sometimes there are snapshots that tell volumes.
matt's post speaks to that, also sarrah connor's polaroid snapshot
in the first terminator film.
i try not to judge portraits too much. often times they are interesting enough as they are.
but sometimes the photographer does his or her best to make some sort of image
where it is lit and posed and photographed in a certain way, a " studio portrait "
and "i guess" they are begging to be critiqued because the history of studio portraiture is
closely linked to formal painting-portraits even down to lighting and poses.
i was trained with a portrait photographer who herself was trained in the great depression, when
formal painting and karsh were on people's minds.
rembrandt lighting techniques were the rage here in the states until the 1980s ( maybe they died off but she kept doing them )
and you were trained how to light people and how to make them look "their best" ... different placement of the light
different head tilt, different side to photograph them on ( always their "good side" unless there was a physical deformity )
you figure if someone has gone out of their way to photograph someone looking like a peter paul rubens portrait
but they don't get the "good side" and the subject isn't "idealized" the photographer should probably want to know that
but then again, it might have been done LIKE THAT on purpose to mock idealization of people and flemish baroque painting ?
snap shots are always different, they are the ultimate photograph of a person as them selves, not as a demi-god.
sarah connor and matt's friend's friend portraits are the ultimate, they are perfect portraits, since they are linked with memory too ..