From 'The Online Photographer':
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/t...m-excellen.html


"Sanders McNew explores the tension between the concepts of "portraits" and "nudes" in flattering but unretouched photographs of real women.

Mostly nude portraits (not workplace/school friendly)

A very short article about the work"

Love his T Shirt in that article

Dear God, why bother?

Rob C

For some reason the Glen Quagmire quote "Fat chicks need love too... but they got to pay." comes to mind.

I like them.

They try neither to be overly sexual, pornographic or even erotic. They are just a celebration of the beauty of the female body in all its shapes and sizes in an unembarrassed, unashamed, uncoy, unphoney ( I made those words up) manner.

Actually they are very refreshing pictures of real people.

What a concept.


Michael

Absolutely, Michael, and that´s why they fall flat in their asses (the pic, at least) because the underlying assumption to support that concept has to be that ALL bodies (female) are beautiful when that is evidently, clearly and in most peoples´experiences not the case. As proven. And as the majority of "real" women that I know would vouch. Why ever do you think there is such an enormous beauty industry if all women were created equal and beautiful?

But you are just being controversial; please, tell me it´s so!

Rob C

Rob: it sounds to me as though when you say "beauty" you mean what I mean when I say "pretty". A pet bulldog may be beautiful to its owner but homely to a stranger.

Sanders has got each of these women to vividly reveal a persona, some of which I find attractive, some not - making the photos more character studies than pin-ups. Using greyscale instead of colour further de-eroticizes them. I see the stress of posing naked as having put each woman into self-conscious mode, which in turn amplified her self-expression. If Sanders had managed to evoke the same intensity from the women while having them pose in swimsuits or underwear, nothing artistic would have been lost, at least to my eye.

As Dale says, these are character studies. I am not sure the subjects' nudity adds anything to the work, but I find some of them very successful.



Could you please expand on this, Rob?



Perhaps one of the reasons this work is worth looking at is precisely the fact that the women are not portrayed as objects of (any) industry, but as people.

Two answers for the price of one!

Micek: the only expansion I´d have thought one can make is to repeat that the pictures are nothing other than boring, ordinary photographs of VERY ordinary looking females and, as such, hardly worth the trouble of shooting. Of course, the photographer might have personal reasons for photographing these people, but that has zilch to do with the images and their relevance to the public display of naked flesh as being discussed in this thread.

The beauty industry. The industry does not do so well because women think of themselves as "object"; if you really really believe that women are so insecure then you should meet a few more of them. The greatest insult that women perceive is when somebody suggests that they dress to please men; the contention is that they buy what they damn well like for themselves. This very thing has cropped up repeatedly in rape/harassment cases when males have attempted to claim that women have ´led them on´ by dressing provocatively with the resulting reply that they (the women) reserve the right to dress as they please without that granting any imaginary rights to the male species, which, I think, confirms what I have written about the objectification of the fair sex.

I believe, by dint of experience, that the whole busines of women as object is a fabrication, a plot devised by the ugly sisters and the politically correct school of charmless idiocy. Women are far more self-possessed in public situation, in interpersonal exchanges and fare far better in almost any media event you care to think about. Why? Because from early childhood they are brighter intellectually, are far more self-aware and self-assured and have a much deeper understanding of how to open doors. Doormats? Objects? You have got to be joking! They know how to do what it takes.

Dale: If I may refer to your bulldog analogy, then it explains why you don´t get my point: a bulldog is ugly under any circumstances. It might well be lovable, as indeed might all the ladies in the photographs, but there is no semantic trick which can convert either them or the bulldog into beauty!

Revelation of character. For me, this is nothing more than one of the hoariest claims known to photography. Character is never revealed in a single photograph or even a session. The claim that so many protraitists make about that very achievement makes me want to scream out loud in frustration. Bollocks! At best, you get a shot that either looks roughly like the person at some particular moment or, better, you transcend the person and create an imaginary being, one who is the product of the two skills - yours and the model´s. But character?

I take issue with the point you make about b/w de-eroticising bodies. With respect, good b/w makes for far stronger erotic imagery than colour! Check out Waclaw Wantuch´s eponymous site and compare both media. I do agree about the swimsuits in that nothing would have been lost, but then, neither do I think anything would have been gained in this particular context.

Thus, my "why bother" remark. All personal opinion, of course, so hardly important.

Rob C

Rob: thank you for enlightening me on the nature of women. I happen to live with four of them, but perhaps I should follow your advice and go out and meet a few more.

I have some further doubts, though.



Would you kindly explain at what stage females become worth shooting? When they are SLIGHTLY ordinary, or perhaps only ORDINARY? Should we refrain from doing so until they are remotely ATTRACTIVE or only when they are STUNNING?



If I understand you rightly, that means they should not be photographed either, like VERY ordinary women. Could you possibly suggest a list of dog breeds that might be considered photogenic?

Thanks.

Hey, I like porno as much as the next guy and have made a fool of myself over beautiful (and often shallow) women as the next guy.

BUT, just because a body doesn't fall into mainstream catagories of "beauty" does not negate the beauty of women who fail to meet the mainstream criteria.

What is wrong with photographing bodies as they are. Unashamed, and unenhanced. Do all nudes need to be hardbodies, or perfect as the beauty industry defines.

There are a lot of pictures these days of pregnant women, many of them nudes. Some people think they are great because they show womanhood in one of its natural states. Others think they are ugly because they prefer to think of women as strickly sex objects and the result of that "sex" is rather left unknown.

Just for fun, lets say the fat girl in his pictures was your wife and presuming you loved her, would not the way she looked be beautiful to you?

Be careful the answer may say more about you that you wish to be known.


Michael

I think that's the entire point of this collection. They are real. Not glamour models, not retouched in photoshop. Women you would see every day. It's more about the artform and NOT the models.

Lastly I have to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, whether it be women, bulldogs, or photography and it seems we have drastically different ideas of what beauty is, as you say it's just your opinion, but it's saddening to see that you are so close minded when it comes to "bothering"

I believe the photographs are successful.

I do like some of them more than others. But the greatest success of these photographs is that right here, right now, people are talking about them. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant - that you are compelled to make a comment about them is success.

I agree. I suspect most, if not all, of the women in that series has someone in their personal life who views them as being beautiful. My only complaint about the project is that it seems overly long. 246 images is too many. I think it could have been pared down to 50-75 and been more effective. It also struck me that there were a number of instances where diptyches might have been in order.

No Mike, that is not succes. For that to be success you would have to believe the PR agency cop-out that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Patently, those very agencies that pass along those ludicrous one-liners do NOT believe that: consider the exceptionally tight security they exercise over top magazines, controlling, vetting and choosing even within the tight group of the top-evel photographers that those same mags would like to have cover celebrity interviews. Control is VERY tight only because it matters greatly what type of publicity is received by Mr and Mrs Joe Public. Quality of publicity is crucial, not unimportant.

That the site, the images, are being discussed has little to do with the photographer or his models; that group of individuals was simply brought to our attention by the original poster and if you wish to believe that there has been success simply due to discussion, then the success belongs to the OP.

But I tire of this - I have made my views as clear as I am able. If others wish to find them opaque, unclear and plainly incorrect, then that´s okay by me too. There is little joy in repetition, as per the sad state of some of the other threads in the camera/lens/equipment departments of this site. Speaking of which, perhaps Ray is correct to think that received wisdom is taken too literally by many people, that they question nothing if it is repeated often enough, just as with the no such thing as bad publicity credo.

Rob C

Michael, my wife has worked with me on shoots with girls ever since the 70s; she has shared the same beaches where those beautiful young women have carefully positioned themselves between set-ups in an effort to retain an even tan; she has sprayed those same perfect bodies to make them glisten for my cameras. She was, at the time, also the mother of our two children and had no problem (not did I) with running around topless on the sands as she worked. However, and this is perhaps the point, she is/was no fool: you do not put yourself in the silly position of getting photographed and stuck up on the internet when your own common sense tells you (should) that you are just going to make a fool of yourself.

Just for fun, the fat girl in the pictures my wife? I can´t see that how my wife does or does not look has much to do with the photographs under review: she is not one of the ladies there. As I explain above, she would not put herself into such a silly position and if you refer to physical looks, then yes, she was beautiful when she was of an age that women can be beautiful in that specifically physical sense of the word. Only an idiot denies the reality of the ravages of time to either gender; the only difference is that some have more to lose in the first place. If you want to argue the point, then think no further than that line in Marilyn´s song: "and we all lose our charms in the end," and from those symbolic lips you hear the sadness of life as clearly and prophetically as you might ever wish to.

Aha! Food beckons. (Now THAT´s a beautiful woman at work!)

Rob C

So, what part of glamour models ain´t real? Do you think they all need plastic boobs?

Bothering. To bother about something one has to care; to bother about beauty when it is so evidently missing is pointless. Beauty of body and/or face or its lack therein is ALL that a photo can show; to pretend otherwise is to engage with the mindset of the charlatan. Try to think of a SINGLE photograph where the magical mystery of character is revealed. You will be able to list countless where the ACT of pretending, of projecting an emotion hopefully defining character has been done with success - think the movies - but to see character in a photograph of an unknown person is a claim in the realm of the absurd: you just can´t know. Takes us neatly back to the thread elsewhere of the typical terrorist costume of beard and swarthy looks...

Rob C

I agree. In fact, after about 55 images, I didn't view the rest.

And I still stand on my belief of success. It doesn't matter how one finds out about it. The fact that we're debating whether the images are good or not, art or not, is the success. The fact that he is being discussed on more than this forum is a success. Now, I must add that there are different levels of success. So how successful this work is becomes a different discussion.

Rob, I am worried now.
If I see beauty in some of those images, does that mean I am hallucinating?

Could you also please clarify what degree of beauty is required before a woman is worth photographing? Are there any measurements, any anatomical criteria you could share with us?

I wouldn't want to abuse your patience, so is there a website or literature of any sort where I could make myself familiar with the canons of beauty that dictate what is worth portraying and what isn't?

It had never occurred to me before that one shouldn't photograph plain women or bulldogs if some artistic purpose was involved, but I am eager to learn; what dog breeds are photogenic and which, apart from bulldogs, are not?

"some of these images"? So you're saying you're just a degree or two away from Rob's opinion? If you agree why are you arguing?

I'd say the plasticised, over photoshopped images of women caked in make up that you see all the time these days is to my mind, incredibly boring. These photos show women looking beautiful without resembling a blowup doll, as is sadly becoming the norm these days. But if your taste leans more towards women resembling mannikins, then these would be very boring indeed.
Some of the images are stunning, mixed in with the very good shots. And to get so much variety of images from such a simple set up is also a testament to the photographer's skill.

The part that "ain't" real about glamour models are the hours spent in make-up and with the hair stylists, the powdering/coverup makeup for the shiny bits, the photoshop touchups for blemishes, eye-colour enhancement, teeth whitening, eye-whitening, slimming, lip widening and what-have-you.

As for the beauty comments again I'll say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we have differing opinions on that one, but let me ask you this. If you were hired for a set of products shots for a product that you don't believe in would you still do it? If you were hired to take pictures of a gallery that you didn't find beautiful and photo-worth would you do it? Lastly if you were hired to take pictures of a model that you didn't find beautiful would you do it?

Not sure why being photographed in a way that makes you look good is silly. Just because it is not to your taste, doesn't make something bad. And when exactly does a female stop being beautiful as she is ravaged by time, when she is no longer a teenager, in her twenties, thirties.... You seem to have a very narrow minded view of how and when a woman can look good and it seems your wife has passed that stage as far as you are concerned.
I knew someone who adored fat women, so the fat girl mentioned above would be just his type. Just as some men like curvy girls and some like skinny girls, some will like plastic girls with fake boobs and others will hate them, some will like heavily made up girls and some will like those without makeup, each to his own. To my mind, it's a girl's personality that makes them attractive [as opposed to simple pretty/ugly judgements ] and where I think the photographer has suceeded, is in capturing their personalities.

Darkpenguin: I said I find beauty in some of these images, (not some of these women.Whether the women are beautiful or not is not my concern, what I am talking about is the photographs).
Rob has made it clear that he finds this series of photographs boring and not worth bothering with.
Are you suggesting all 200+ photographs are beautiful?

JJJ

Beautiful, as in photogaphy of women, is a visual thing. There is no point in trying to add to that by bringing to the party diversions such as character, voice, sense of humour, kindnes, advanced maternal instincts or anything else other than the visual. Those other attributes, or lack of them, are to be found in both beautiful and not beautiful women. They do not constitute part of the definition of beautiful.

Of course, you are free to dispute the definition, but as I indicated somewhere here earlier, semantics plays no part in changing fundamental truth.

I am still unable to see how you are able to understand or grasp the quality of a person´s personality from a photograph; there must be a great job awaiting you at CSI! Or even a chair at some cutting edge university somewhere; what a rare no, unique talent that is!

My wife would laugh in your face if you were to try and snow her with notifications of beauty; she is a realist, has survived seven different, major operations in three-and-a-half years and has the strongest spirit I have met in anyone, man or woman. To bullshit her with psuedo charm and the chatlines of the idiot would not win you nor anyone else a grateful smile; more likely a derisive hoot of laughter. Perhaps, when life deals you a few rude shocks, the facile belief systems melt away and you see things as they really always are: harsh and totally unforgiving, with survival the best you can hope for (if I may end with a preposition and drive you nuts). But let´s lighten up: if your bulbs are turned on by those, to me, sad switches on that site, enjoy!

Rob C

Yes, Dick Avedon tried the same thing earlier as he toured the States doing his latter day Diane Arbus. A roll of Colorama does not a masterpiece make! Even for him. Trust me, I have toiled too many years on that sterile white paper, the reason I gave up my first studio, only to be forced to build another alongside my house as the bloody market demanded more of the same.

I do agree with you about today´s version of what is passed off as beauty: even the beauty ads are sterile. Worse the lad´s mags, but I seldom see them nowadays other than in passing.

There is a sense where I would argue that beauty in print died with the ending of the Shrimpton reign, to be replaced by androgynous inventions more in the realms of pain than joy. But, that is not to say that I believe beautiful photography of women is a thing of the past; look hard enough through a varity of photographers´agents´sites and some remarkable stuff is still to be found. I have sometimes posted links on LuLa to these place; should anyone care, they are still to be found listed somewhere on the site.

Rob C

If, and when, I can work out the relevance to the discussion of your last few questions, I shall try to answer you truthfully as possible.

Edit: sorry, I went to the last part of your post first. Regarding your comments in the first paragraph, are you suggesting that makeup really does turn a sow´s ear into a silken purse? Further, are you of the belief that makeup, used by every woman I know, makes her less real than she was before she applied it? Isn´t that exactly what they are all trying to achieve? Would you deny them the belief that they have succeeded in making themselves look better, be closer to their personal ideal of beauty, if you will?

Rob C

No I don't believe makeup turns a sow's ear into a silken purse Personally I find the overuse of makeup (such as almost always happens with glamour models in photoshoots) a large turnoff. There's nothing appealing to me about a woman's face that has 1/8" of makeup on it. Makeup, used sparingly is fine for me, but again each to their own. I much prefer the natural look. Does liberal amounts of makeup make a woman look better? Hell no. Alas, we're not talking about the women's feeling of themselves, we're talking about women looking beautiful for YOU as you were the one that stated that all those women were ugly and not worth the bother of photographing. Anyway we've strayed way OT here so I'll let things lie as they are, but you still didn't answer my questions regarding turning down work because you don't like the material/location/models.

Just curious... what do the women in these forums have to say?

Mike.

Oh well. There are obviously no answers to my questions.
Sorry to have bothered you Rob.

Being a bit literal here aren't we. You can take a picture of anyone, but a good photographer shows something about the sitter's personality. That doesn't mean you can tell what their favourite food is or whether they were bullied at school. A pretty woman with no personality doesn't photograph as well as a less attractive woman who loves to perform for the camera, so no beauty is not simply a visual thing, as otherwise Kate Moss would not be as rich as she is. And hence why the term photogenic is used, to differentiate from pretty/beautiful. Lots of beautiful women don't photograph well. But then as you seem to believe nearly all women photographed since Shrimpton are ugly then, you simply come across as a grumpy old codger who only likes girls [really the fashions] of his long past, younger days.
Do you also believe no good tunes have been written since the Beatles split up too?

I'm not the language purist, so why should I care, [it's a stupid rule, introduced by stupid people anyway] and I'm certainly not trying to flattter your wife, I was just querying, when you think a woman passes her sell by date and stops being attractive.

Actually Rob, if the images also included men, I'd still appreciate the photos, so would that then make me gay? They are great pictures, that appeal to some people's tastes, but not others. The fact that the women are not clothed does not then make them porn.


Just because you don't like white backgrounds or don't like using them, doesn't mean great shots cannot be done with them. With most people, the shots may be dull, but in the right hands, a white background can make for great images.

You seem to be confusing your own very personal taste with what is right/attractive/good. Not the same thing, not even close. You quite rightly wouldn't take a daft comment like, "there were no decent images of women in print until the late 80s" seriously, would you?

Happy to oblige as the site´s grumpy old codger: somebody had to do it!

Now, it´s you making confusion or comparison between photogenic and beautiful, which I can´t find as part of the original argument (discussion has proven too generous a term). However, I do agree that the two are certainly different. As for the post-Shrimp lot, they have been created to deal with a different ethos altogether. Neither have I said that none of those newer girls have been attractive. As for music post-Beatles? Well, I was always more fond of the Stones and the Beachboys and certainly Chuck Berry before any of them (Beatles included) ripped off his sound in so many copies of his, Berry´s, material. Extrapolation doesn´t really extend argument, simply throws in a dollop of confusion.

As for your statement about the late 80s, I don´t think it was ever mine, so no, I wouldn´t take it seriously.

But on a wider point I do agree with you: all opinion has to be subjective because nothing else is truly available to any one of us. I said as much already.

With regard to porn, I did not raise it at any time; that was another poster´s confession that he enjoyed it as much as any other man. Sadly, I must be less of a man than the rest because I hate it; have never in my life shot a pornographic image and find them truly offensive. I did not find the original images we were chatting about pornographic, just unfortunate.

As for being a bit literate, one has to be when trying to explain meaning. As you have found yourself at times, there does come a stage when whipping the fog ceases to be fun and, of itself, enters the realm of the absurd.

Take care - Rob C

Rob,
You are really being controversial here. You might be right, but I suspect this is a jaundiced view based upon your own experiences of photographing models who are 'would be' actresses.

In connection with another thread about a recent Ken Rockwell article, I came across the following quote from a Google search on the technical details of Karsh's photo of Winston Churchill.

Karsh had something profound to say on the matter of portraiture. I quote:

Ray, Karsh was but borrowing the mantle of special genius which photogaphers are wont to claim in such moments of verbal desriptions of their work; makes them sound, well, sort of specially gifted people, don´t you think?

Perhaps working with pro models has simply shown me that anybody can manufacture an expression which is MEANT to convey some quality, but is usually just an emotion. I´m afraid that good models, poor ones, actresses or anybody else can switch on an expression that they consider representative of a characterisitic. Women do it all the time: it´s part of their way to open those doors of which I wrote a day or so ago. Funniest thing is to watch a couple out dining on what looks like their first date: she gazes in to his eyes, hangs on to his every world, smiles (unwisely) through the fish and he almost simpers in a sort of role reversal or, alternatively, does a lot of leaning back in his chair and looking cool. That´s one interesting thing about living in a tourist trap: you get to see a lot of very different people and have some laughs, even if being over-charged for the pleasure.

As nobody yet confronts a camera without putting on a face of sorts, I stand by my belief that all a photograph can show is an act, an expression meant to achieve a result, though I admit that that act might be confused with the real thing. It is no more revealing of character than the expression on a cat´s face as it walks off with a bird in its mouth.

Rob C

Rob,
I get a sense you are even more cyncial and skeptical than I am . I recall I've sometimes got into trouble photographing 'important' people when they were not aware of being photographed. I got severely chastised for that once by the wife of a judge in the NT of Australia, during an excursion in Arnhem Land.

Generally, people don't like to be photographed unawares. You might catch someone picking their nose, for example. This fear or reluctance is connected to persona, or vanity.

Karsch might have borrowed his comment to enhance his importance. But it seems nevertheless true that we are all in the game of pretending.

My favourite Shakespearean quotation is, "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players". I'm playing a part on this forum, pretending I know something.

RobC is seems to me that you have spent a great deal of your life photographing "models" who are after all, merely actresses for still cameras.

This prolonged activity is seems has jaded you a great deal and turned you into hopeless cynic. There comes a time when certain people have lived too long, experienced too much, witnessed too much and done too much. They become bored, cynical and grumpy.

I, on the other hand have spent my life photographing silly old ordinary people. While everyone wears a mask, ordinary people have a much harder time holding theirs on, compared to a pro.

For this reason, I think that pictures like the ones under discussion, are excellent, revealing and even the "fat girls" carry off a beauty that your "models" can never attain.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong about you, but I fear that boredom and grumpyness have burrowed deep into your soul. Or maybe you just need to get laid.


Michael

"Or maybe you just need to get laid."

Thank you, blansky, I shall advise my wife accordingly once she has learned to walk properly after her latest five-week stint in hospìtal.

Rob C

Absolutely on the money, Ray, it is always an act. But then there are ever those who think it the real thing.

Rob C

Sooo... What exactly is this fat broad beauty that models cannot attain? Or it just models in full bulimic-heroin-revlon mode who cannot achieve it?

Well: having read this, I suspect I am not a real woman at all, and certainly unfit to be a model. I never wear makeup and am very plain to look at, as well as middle-aged, and not terribly concerned about fashion except for comfort.

So perhaps I shouldn't comment - but I do find some of the remarks in this thread patronising. I also find photos of surgically-enhanced and airbrushed bodies of either sex to be boring - but what do I know?

This started out as a very interesting discussion and has quickly deteriorated. Let's get back on track eh!

The reason that quotes like "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" have been around so long and are well known is because they're true. Beauty is not some Hollywood standard but means something different to everyone. As a portrait photographer, ie. not models, it is my job to bring out the beauty and/or character in every subject that crosses my camera. Do I succeed every time? Probably not. But...

Quite a few years ago, I 'took' a photograph of a friendly old man in Nova Scotia along with his two oxen. A friend of mine and I found them in the front yard of this humble country home on a backroad off a backroad. He came out to offer his help and bring the oxen closer for us to photograph them. You could see the pride in his face of his 'babies'. He crouched out of the way as to not be included in the photo, but I had my wide-angles lens on and captured him kneeling before these huge beasts, looking up at them.

A few weeks later, after having the film processed (remember, this was quite a few years ago), I sent him a copy to thank him for his assistance. About 6 weeks later, I received a letter from his son. Shortly after the portrait was taken, he had a complication with an operation and passed away. The letter went on to say that this was the ONLY photograph they ever had of their father (he was easily in his 60s) and, quote, 'if any one picture could sum up his life, this was it'. He had raised these oxen since calves and they were his pride and joy... all captured in 1/30 sec (or there about's.. no metadata to check!)

My point is that YOU may not see the character or beauty in the portrait, but someone who knows the person will. I believe that Karsh summed it up quite well in that quote. Even if you photographed 1000 beautiful women, I'm sure only a handful would stand out over the rest. This happens when you capture that moment.

It is not up to us to decide what is beautiful or not... it is to capture, as much as possible, the essence of our subject. You can quote me on that!

I think they was interestning. I think they reflect the time we live in. People have seen "beauty" women so much.

In Sweden nowdays it is very popular to just use "ordinary" woman in ads. As it gets more attention than the more stereo typical beauty models.

Actually it turned my head a lot more on town nowdays. One off biggest sports stores chain in sweden just used "ordinary" women in their swimsuit collection. Somehow I look more on those girls as I relate more to them. As they look as the women I know. They where thin girls but normal weight girls not BMI <17 girls you are so used to see. Somehow I feel they are more attractive . As they seem more accessible and real.

I guess this will spread. I heard that in some countries in Europe they have forbidden models to do modelling if they have to low BMI.

I really agree that beauty is in the eye off beholder. Somehow when you seen 200 photoshopped girls just by browsing your own day. There is something fascinating with looking photos off women with different shapes and looks.

I think what the whole commercial beauty bussiness lack is personality. But I guess they probaly dont need that to sell their products.

My feel that women shoots especially nude ones has the same body type. I feel it just gets to saturated.

I saw show my local town off nude males. Off all ages and shapes. It was interestning they just posed normally. But just to see humans in there fit/fat/hairy and so on state. Was very interesting. Especially as a heterosexual male I rarely think or look on male humans so it was new experience.

I will thank you, as you made the same point I was going to make to Rob C about his daft idea, that you simply cannot capture character/personality in a photograph. Your poingant story certainly indicates you can and when I photograph people I like to chat to them and get a sense of who they are as that makes for much better portraits, IMHO. This also reduces any 'performing' for the camera, but even then, how they perform/act is determined by their character.

I think you just expressed what I was thinking. Somehow when you leave out the "perfect" state off a person and are presented you as "real" person. My head always go, wonder who they are. Wonder who there friends are and so on. Then I start to looks for clues and imagine.

One of the most well known beauty campaigns in the UK is the Dove one which makes a point of featuring 'normal' women.

This video also got them a lot of attention, when it shows how many of today's 'beauties' are manufactured.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

And you know you've done well, when the parrodies start appearing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-kSZsvBY-A&NR=1

Man, hadn't seen the parody before. At least even that Dove is milking the political correctness approval. I love the ads. Especially since my little sister(aged 26) had no idea how much retouching goes into a beauty shoot. Until Dove showed it. So nowdays she actually feel a lot better about herself.

I have friend that live on beauty ads stuff. I helped him out sometimes. I always surprised how much work it is behind just make beutiful women appear even more beutiful

The good part I liked about our Sport chain "Stadium", they just threw in the "normal" girls in ads without making a whole campaign surrounding it. It kinda always creep a bit inside me when I see companies milking out good will in return for more dollars.

Our media presents us a distortion off reality. We buy it to be a part off , they earn money.

Thats what I like about art. It is presented from the artist point off view off reality. Media is presented what they think we think about world.

Dove may be milking it, but at least it's going against the beauty fascism that is otherwise around us and allowing others to feature real people without an issue.
People photography seems to be of two kinds these days, people looking impossibly beautiful or looking like complete shit. One part of the media fakes beauty and the other part delights in paparazzi snaps of stars/models etc looking awful. Like there's a skill to getting a bad shot of someone! Even so, I've even seen shots where people who look awful, have been retouched to make them bad.

[quote=jjj,May 21 2008, 07:54 PM]
I will thank you, as you made the same point I was going to make to Rob C about his daft idea, that you simply cannot capture character/personality in a photograph. Your poingant story certainly indicates you can and when I photograph people I like to chat to them and get a sense of who they are as that makes for much better portraits, IMHO. This also reduces any 'performing' for the camera, but even then, how they perform/act is determined by their character.

[/quote

Wish I could accept your interpretation, jjj, but the little story of the man and the beasts hardly convinces me that you can capture character via portraiture. In fact, all the photograph in question shows is that there is nothing new under the sun, being nothing more than a typical ´executive in his office, craftsman with his tools´ kind of shot, where the concatenation of man, equipment and location gives a visual clue to his world. That does not show whether the executive is honest, a rogue or even loves his wife any more than one can tell whether the man with the beasts is shy, modest, vain, generous, mean, a glutton or a saint.

That a relative sees something precise is no surprise: of course he does, he sees what he knows, not what the photographer shot, which serves only as reminder, the key to the deeper values being firmly in the lock within his own (the relative´s) memory.

All these types of picture have been the staple diet of photo clubs since photography began; even in my own time I recall the fisherman in his heavy sweater, knurled hands clasped before him, his eyes peering out to the horizon. Bloody hell, he was no fisherman, he was just the guy who ran the local newspaper shop. No character there, just games and stereotyping at work.

But there you go, you are happy to believe one thing and I another. Fair enough, matters little to either of us.

Rob C

Hey, Mr P!

I hope you weren´t really expecting a direct answer to a direct question, were you?

Rob C

A hell of a lot, actually.

Rob C