View Full Version : cropped heads
11-22-2004, 11:26 AM
I was just looking at one portrait done by Curtis - <a href="http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/North_America/United_States/photo112162.htm"> this one</a> and I read some comments there.. it was about tight composition...
I also like tight crops, where forehead is cropped and we focus our attention on eyes....
but what about portraits taken by Steve McCurry? and other famous photographers? why do they never crop heads? why do they always leave some space around?
recently I was browsing on Magnum new pictures from Mexico by Martin Parr, and his portraits there were really badly composed for my taste ;) centered compositions, lots of empty space around... see those pictures <a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/FramerT_MAG.aspx?Stat=Features_DocThumb&V=CDocT&E=29YL535052Z6&DT=ALB">there</a>
I know the most important thing in portraits is "that something" in eyes or a special expression, but what about compositions...?
to crop or not to crop? the person in the middle or on the side?
11-22-2004, 01:06 PM
One thing you have to take into consideration, Maciek, when dealing with photojournalism is the constraints that editors place upon the way their photographers shoot their photographs. There is a very good reason why so much space is left around the head to the sides and top; if a picture is to be published in a magazine or such then a lot of text is going to be printed on top of the picture and you need the space around the head or whatever so that the text doesn't overlap and destroy the picture.
Without the text they do look odd (and I agree with you about Parr's latest portraits but what bugs me most is the rather ordinary flash work here-- they look like deer caught in headlights).
11-22-2004, 01:53 PM
You have begun a thread which I want to know more about the answers... Let's begin to say I'm not a very good photographer and I have not made many portraits beside of my husband of my daughter in the past, and now with digital camera I can make much more portraits of my grand-daughter.
I always tend to get as close as possible (<a href="http://www.treklens.com/gallery/Europe/Netherlands/photo14336.htm">exemple</a>) but I get very often the question "Why did you frame her head that tight?" but I don't see why I should.
On this particular picture, Josetu wrote: "<i>Very well framed, even if we miss a part of her head...</i>"
But, in "Sisters"by Curtis, I may have chosen a less tight framing just because of that particularly beautiful hair style?
So now I'm very much interested by the answers of the experts and more talented people. So thank you for starting this discussion.
Amicalement - Viviane
11-22-2004, 01:58 PM
parr loves using the flash! I think he's probably dissappointed if when he uses the flash you can't tell. I think it adds to the kitchness of some of his shots. He uses it as a tool, his photos do have a very tourist-snap-from-the-50s feel to them some times.
Cutting heads? It does look good to do this, well on 800 pixel photo, but i wonder how good it will look in a gallery when the image is 1 meter wide? I recently saw an exhibition by mary ellen mark and she had lots of portraits, and she had left space around them and it worked really well.
I guess the other arguement against cropping the head in the original, is that you can always crop later.
Yes indeed Parr looooves his annular macro flash, used with a slight magenta cast that gives britishers that either gringo sunburnt or wino style skin tone (see “Brighton, the Last Resort” for instance)… if you remember his previous portraits and bold compositions, you might suppose something has suddenly gone bananas in his brains (other masterpieces such as hilarious “Boring Postcards” or “self portraits round the world” are also hints of the bats flying in his belfry, if you ask me…) .
I do think this is a kind of photographic message that Parr sends us : the guy has long ago thrown the usual aesthetics in the dustbin and is now sitting on the lid… Parr uses people like things to set up a crusade against bad taste and/or silliness and wishes to use the same weapons… next step is Parr dressed like Jango Edwards, I believe. Unfortunately he has lost a bit of my support, and got bored a little after “Boring Postcards” (perhaps was it his plan?) though I still think that “Small world” is one of the best and most hilarious photobooks ever made.
It seems that Parr wants to show the stupid part and the aesthetics that comes with it (honestly did you ever think his images of frankfurters and fries were on purpose of beauty? I think that the guy is more clever than most plasticians, he wants us a reaction of disgust even if that’s make you think he’s a crap photographer. How do you feel about the Dolphins’ hat the mexican guy wears?)), therefore I guess you have to take it the exact opposite way : Parr shows what you’re never supposed to do photowise with maximum tacky effect.
Hence never or barely center a portrait…
The <i>semiotics square</i> theory would explain what most photographers want to show : I remember I promised Gal I had to write something about it in his reality/photography thread. I have to do it but later on…
As for good portraits Maciek, I don’t quite agree with the statement that <i>“the most important thing in portraits is "that something" in eyes or a special expression”</i> : my personal feeling is that better portraits comes from “the storyboard” or the small details that can recall their own lives, I don’t think a simple expression can recall that by itself (Do you remember Picasso by HCB, the important features where the hands, the misty bridge behind Sartre etc.). There even a very good portrait of Giacometti where’s the sculptor is totally blurred, only his sculptures defines him.
You would entitled to ask me <i>“then there are no good close portraits to you?”</i> That's pretty right, unless it’s a command where you have to shoot the bride at her wedding, or you put in your head that you could economically compete against photo portrait booths and give better quality (which I’m sure), I don’t really see the point in very tight portraits. (As a matter of fact, you can thumb Magnum’s website and eventually tell me how many tight portraits you see, I can predict it's close to nil…)
11-22-2004, 08:15 PM
talking about portraits I meant close portraits, not environmental portraits, portraits where we see only a face, portraits without "the storyboard"...
and Martin Parr was not a good example... there are many other photographers making portrais with plenty of space around the face - and Steve McCurry is the easiest example - see <a href="http://www.stevemccurry.com/galleries/portraits/portraitsFS.html">here</a>. and his portraits are mostly vertical.
Michael made a good point about publishing portraits in magazines, where text is going to be added on the photo... but is it the olny reason? and i know cropped heads bother many people, maybe it bothered me before too, but now i like this kind of portraits a lot.
anyway.. so, to crop or not to crop? ;)
11-22-2004, 10:02 PM
<i>...but now i like this kind of portraits a lot....so, to crop or not to crop?</i>
Sounds like you've already made up your mind : )
I would conclude from my huge experience in portrait photography (close to zero) that it is easier to get an engaging portrait by cropping the head i.e. getting close, and that environmental portraits are much harder, because there is more to balance with the subject.
So if you want easy 'great' shots, then crop, but if you want to push yourself try not cropping.
A <a href=http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Asia/India/photo87947.htm>compromise</a> perhaps?
Although i now wonder what this shot of yours would be like with the complete head...
Regarding Parr, he is the anti-example! Clearly makes it up as he goes along.
I was just thinking about composition and the so called 'rule of thirds', why does this look better then a central shot?
It must come originally from the ratio of the Fibonacci series, known as the golden section, which occurs widely in nature and has been used in architecture, paintings and sculptures since they first figured it out. The ratio is 1:1.618. For more on this see <a href=http://ccins.camosun.bc.ca/~jbritton/goldslide/jbgoldslide.htm>here</a>.
I guess we are just so used to seeing this natural ratio everywhere, it feels natural to include it in photography. Cropping heads perhaps doesn't obey this rule ..
Close portraits? I didn't know it was a genre yet (...except in TE, perhaps) but I better know the <i>portraits</i> genre for which I still stand on the opinion that a few steps back are better...
Would you like your portraits closer? my fault when I wrote you won't find many in Magnum, here's some uninteresting pieces from <a href="http://classes.bnf.fr/portrait/grande/07.htm" target="_blank">Luc Delahaye</a> a former Magnum member...Dunno what's the interest of that, I'm not the only one apparently, you can find many Delahaye books discounted on the streetside bookstalls, I once found it for 2USD... See, I wasn't kidding you when I was writing about a photo booth enterprise... ;0D...
It happens that I also own "Portraits" from S.McCurry which is IMHO far from "Monsoon", "South-south East" or "Temples of Angkor" level. I believe I bought it because it was cheap, however I must have thumbed it a few times and it's now gathering some dust in a bookshelf... I must say that rather than the full blown center portraits, I have in mind double or "environmental" portraits that are to my taste the best out of this book because they either play on duality or are a little more sophisticated on the compo part... unfortunately the ones you're refering to have nothing to compare with what you call "environmental" masterpieces such as <a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/cf/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocThumb_DocZoom&o=&DT=ALB&E=2K7O3RBEJ1IM&Pass=&Total=66&Pic=38&SubE=2S5RYDWWIHS1" target="_blank">this one </a> which btw is also in "Portraits" or <a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/CDocZ_MAG.aspx?Stat=DocThumb_DocZoom&o=&DT=ALB&E=2K7O3RBEJ1IM&Pass=&Total=66&Pic=16&SubE=2S5RYDZ79O@R" target="_blank">this other</a>.
As for myself, I would conclude that if there are only two <i>genres</i> in portraiture, I'll do a distinction on the good ones and the not so good ones, I simply think the fact of cutting the head or not doesn't relate to a golden rule but more to what you expect to show the reader (again semiotics, the grammar of signs and images...).
11-30-2004, 07:13 PM
Je pense que tu ne dois pas trop te préoccuper de ce que disent les gens. Moi,en général, je n'aime pas les portraits qui ne coupent pas les visages.. C'est, je pense une question de goût personnel, rien de plus. Je ne crois pas en des règles précises à ce sujet où en photo en général.
En effet, je crois que c'est le sujet qui impose ce que tu feras. Parfois, il est possible de shooter toute la tête, parfois non, cela dépend également du fond..
J'ai regardé le portrait en question , l'exemple, et je le trouve très réussi.
12-01-2004, 12:05 AM
C'est vraiment très gentil de réagir à mon posting. Je me suis aperçue un peu trop tard que mon intervention n'était peut-être pas vraiment à sa place sur le forum Photography - Je réflechirai avant de parler la prochaine fois! :o)))
Mais je suis bien d'accord avec toi -(maintenant je laisse tomber le vouvoiement)- et il suffit certainement de suivre son intuition pour la photographie de portraits. Je me suis aperçue, en regardant à nouveau toute ma collection, que je me rapprochai le plus souvent de ce que j'aimais... Et donc dans l'exemple cité, ma petite-fille.
Et quand on me demandera pourquoi je lui ai "coupé la tête" je dirai simplement que c'est "par amour"! ;o)))
A bientôt sur TE Claude et encore merci.
Amicalement - Viviane
12-01-2004, 11:27 AM
I was amazed about how amatuer like Parr's photos were! A lot of people here on TE are way better (IMHO) :)
My personal opinion is to crop out a bit from the head, and I often prefer a off centered position. And for Gods sake, no flash!!!
<i><b>I was amazed about how amatuer like Parr's photos were! A lot of people here on TE are way better (IMHO)</i></b>
I wouldn't really say that Frida...
At some time, some people said that Picasso paintings showed no more artistic skills than kids' drawings, (won't even talk about Pollock, a toddler's level painter ahhaha...) they just couldn't understand that a painting or any image shouldn't be assessed by their proximity to reality or known things but mostly by the feeling they convey and the way the painter carries these feelings. See how it has evolved now.
In fact, behind the "amateur" feel there's a lot of technique and control, some photo skills that I think on my part there are not more than 2 or 3, maybe 5 photographers down in TE can achieve something like that. Perhaps you can spot some of these attempts (some IMHO convincing others not) in Maciek's gallery.
Parr's favorite topic is about mass tourism and tackyness : you may not like what Parr's trying to convey but in the other way it's hard not to admit that he missed the aim of bringing feelings into photography.. and that was precisely his point.
Viewed from my eyes, the problem in TE is that it's biased in a way : there's a general agreement that tends to favor similar kinds of shots, like full face close portraits (possibly kids) or clean postcardlike landscapes... which IMHO is of low artistic value(but again it's my personal feeling, though I know members who also share(d) that point...). Hence it leaves very little place for more original points of views and on the contrary encourages some gifted photographers on a middle of road way.
A long way from the cropped heads topics...
12-01-2004, 01:35 PM
<I> And for Gods sake, no flash!!!</I>
Not so sure that rules should be so concrete. I can't remember the photographer, but I saw a Nat Geo special on one of the real in demand wildlife photographers right now. He is well known for breaking one of the wildlife rules: No flash other than to put catchlights in the eyes. He often shoots at night, with bursts of flash that give an almost surreal color to his photos. They work, because they are different and exciting. The real truth is, a beautifully composed and exposed shot of an elephant taken during the golden hour has been done countless times. No matter what you do, you can't bring much anything new to the table if you follow the same old rules. His shots (damn, I wish I could remember his name) were bright, alive and different. Breaking the rules worked for him (must have, he is a Nat Geo photographer after all).
I think an important thing to remember is that breaking the rules can lead to some truly awful photos, and will make it more difficult to capture a great photo, when things really click, that is when you can create something more memorable.
I think as another example, one of the things that makes Alex Webb's photos so appealing is that there might be a head popping up from the least expected spot. Surely there are rules against such things, but it works anyways, because we have not been inundated with that style.
12-01-2004, 02:23 PM
To both Luko and Darren:
I was not very serious, I know Parr is a famous photographer, and skilled, of course.
But to my personal taste I didn't like his photos a bit.
Except for the technique which I didn't like, I found no heart or feeling in his shots. (Or at least not as much as I wanted)
I know we all are quiet conservative here on TE, beautiful, simple landscapes and asian kids are what gets high ratings. But at the same time, I think that is what is most appealing to most people's eyes.
Photography is like music or all other art, sculptures and paintings, the beauty is in the eye och the beholder, and that is a good thing that we all have different taste.
Regarding the flash, yes, sometimes flash can be useful, and even give a nive effect, but most of the time I think it makes the picture flat and a bit boring. But that is also a matter of personal taste, as everything else.
This is a very interesting matter, and I think it is fun to read everybodies different opinions.
I think we all need to dare to try to experiment a little. Maybe artwork will come through that. Like with that National Geographic photographer you mentioned, Darren.
The first thin I have to do is try to take a portrait, I am a coward :) The you can help me with the cropping.
See you around guys. All the best.
12-01-2004, 04:44 PM
"Viewed from my eyes, the problem in TE is that it's biased in a way : there's a general agreement that tends to favor similar kinds of shots, like full face close portraits (possibly kids) or clean postcardlike landscapes... which IMHO is of low artistic value(but again it's my personal feeling, though I know members who also share(d) that point...). Hence it leaves very little place for more original points of views and on the contrary encourages some gifted photographers on a middle of road way."
While I agree this to be truth, I don't think it's a problem. The fact is that most of us are trying to squeeze in few photos in between work, kids homework and cousins wedding, we do it because we simply like it not because we are really good at it, and while some of us will try our best to get better and better, very few have a talent and creativity to stand out above the crowd like some of the names that have been mentioned. I think this can be applied to any hobby, how many poeple love football but the best they can do is play in a house league?
I do not wish to start the discussion over again in this thread. However I think this was not exactly my point, I'm not saying that everybody should be good at making images, of course we do what we can...
I'm simply saying that some gifted photographers in TE are sometimes wasting their style in order to conform to TE's general doxa and appreciation grid which sometimes come from pavlovian critics ("oooh cute face" though TE isn't a fashion parlor, we aren't there to appreciate the face of the people but more the way the photo is shot and the content of it).
That means in a way these talented photographers are binding their "art" or "creativity" call it what you want to a general taste. More than that, some are even anticipating general taste, and as anticipations are always an average, this is even more a compromise than you would imagine...
But who am I to say they're loosing their own sake and to be critical against general taste?
Firstly, it happens that one of the fundamentals of Nature we know since Darwin is that diversity will ALWAYS be the factor of success... I now seldom post myself if I'm still there looking at TE, it's mainly because I want my share of astonishment everyday and hence will try to give a bonus to whom may go beyond my surprise level. Hence, I'm sometimes disappointed when a photographer I like prefers to show something he's sure will be agreed upon rather than a more surprising, more personal but risky effort.
Secondly, I think it's the role of the more "artistic" photographers in TE to educate the eyes of the readers or less experimented photographers rather than the opposite, ie majority influencing the photographer choice. This might be very unfair but I barely know about masterpieces coming from a poll.
When it comes down to putting this into acts I only have two things to say :
1- To photographers, shoot and post what YOU like and not what OTHERS are expected to like.
2- To criticers, be honest and say what YOU like, not what OTHERS like. If you dont have anything special to say, well... simply don't say anything and keep your saliva for another coment.
12-01-2004, 06:02 PM
Ok I see your point, and agree with every word you said.
12-01-2004, 06:06 PM
You know what pisses me off about you Luko? The fact that although your first language is not English, you seem to use it better than me. You do awfully well with the language, plus you seem to have a general knowledge of everything. In this post, you cover evolutionary biology, learning theory (both Pavlovian and Skinnerian), sociology, in addition to photography and art. There was probably more, but they flew over my head.
Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything you say, even though I know I am guilty of often posting something that is safe rather than risky or different.
Another good post.
12-01-2004, 09:54 PM
hi darren ,
are you talking about <a href="http://www.michaelnicknichols.com/">michael nichols</a>
he's my favourite wildlife photographer
he not only uses very strong flashes , but also some really strong strobes.
yes he shoots alot ot night and you're right he gests surreal photographs.
the reason why im guessing you're talking about him is because of one of his very famous photographs in which he's used a flash on an elephant and there's a beautiful violet
he's perhaps best known for his photograph of <a href="http://www.michaelnicknichols.com/gallery/jane/2/"> jane goodall and jou jou</a>
take care :)
12-01-2004, 10:11 PM
maciej only showed one of parr's galleries.
if you look at other's such as <a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/cf/htm/FramerT_MAG.aspx?Stat=Portfolio_DocThumb&V=CDocT&E=29YL53GU46Z&DT=ALB">this one</a> maybe you won't feel that people on TE are better than him :)
im sending the above link in particular because i feel that most people associate magnum with mostly black and white photography.
also phaidon press has published his works <a href="https://www.phaidon.com/phaidon/displayproduct.asp?id=1987"> just an example</a> . i dont really think phaidon press will publish a crappy photographer's works :)
i dont like using the flash either, the reason being... i'm not really good at it. but if used properly, then the results can be out of the world. one very famous example is <a href="http://www.magnumphotos.com/cf/htm/TreePf_MAG.aspx?Stat=Photographers_Portfolio&E=29YL53UIA@O"> david alan harvey</a>
personally i find him the best exponent of flash. he uses warming gel with his flash and gets some of the most amazing colours only because of the flash. i think ive already sent you a link to a photograph of a horse taken by him, but you can see hi other galleries here if you havent already seen them:) i'm pretty sure you'll like them.
also ive written another message to darren giving him the link to the works of a wildlife photographer called michael nichols. he uses the flash a lot as well and gets some really amazing images. you should have a look at it. he's my favourite wildlife photographer
take care :)
12-01-2004, 10:37 PM
What a super shot (by michael nichols), straight to my favs : ) Also the 'fifi' shot, bottom left is very good, with no cropped head, lol.
Thanks for the link Sohrab.
I hear what you are saying Frida (regarding Mr Parr), at first I thought they were bad but as a group they work very well together, as he draws out the stereotype a little more with every shot, and no shot in his collection is superfluous.
I think the skill he has is getting the viewer in touch with the period and perception of mass tourism, and turning it around to show it through his eyes. It is rather like the way a screen writer may have a character who is a 'bad/corrupt cop', a character every one instantly recognises from countless films and so with only a few moments on the screen, the character is established in a way that would take much longer than say, a restaurant owner, or a photographer for example.
One quality a great actor has is to quickly get the audience in touch with the character and one way to do this is to reflect stereotypes of their character as best they can.
I like the extra dimension Parr gives his shots, so a 'bad' one becomes great. That’s talent.
**Aside, I’m going to use a dark room for the first time tomorrow as the university have one with free chemicals! Maybe I’ll try a 'lith' print once I get the hang of it...
12-01-2004, 11:20 PM
haha you're right
you know mike nichols has got some fantastic shots from the gabon coast.
he had accompanied a scietist ( in parts along the way since he was hit by malaria) called michael fay on an expedition across the african continent.
here's a link if you want to read the expedition <a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0107/fay/"> about the expedition with a few photographs</a>
to be honest i havent gone through this link. i just searched it out for you. this expedition was featured in 3 parts( 3 issues of national geographic) and also shwon on a documentary, so thats where i came to know about it. i hope the link is good enough.
anyway so gabon coast is an amazing beach you have hippos in the sea, elephants , girraffes, and other animals ( i think lions too) on the beach. he's got some superb photographs frmo there
<a href="http://www.michaelnicknichols.com/gallery/megatransect/10/"> a hippo in the sea</a>
hey i forgot that he has some stuff on this expedition on hi own site too :)
he recently went back to gabon coast with his family for about a year or so( im not sure about the exact duration) and he's got some amazing photographs from there too.
if you want to see some more magical photographs from the animal kingdom
you should look for books by a photographer called david doubilet. he's my favourite underwater photographer
i havent yet found a link to his galleries, but you do find a couple of his photographs on the net.
you have some of his photographs in the gallery below. there are some other good photographs as well and you can download them as wallpapers
he's used the flash in quite a few as well :)
<a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/doubilet/">david's symphony</a>
here you can look at his small gallery on national geographic. he's used the flash in some of his photographs :) i love wildlife and at one time i wanted to be a wildlife photographer :)
p.s. hey!! i downloaded the "australian sealions" as a wall paper from national geographic. if you want it i'll send it to you
write to me if you want tit
I was looking at some of the photographers links you gave Sohrab, when Darren mentioned a wildlife Nature photographer, i was thinking about <a href="http://www.lanting.com/phototips_opflash.html" target="_blank">Frans Lanting</a> perhaps, the link gets you to his flash tips page.
And oh yeah, for sure, Sohrab, David Doubilet uses strobes each time (don't ask me why but underwater flashes are called <i>strobes</i>) ... it's almost impossible to shoot UW without a flash.. sorry a strobe... ;) not as reknown as David Doubilet, but still the winner of this year's Wildlife photographer of the year and <i>The</i> shark specialist, I have actually dived with <a href="http://www.seapics.com/" target="_blank">Doug Perrine</a> in the Philippines on a spot called Malapascua with lots of sharks...impressive how you need technical stuff for UW shooting, he or the DM helping him was carrying 2 reflex each in a housing with 2 strobes attached to each housing.
<i>**Aside, I’m going to use a dark room for the first time tomorrow as the university have one with free chemicals! Maybe I’ll try a 'lith' print once I get the hang of it...</i>
Hey! Cheers to you Bryan!
Don't know if hey will have lith stuff, it's pretty uncommon but i would advise you first get comfortable with classic print. However if you need any advise, don't hesitate to mail me, you can't bother me with such topic ;)...
12-02-2004, 12:03 AM
i read that edition of NG, Gabon is on my list of places to go...
hippo shot is great!
ahh French Polynesia underwater, i saw this is NG too, and that classic Davids symphony photo; a brilliant shot.
If you like underwater shots you should buy/rent <a href="http://www.play.com/play247.asp?page=title&r=R2&title=96382">The Blue Planet</a>.
12-02-2004, 12:21 AM
yeah i know of frans lanting. he's done some great work on gorillas too
infact hes line's(burnham) favorurite wildlife photographer
the reason why i thought it was nichols being referred to was because i think darren mentioned elephants somewhere ( ive to go through the forum again . i'm not sure what all was said :)) and <a href="http://www.michaelnicknichols.com/gallery/megatransect/8/">this photographs </a> came to my mind immediately. so thats why my fingers automatically typed out the michael nichols link.
ive heard of doug perrine. hasn't he done some work on whales too????
haha i have never ever dived, leave alone underwater photography. had a chance last summer, but i didnt have an underwater camera, so didn't feel like it .
those shark photographs are amazing. what surprises me though is that there are no dolphins around. generally such a fish ball ( ive forgotten the technical name of such a formation by the schools of fish)
is caused by the sonar emissions of the dolphins. after the "fish balls" or "fish spiral" are formed, then the feeding frenzy starts , then the sharks also join in. this is the only time perhaps when the sharks and dolphins work side by side.
you're really lucky to have dived with doug.
i wonder if you've ever considered going to a place called "seal island" it's off the coast of cape town, south africa. it's very famous for "breaching" by great white sharks. im in love with great whites and hope to dive with them someday, with or without the cage.
anyway we started with cropping of heads and have now landed on fish balls
take care :)
12-02-2004, 12:41 AM
thanks Luko, i might just do that if i get stuck : )
I was impressed you dived with the guy (Doug Perrine) until, judging by his shots, i figured out he was using you for bait!
12-02-2004, 09:33 AM
Thanks for all the links!
The wildlife photography by Michael Nichols was mazing, I have seen his work before, just didn't know his name.
The ones with Jane and Jou Jou were stunning.
He uses the flash in a good way, but I didn't like it in Parr's shots.
The other links to other shots by Parr was way better.
That's more in my taste.
But I can see everybodies point, he is making ugly photos quiet good by creating a "theme". Even if I still don't like them I can see that :)
Take care :)
12-16-2004, 02:01 PM
Although I've not contributed to this thread yet, I've been following it with interest. Partly because I find portrature the hardest photographic genre to tackle.
I'd just like to endorse Luko's final paragraphic here, which seems like the only sensible way to sum-up the discussion. Personally I rather like the Martin Parr gallery that so many seem to dismiss, mainly because although he breaks all the rules, it seems he's doing it knowingly for a controlled effect, which most of the time comes off. They certainly seem to provoke a reaction.
01-02-2005, 09:19 AM
Touristdidi has a pic on TE looks very like the second of your McCurry examples :).
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.