On 27/11/05, Ann Sanfedele, discombobulated, unleashed: >It is one thing to work up the light and stuff if >you are taking >a photo of something like, um, dare I say , a >couple of green peppers >but if you are photographing a person it might be >nice to reveal something >of their character instead of looking at their >faces or hands as if they >were simply an object. The shot of Truman is >terrible. Nothing to do with >his character at all, all to do with how cleverly >the photgrapher can >light him. It is al showing off the photgrapher's >ego - not a portrait >of Harry at all. feh
I think that as a photographer you have to work through a variety of styles and preferences along the way, and Newman was trying something different. Obviously not all his work is the same. Later, he did lots of stuff with the sitter as part of a larger design incorporating props or other external design elements, and later still using collage, with bits of a single image chopped up and reassembled. It's still a portrait in my book. I think the shot of Truman is fantastic - to me it illustrates a different way of looking at a face - one that had been photographed many times previously (and since). I don't understand what is clever about it. To me it's just different. :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
