On 6/20/2013 8:21 AM, Bruce Walker wrote:
I'd call that the photojournalistic approach to portraits. Pure
realistic documentation is great for medical papers and accident
reports, but not so much for art.
Consider who is paying for the portrait. If it's me the photographer,
I'll portray you how I damn well please. If it's the sitter, I'll
attempt to portray them as they want to be seen (within reason, that I
get to define).
I kind of touched on that in the thread on the Alisa photo shoot. It
just seems to me that someone can pay you to take photos of a particular
type, but they can't stop you from taking the photos you really want to
take in the process.
I suppose there could be an ethical dilemma at play, but I don't see
one. I mean, all they can say is, "Ew, I don't like that one. It's too
sad." But, if there's a shot that I feel adds something to my portfolio,
I don't see anything wrong with using it that way, or taking the shot
when I see it. And, just as a more somber cast can make great photos
when lifted out of the context of the particular photo shoots they were
taken in, tan lines can be a feature rather than a bug, depending on the
mood you're trying to create in the photo. If you're trying to evoke a
candid moment, or highlight the little imperfections that
counter-intuitively make a person more appealing, I think they're great.
But, if you're looking to create images that portray purely conventional
beauty, or simply trying to make someone look as close to perfect as
they can possibly be, then tan lines detract from that.
I suspect, though, that if someone wants the tan lines to be obvious,
they'll say at some point, "Be sure to show the tan lines. I think they
look awesome."
-- Walt
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
