subject can actually help to detach comment from it as person and to it as subject within a composition.
I never expected to 'derail' the thread so dramatically - obviously comments about tattoos and piercings can only be personal opinions. I don't understand the person's desire to disfigure themselves, but that is entirely there own choice.
I like RovingMike's comment above about 'craggy features of a gnarled old male subject', which I completely agree with.
Firstly, you're entirely free to objectify men in the photographs, because for the most part, men aren't routinely and detrimentally objectified day to day, impacting their ability to get jobs, be taken seriously and actually progress in life. That's the whole point of considering privilege and its impact. Secondly, if the critique was, "The lady has quite deep wrinkles and the lighting really doesn't help" or "the heavy makeup is causing a weird effect with the lighting" or "she has quite deep set eyes and you need to compensate with some technique to ensure the photograph is complimentary" or "she has deep set eyes, and you're lighting has done a nice job of accentuating that and making it part of the story", then you're commenting on the subject in the context of the image.
In this instance, the person in question was expressing their personal preference for attractive features in a woman (real eyebrows, no tattoos, no piercings) and making them public in a way which adds nothing to the commentary on the image and everything to the commentary on the subject as an individual.
I get that people don't get it, after all, if they got it, we wouldn't need feminism or other activism. I get that it's hard to acknowledge our own privilege, especially those of us who have had hard lives and so wonder why anyone considers them privileged at all. But these things are real, objectification of women is real, and it's wrong.
I posted a photograph a long time ago of an older guy on flickr, and someone commented on his appearance. I asked that person to remove their comment. I don't post pictures of people so that other people can discuss how they look.
Rosemary liked them, I liked them and from the view count others liked them. Anyway back to pictures this is my favourite previously posted in exhibition lounge.
The catch-light really does lift the picture. The shadow over the left eye is annoying in some regards, but doesn't really prevent it being an engaging image.
Understand where you're coming from, but applying far too much social and political censorship for me. To be at all valuable, photography has to be able to detach itself from those things. There are many occasions when the only thing of value is how that person looks in the shot.
So you are fully entitled to make it a rule for your own photography, but it can't be a universal guideline.
I think that is enough of my memory lane with mt recent posts here and the exhibition lounge. Scanner going back in its box. I hope you enjoyed my model snaps even if technically they were a bit rough.
I liked them, I think you should keep the scanner out and post more.
Separate names with a comma.