Portraits are not my thing- especially portraits of strangers. I can't get close enough, and 95% of a portrait is in the face. Longer lenses help, but nothing is a substitute for getting closer. I've got to get out of the landscape frame-of-mind; people just aren't the same as trees.
Comments
jake, never got to mention how much i enjoy the larger format and recent photos.
dude, you don't know what you're talking about. the top picture is great--a good portrait, it seems to me, is all about the look of the eyes, and that's a ten-ton stare she's giving you there. I like the bottom one, too. what is he selling?
Those eyes are saying "anda cagar, forro!"
Jake, I don't think I've ever seen a more emotionally disturbing photo of human detritus as you have exposed in shot number 3.
yep- i don't usually post that kind of picture. if you look at the red shirt under hid head, it sort of looks like blood.
I think there's as much of a place for "people as scenery" as there is "people as portraits." I really feel that someone who is willingly aware of the picture gives up a part of themselves to the camera, while people as scenery indicate much more about their surroundings than they do about themselves. Posting the jogger right above the homeless man does a great job of illustrating the economic differences you spoke of in your earlier posts, but I feel like I don't know nearly as much about either of them as I do the old woman (who obviously doesn't think much of your hobby).
Leave a comment