I stumbled upon another inspiring portrait today, this time by Andre du Plessis from sunny South Africa. To me it is a step beyond diptych or split technique, because he managed to take two photographs in one single shot. First, we see a portrait with superb tones:
...and as if this wouldn't be enough, the photo develops into an emotional-environmental portrait on the right side. That's what I mean with taking one shot and getting two. It could be actually three: far left, single portrait; center, emotional; far right, environmental. The little devil inside makes me longing for something to fill in the space on the right, like another figure in the background or some interesting detail of environment, but perfectionism spoils all the fun. Bottomline: terrific concept, for me another lesson learned. I need to ask him next time how he produces such delicate low-keyish tones on his portraits of dark-skinned models - quite challenging!
When it comes to spice up our portraits, it's usually about desperately looking for a new editing method but to my knowledge Andzrej Dragan was the last who discovered one, at least in terms of popularity and imitation, and Ed Carlile is the only one I know who managed to go beyond imitating Dragan. But it stands for photography too that there's nothing new under the sun, and inventing new techniques can sometimes be a mere re-discovery of artistic means used for a thousand years. That's how I found the age-old tool of diptychons, or for the purpose of this post: split portraits.
WikiAnswers makes it sound easy: A diptych is a photograph that uses two different or identical images side by side to form one single artistic statement. The two images can literally be in contact with each other, or separated by a border or frame.
The human body is - in most cases anyway - aligned vertically with the head on top and the rest below. It is often a problem to include the face and, for added information, hands in the frame. Usually we position the face or eyes in the upper golden section. But how to include the hands? If we want to get close to our model, it is challenging to include them, and the question remains how to connect composition-wise the space between hands and face. Avoiding a too low, and therefore sometimes cropped position of the arms is also challenging like it was in this image.
One day I found the two images below on Nicoleta's lovely blog, and seeing them together sparked the idea of putting them into the same frame.
As a result, we have an image that works two ways: we have a portrait above and a documentary image below. The scene could have been put into a single frame, but making it two and including them in a split single frame results in more details due to the closer point of view. In a single frame, we couldn't get close to the subject like this. At this moment, it came to my mind that I'd made a similar experience with two of my own images.
Of course if we compose the split afterwards, it can't be as good as a pre-visualised and accordingly executed concept. The following examples are works from a joint project by Ara Oshagan and Levon Parian (who is a visual artist, not writer). In these images, it becomes obvious how important it is to fine-tune the composition of the two separate shots to make them work as a whole.
The upper part of the image below has a dynamic composition with the head tilted to the left side (creating a downwards "negative" diagonal). It is perfectly balanced out by composing the lower part equally dynamic, with a diagonal from the lower left to the upper right. The hands make the music, so to say, and the direction of the model's limb makes the rest by serving as both background and compositional element to balance out the alignment of the upper part.
The image below is, on the contrary to the first, composed following a vertical line. Both parts follow the same conceptual symmetry: any diverging lines of composition would ruin the impression. The face is slightly out of this vertical, though, but only to the extent of adding a little tension to the vertical composition.
As I said, the two images are part of a photo-essay on survivors of the Armenian Genocide, Ara's joint project with Levon Parian. Check it out by any means, and watch the video in my previous post for a better understanding of what these people went through.
And the variations are endless. Environmental portraits or glam shots (and virtually everything) can be spiced up with this method, just have a look at Carrie Yury's works.
And if we think about all the possibilities offered by diptychs, a triptych could be almost a visual overkill. Sometimes it seems to me that hunting high and low for new editing techniques is all but a one-way street. Going back to the basic techniques of visual arts can be a much more inspiring and therefore rewarding experience.
Imagine that you are of same age with the Land you live on with the Nature that surrounds you with the nurturing, welldoing rays of the Sun that you were born in the arms of Mountains that you grew up protected by a loving Father imagine you had known the real Glory the real Wisdom but most of all Destruction Pain Suffering Humiliation And even Death Forget everything if you can!
(I stumbled upon this video today totally by chance. Of course, the vintage Genocide photographs are not mine, neither is the shot of the girl with the tightly sawn lips. The rest... it's good to know that my photographs inspire others.)
Szarkasztikus cím, de találó... Még valamikor 2000 táján egy, a Fotó-Videóban megjelent cikken felbuzdulva felkerestem Dr. Szentpétery Pétert, egy haláláig aktív, valódi reneszánsz embert. Nem csak arról volt nevezetes, hogy ő volt a 2. világháború utolsó élő magyar haditudósítója, hanem arról is, hogy a háború végén sokakkal ellentétben nem semmisítette meg a negatívjait, hanem nem kevés bátorsággal megőrizte azokat a rendszerváltásig. S mintha ez már nem lett volna épp elég kockázatos az antiidőkben, 56-ot is végigfotózta és azokat a képeket is megőrizte. Találkozásunk során szerény és zárkózott volt, fotózni is csak azzal a feltétellel engedte magát hogy adok neki a képekből. Én viszont súlyos hibát követtem el, mert úgy gondoltam hogy ezzel a megtisztelő feladattal hűséges társamat, a régi Chinon CM7 kamerámat bízom meg. Csakhogy kiderült, a Chinon zárja rosszul működött és egyetlen kép sem sikerült. Annyira szégyelltem magamat hogy még csak nem is szóltam róla Szentpéterynek. Amikor 2005-ben elhunyt, úgy gondoltam hogy ez a vétkes mulasztás már életem végéig kínozni fogja a lelkiismeretemet.
Ma az 1X-en egy érdekes vita volt arról hogy Capát szeretjük és tiszteljük, de nem volt-e a másik oldalon ugyanolyan tehetséges fotós, aki csak azért nem lett hozzá hasonló sztár, mert bár képein a katonák ugyanúgy szenvednek és harcolnak, mint Capa képein, csak éppen a vesztesek egyenruháját viselik? Márpedig Capa és Szentpétery - az "elég közeli" képek bátorságán túl - azért is rokoníthatók, mert képeik az egyéni emberről szólnak a háborúban, nem ideológiáról és propagandáról.
Szerettem volna az 1X-es haveroknak megmutatni pár Szentpétery-fotót, de hosszú keresés után csak 1956-osokat találtam. Azokat is pocsék minőségben, egy 1996-ot idéző freewebes oldalon. Ekkor támadt a gondolatom, hogy felveszem a kapcsolatot a hagyatékát kezelő lányával, mert Szentpétery munkássága a mostaninál többet érdemel. Talán így sikerül, mintegy poszthumusz, lerónom a régi adósságomat? Nosza, írtam egy emailt és felajánlottam, hogy a képeket normálisan beszkennelem, csinálok egy weboldalt korrekt angol fordítással és a többi. Legnagyobb örömömre Szentpétery Márta nem zárkózott el az ötlettől, így remélem hogy a továbbiakat valamikor Pesten megbeszélve vele, hamarosan több száz don-kanyarbeli negatívtekercs várja majd az asztalomon hogy a legjobb képekből méltó emléket állítsak Szentpétery Tibornak és a képein szereplő magyar katonáknak.
Egyébként Szentpétery életét egyszer egy Leica mentette meg azzal, hogy felfogta egy orosz mesterlövész golyóját. (Mit nem adott volna Capa egy ilyen sztoriért...) Velledits Éva fenti fotóján az életmentő Leicával látható.
Apropó Capa... már csak az ő emléktábláját kéne megcsinálni a szülőházára a Városháza utcában, mert ez a projekt is lassan 10 éve húzódik, aztán szerintem rendben is lennék a lelkiismeretemmel.
I started this blog in September 2007 to share my thoughts about photography, as a spin-off the half-abandoned Driftwood Gallery. Hence the title: new photonotes. ("New", because "photonotes" wasn't available as title and URL. I was also considering a catchier title like "Britney Spears naked" or "horny Japanese college girls" but changed my mind in the last minute. My visiting stats suffer ever since.) It turned into a photoblog, but I didn't take (and post) enough pictures for it to become a really good photoblog. Brussels is hardly photogenic during the five winter months, and recently our weekend trips to the countryside also ceased for various reasons. There was nothing to post. For some time I considered abandoning this blog alltogether. Somehow however I feel again like writing and decided to get back to the beginnings: here go my very subjective and fallible notes on photography. I'll write in English to practice the language, and in my mother tongue if something Hungarian-related pops up. Enjoy!
My mind keeps coming back again and again to this powerful photograph. So, today I opened the Bible (meaning Taschen's fabulous "20th Century Photography") to read more about Arnold Newman. It says, "environmental portait" - developed by Newman - is the art of including in the portrait objects characteristic of the portrayed person, thereby associating the subject with his work and with the world of ideas. (I think Newman didn't invent it, he only was the first to turn it into one's particular style. Just to mention Cartier-Bresson who used it as well, even a decade before Newman changed from documentary to portrait photography in the 1940s, and XIXth century portraiture was also environmental in this sense of meaning). It's like pizza actually, you don't need to invent it but you must make it in a way that's both new and outstanding. I tried to get beneath the layers of Newman's photograph, partly trying to understand what Taschen meant by "connecting the subject with the world of ideas". First, it is a fabulous BW shot consisting only of three tones (black, grey, white) which almost gives the impression of an abstract painting. It is the black piano only that bring dynamism into the picture; if Stravinsky wouldn't sit there, we could easily mistake it for a purely geometrical shape. This alone could make it a great artwork, but there's the subject. Stravinsky is looking small compared to the huge black shape of the piano. He looks relaxed and void of any emotion, almost bored. From here on, we have two options. (In Hungarian, we call this útelázgazgolódás.) One is: the portrait gets its power from the contradiction between the seemingly unimportant artist and the huge, dynamic, powerful shape of the piano which symbolizes his music. Hence, the photo is about Stravinsky's music. He's only there to make sure we don't think it's about, let's say, Béla Bartók. The other is: for Stravinsky, his art is more important than himself, telling us that he is a reserved and modest man (could you imagine a portrait showing a small Dali and a huge painting by him? I hardly think so...). Thus, the photo is about Stravinsky. This is what I thought since I posted the photo a few days ago but today I discovered another layer beyond abstract beauty and symbolism. To me, the piano looks like a lion, opening wide his mouth and Stravinsky looks like a lion-tamer in the circus putting his mouth into it - no big gestures needed because he rules the beast. And Stravinsky's music can be like a beast - just listen to this from 6.00 onwards. So, my path of understanding this photograph is: the piano reminds to a lion, the lion stands for ferociousness and power, and it is this association with the beast that leads to recognize the same ferociousness and power in Stravinsky's music. Newman doesn't show the music, he only provides us with a symbol from which we can discover the idea of his music. And that's what I find ingenious - Newman lets us discover this music, the soul of the artist, by following our own imagination and associations. He doesn't show all this directly, like Cartier-Bresson in the famous Giacometti shot (also a masterpiece of environmental portraiture but I prefer Newman's subtlety). In the photograph, Stravinsky's lack of emotions becomes a symbol for mastering the music - not fighting it like Beethoven, not doing playful magic like Mozart, not meditating over it like Bach. He simply rules over it. Of course, it was good that about 20 years ago, on a long train trip from Budapest to Lenti, I read his biography and hence know that he was a reserved guy, not devoid of humour but taking music deadly seriously without making a big fuss about it; he was a star, but didn't consider himself one. I don't have the patience and time anymore to read such biographies but fortunately there are such photographs which tell volumes.
And now - music.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
It's said that a good portrait reflects the soul of the subject. If that's correct, a good artist portrait should reflect the spirit of his art. And if it's a musician, the portrait should show the music. For example, if we look at the famous portrait of Stravinsky by Arnold Newman, it's obvious that he's not about easy listening. Neither is Lemmy Kilmister looking like chill-out on Ibiza. And this guy does definitely not look like a countertenor (but he is - that was a suprise :))
It's easy to photograph musicians when antics and looks are part of the show, like Marilyn Manson or Adam Ant (just to commit the sin of talking about them in the same sentence). It gets difficult when there's only the holy trinity of artist, instrument and music. I saw today such a photograph. It's Miroslav Tadic, one of the world's best guitarists. Listen to the music, and see how the photo captured it - the underplayed and therefore all the stronger passion, the dynamics, seemingly so free and unbound, yet as disciplined and strict as square format. And look at his face - glancing at his fingers, like a beast-tamer looking proudly at his trained lions in the circus, expecting them to do their tricks, knowing that they would. All we have to do is to watch and enjoy the show.
Even in the age of flickr, when everyone and their aunt has a web gallery and photography seems to be democratic like never before, the old truth remains: trends are set by the opinionmakers. But who is an opinionmaker nowadays? Bloggers give old giants like Aperture a hard time and don't let them rest on their well-deserved laurels. However, even with a photo blog behind every virtual tree, just a few bloggers have the eye to present artwork that's diversified but equally high quality-wise. Blogs like http://www.vasodeaguablog.com/ do us a great favor: they search the net for finding the buzz, and show us the best of their pick.
What I like about this blog is the diversity of the featured artists. For instance, there's Isa Marcelli with her stunning ability to master the difficult art of square format composition. One has to admire John Salisbury's travel in time. David J. Nightingale offers HDRs that make sense (his jumping shot is hilarious). Aneta Kowalczyk's portraits are a hot breath in the neck of some well-established glam and portrait masters, not to mention Falsalama (although he has better stuff on his flickr page than the selected ones imo). James Wainwright re-defines blur. There's even food photography by Christopher Hornaday, definitely off-limits for people on a diet. Jordi Gual makes you commit suicide in a very beautiful and peaceful way, listening all the way to Hurt by Johnny Cash. Tom Stone gives dignity a new meaning with his shots of homeless people. And so on and so forth... the only thing I miss is nudes. Fine art, classic, pin-up, emotive or whatever - there's something inspirational in almost every genre from street to decay, even graphic and furniture(!) design, but this very basic genre is missing. Anyway, the blog's title is very apt - browsing throught the galleries is indeed like a having a glass of pure refreshing water. Or even better: kaltes klares Wasser...
The site leaves only one question... what does this guy want from me? Compared to some folks featured there, I'm just a wannabe.
So here we go in with the big feedback test... I uploaded the same image (the one on the top in the 22 January post, because it offers good points for critique but still has some beauty to it imo).
Photosig: 3 comments (wow!), unfortunately none of them in-depth or really helpful. Fotocommunity: no comments and 63 views. This was rather surprising as I posted it in their Critique channel - I'm a member there since 2006 and usually got useful feedback. Nothing good stays the same, obviously. 1x: rejected, which could be business as usual if it wasn't for some ignorant comments in screening (like "overexposed face" - wtf?) Nota bene: if I uploaded it to their Critique channel, I would have probably received useful feedback (I didn't because I know what they would say). Deviantart: no comments, no critique Photo.net: no comments no nothing Reggae.com: no comment, no cry ;)
Bottomline: if I was in need of quick and useful feedback I'd be in trouble. To me, this superficial little test proved that for useful feedback there's no alternative for 1x.com. However... this is what a truly great photographer told me once:
"I haven't sent a single image to the [Critique] section, because in all honesty, if an image that I shot didn't get accepted the way I wanted it, I don't really care about what most people have to say about it. If it was rejected, they will look for flaws. Most advice will be useless, there's again probably just a handful of people whose advice would be useful. When you've got a teenager who hasn't seen life and hasn't really created any significant images telling you that you should crop an image in a particular way, it's usually not worth paying attention. I'll value his opinion, as far as whether an image works or not - a YES or NO answer, but nothing more than that. There's just too much nonsense in critique."
Couldn't agree more. BTW, Mitchell has an excellent Lightroom and PS tutorial you can download from his site for a few bucks. It's worth the investment. Come on, it's the price of 2 bottles of wine.
Hungarian photographers are sadly underrepresented on sites like 1X. Probably because they have three excellent sites to choose from (photograph.hu, topfoto.hu and fotozz.hu) as far as feedback is concerned. Photograph is more of a joint blog, topfoto appreciates nature above the rest, and fotozz offers everything from total bullshit to excellent in-depth critique. My photo in question got quite good feedback on fotozz, which came as a suprise. If you are Hungarian, don't speek much English and in need of feedback, fotozz is still the place to go. With their ingenious screening and evaluation system, topfoto could be even better (a Hungarian 1X) but it's more for tack-sharp bird shots than other kinds of photography.
Next time I'll test some webhosting services, like one.com and smugmug.
By the way... I got into contact with an old buddy who blogs on http://inphoto.blog.hu. He asked me how I like his blog (actually, his first question after 7 years of no contact was: "oh hi! have you seen the new Leica M9?" - now that's what I call fanatic!). I told him he'd reach a much bigger audience if he wrote in English, as the interest in cameras with a 13000 $ price tag is not really hot in Hungary nowadays. We agreed to start a joint project - he will write the posts on shiny Leicas and stuff like that, I'll translate, we'll get dirty filthy rich by Google Adwords and then move to some godforsaken Caribian island resort and photograph piña coladas for the rest of our life. Or something similar.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
I've had enough of Onexposure (www.1x.com and http://1x.com/member/17030/balazs-pataki). For a year, this site was my bread and butter but eventually I got tired of rejections. You know, to publish a photograph there it first goes through screening, and... well, theoretically I'd say "if it's good enough, it will be published" but I no longer understand what's considered "good" there. The smallest common denominator of published images is that they are nice and sharp. So far so good, but I paid 99 $ a year to see my photos rejected, and now it seems that I'm a masochist who's willingly paying for getting frustrated. True, you get a homepage for your bucks but - and this is why I'll cancel my membership - you can have much better hosting service for much less elsewhere. They have an excellent Critique channel though which is probably the best on the net for feedback on your shots, but I don't believe in the use of photo critique any longer. It's always the "crop here, darken there, sharpen overthere" bullshit. One could use a critique-generator and it would be as useful as it gets. This equally applies to the critiques I write. It just doesn't make sense. Anyway, my own site is under preparation now, in the meantime I made an experiment. I posted the same image to photo.net, photosig, deviantart, fotocommunity and two Hungarian sites, just to compare the feedback received.
...and as if this wouldn't be enough, the photo develops into an emotional-environmental portrait on the right side.
That's what I mean with taking one shot and getting two. It could be actually three: far left, single portrait; center, emotional; far right, environmental. The little devil inside makes me longing for something to fill in the space on the right, like another figure in the background or some interesting detail of environment, but perfectionism spoils all the fun.
