Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,223   Posts: 1,532,502   Online: 1112
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,016
    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    All are beautiful, I think the question really is, how does the photographer make that beauty shine?

    Also think this needs to be moved to photographic ethics/philosophy
    I'm not sure about the former (except in theory), but I sure agree with the latter.

  2. #12
    SuzanneR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,730
    Images
    139
    Seems more of an ethical or philosophical question, so I moved this thread from "Miscellaneous" to "Ethics and Philosophy." I have to say... I think most people can look good in a photograph from time to time, but there are some who just always look interesting in pictures all the time. Bone structure, expression, the eyes... all just come together. Georgia O'Keefe I think was quite photogenic, but probably not a traditional beauty in person, I'd guess.

    I'm interested in faces, and it doesn't matter a whit if it's photogenic in the "all American model" sense... bringing out something in a face in pictures can be hard with some people, but I think with persistence just about anyone can be photogenic, and have an expressive and interesting picture of themselves made.
    Last edited by SuzanneR; 12-17-2011 at 03:10 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: grammar

  3. #13
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,192
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by SuzanneR View Post
    Seems more of an ethical or philosophical question, so I moved this thread from "Miscellaneous" to "Ethics and Philosophy." I have to say... I think most people can look good in a photograph from time to time, but there are some who just always look interesting in pictures all the time. Bone structure, expression, the eyes... all just come together. Georgia O'Keefe I think was quite photogenic, but probably not a traditional beauty in person, I'd guess.

    I'm interested in faces, and it doesn't matter a whit if it's photogenic in the "all American model" sense... bringing out something in a face in pictures can be hard with some people, but I think with persistence just about anyone can be photogenic, and have an expressive and interesting picture of themselves made.
    Suzanne, sorry about putting this in the wrong section. However, it is not a flippant question, as I can testify that as a photography lecturer over the last 20 years, some people are photogenic and most are not and this has nothing to do with personal preference of beauty.

  4. #14
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    I did not expect such dismissive replies as this. Perhaps some misunderstand my original question, as I am asking for objective reasons why this is the case, not subjective responses as of define nice.
    "Photogenic" is a totally subjective term. It's not an absolute or quantifiable. I find it used to describe someone whose looks a photographer likes who took a photograph they like. Dismissive? Sorry.

  5. #15
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,192
    Images
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    "Photogenic" is a totally subjective term. It's not an absolute or quantifiable. I find it used to describe someone whose looks a photographer likes who took a photograph they like. Dismissive? Sorry.
    You are totally incorrect.

  6. #16
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post

    You are totally incorrect.
    Jeesh, that's a relief!

  7. #17
    MDR
    MDR is offline
    MDR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Austria
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,056
    Clive I don't think that cgw is incorrect at all, I once took a photograph of a girl I that I thought was very photogenic but the photographs that came out were total lackluster, the tought that the girl was photogenic came from my little brain not my big brain. Emotions of the photographer (Hormones) do play a role. If one doesn't have a strong emotional connection to the subject one might see the subject in a different light. But from a purely aesthetic point of view I still believe that a strong bone structure makes a photographic face.

    Dominik

  8. #18
    SuzanneR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,730
    Images
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    Suzanne, sorry about putting this in the wrong section. However, it is not a flippant question, as I can testify that as a photography lecturer over the last 20 years, some people are photogenic and most are not and this has nothing to do with personal preference of beauty.
    I largely agree with you, and I don't think being photogenic has much to do with one's inner (or even outer) beauty. That said... since most of us live and work in the realm of the mostly unphotogenic (or barely photogenic) people, then how do you go about making portraits that are? I don't find the thought or question to be flippant at all, in fact, I think it's an interesting question, but since photogenic people like Georgia O'Keefe are so rare, it leads me to think about how to make portraits that elevate those of us not so blessed into compelling portraits. I mean honestly, half of Steiglitz's work was done just by working with someone so photogenic, and I don't mean to dismiss his talent, I'm an enormous fan, because I think he pushed the muse thing farther than just about anyone at that time, but what good fortune to have such a willing and photogenic model.

    You know, this is a great question, because now I'm thinking about Avedon, and I'm sure he had quite the eye for the photogenic, because those folks in his American West all were! At least in the picture, but I'll bet in person they looked quite normal... which has me wondering... was it the photographer? Was is his craft that made the portraits so interesting? Was it who he selected to photograph?

    Thanks for posing the question... has me thinking....
    Last edited by SuzanneR; 12-17-2011 at 03:53 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: additional thoughts

  9. #19
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,240
    Images
    60
    I think this is related to the phenomenon known as "the camera adds 10 pounds" .

    Slightly more seriously, as a photograph involves a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional object, I think it would be safe to say that some of the three dimensional features of some people render in two dimensions more easily and more effectively than other three dimensional features.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  10. #20
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,192
    Images
    343
    Kate Moss.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin