A simple portrait - does it say more?

[Concisus Cognatus]

Hehehe, I wouldn't handle a shoot like that to well. I'd be too distracted, LOL.

[propellerhead]

And, Scott, hey...I like it...looks like you've captured the fundamental idea. It reminds me of Richard Avedon...the style, not necessarily the overall look and feel. Nice work.

[srwatters]

Thanks Joe! Compliments from you are much appreciated!

[barP]

what greenfield-sanders does is very subtle. small but important differences in each image, but i think what he really has going for him is the celebrity factor. i bet that if rene were famous, we would all say "wow! what a great portrait!" there's something about knowing a little about what a person is like that adds an extra dimension to any portrait, but especially one like this. very well shot!

wp.

[dquisenberry]

Originally Posted by barP

what greenfield-sanders does is very subtle. small but important differences in each image, but i think what he really has going for him is the celebrity factor. i bet that if rene were famous, we would all say "wow! what a great portrait!" there's something about knowing a little about what a person is like that adds an extra dimension to any portrait, but especially one like this. very well shot!

wp.

I agree. The difference for me is that I know the actors and his portrait of them is a bit different than what I would expect based upon what comes up when I think of them.

Jodie Foster, Steve Buscemi are good examples.

[Collins]

Originally Posted by srwatters

I've been somewhat taken with the work of Timothy Greenfield-Sanders of late and last night tried to capture more than just the image of the subject I was photographing. This idea comes somewhat from his book XXX 30 Porn-Star Portraits. I'm not claiming to be anywhere near his skill, but here is my attempt in capturing something more with a simple portrait.

Hmm...while the lighting is well done (as usual) it's missing something. I think facially she's....vacant. A slight smirk or any other hint of expression would have totally changed the dynamics of this photo.

[thechanks]

good shot, wish there was some more emotion in the facial features.

[srwatters]

For those looking for 'emotion'...

[barP]

this is such a subjective thing. the more i keep coming back to the deadpan image, the more i like it. what we automatically expect from a photograph of a beautiful woman is the standard victoria's secret catalog come hither look or the megawatt smile. that's how popular media portrays these women, but the fact is, they have many, many more emotions going on. i like the implied contradiction and the idea that once you start imagining what's behind her "expressionless" expression, there's a whole host of things that could be going on here. i admit, though, that's pretty subtle.

i think that what also makes greenfield's images work is that his subjects invariably share the trait of being truly striking in some way. they may not be as beautiful as rene' is, but they are more photogenic. something about them creates a truly memorable face, whereas rene is so perfect that she's almost bland - at least as portrayed here. she's incredibly hot, but in the same way that a lot of models are.....she's almost too hot, if that's possible!

ok...i'm rambling. i need more coffee.

wp.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by srwatters

Perhaps a whole new career path has opened for me. I'll check the Walgreen's website for photography positions

I'd try Costco first. They have better benefits.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

This is a great thread Scott. I wish I had the correct words to describe why but I've just deleted three sentences trying to describe the effect that first portrait has had on viewers.

I think the portrait is very effective in making the viewer either find or interpret emotion. The only critique I would even try and give to someone like you is that when a portrait like this is created, it would seem to me that the attention to minute details would be heightened to a critical level.

For example... if you look at Jenna on the cover of his book you notice how symmetrical he's made everything about her. Her hair, folded arms, hands (1 ring on each hand) and even her bracelet is centered perfectly. My interpretation of that photo is that he is basically eliminating everything about her except for the one thing that's off balance - her smirk and to me, that's where you end up.

I may be over-analyzing and I sure has heck may be waaaay off base but when I look at your shot compared to his work I see what's supposed to be there and what's not.

_/oe

[Concisus Cognatus]

As I've followed this thread and read the varied responses, it occurred to me the real genius behind the first image is how it forces the viewer to delve into their thinking processes to develop a label to describe on a subliminal level what their eyes and mind are perceiving.

So in that vein I would consider this image to be a very good representation of a given definition of art, a medium to force thought in order to make sense of what one is viewing.