Quote Originally Posted by Cheryl Jacobs View Post
When you realize and accept that the photographer is ALWAYS part of the portrait, it becomes easier to flex, tug, and coax the life into the image.

- CJ
I am no expert on portraiture, but I have always felt (to take your point further), that EVERY portrait is a projection of the photographers impression of the subject. Afterall we choose the light, the moment and very often the context. At that level, the question becomes, is this a true representation of the person? I find it hard to believe that it is true most of the time. I also do not believe that a single image in any way can summarise anyones personality, though it can be powerful in emphasising a specific trait (e.g. Karschs portrait of Churchill looking resolute, but in fact angry).

I guess what I am trying to say is that I do not agree with the OP's 2nd item, which I believe is a myth created by photographers to explain a feel or sense in an image, which stands out beyond the image itself. That feel is not necessarily the truth the majority of the time, but an imposition.

A friend of mine once told me he fealt my street photographs were self-portraits, with their emphasis on solitary existence, detachment and melancholy (rather than sadness). I think he touched upon something, because I see that in the portraits I take also...even of my children...and I have happy kids.

So I think I go even further than you Cheryl to suggest that more often than not, it is 80% the photographer and 20% the subject...but then I may be just a selfish photographer