Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I believe that you're the second person, Mike, to comment on having found a tad more with a second or closer look. And, yes, if I were doing the sessions I'd have dialed back one of those two lights for a more sculptural and 3 dimensional look; yet - I have to ask myself - why? Because that's how I was taught? Because that's what they and others expect? Tradition? To make them look prettier than they actually appear (most of the time)? Regards, George Lottermoser george@imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07 On Jan 19, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Mike Durling wrote: > Its a gut reaction, George. Maybe charming snapshot is a more apt > description, since the photo doesn't aspire to high art. The warm > expressions on Nathan's subjects draw me in whereas the general > effect of the others is to keep me at a distance. Looking back at > the presidential people portraits I see that a certain percentage > of them have genuine warm expressions, but the blast of flat > lighting really puts me off. > > Best, > > Mike Durling > > George Lottermoser wrote: >> I'm at a loss to understand >> how this "is a great portrait" >> and >> the "Dehumanizing portraits" >> are "bad photographs" >> >> for me: Nathan told a heart warming story of connection >> (as he so often does) >> and presented a charming snapshot >> to accompany the story >> >> but "a great portrait?" >> really? >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information