New photo at JPGmag.com, submitted to the "Inside Your Medicine Cabinet" photo challenge. I've been waiting for years for an excuse to use this photo, but when I scanned the negatives this morning, I was torn between it and this one:
The first one is better compositionally, more flattering to the model, and much leaner. It's like a press photo. Which is why I was torn: I don't much like press photos, especially when it comes to portraits, and the second photo tells a much better story. The pose is more vulnerable and the scene is more expansive. Note the black toenail polish.
These are the kinds of things that keep my productivity down. Which of two very similar photos is the perfect one for a submission to a theme that won't be published and has zero monetary reward? I spent about 15 minutes deciding before I chose the first one just because I'd always wanted to use it.
These photos are from the same session I wrote about in my notes on To See A Darkness:
I was in college, and literally two thirds of my colleagues were photographing women in some stage of undress. I had little interest in studio nudes, but plenty of interest in making good photographs, and I wondered what I was missing by not following in the footsteps of Weston, or Adams, or the other godfathers who shot nudes when they weren't doing "serious" work.
One day I found myself eating lunch with Rex. It was a Monday. I remember that, because I had Ceramics classes on Monday, and I had already missed two classes. But Rex had just moved into a new house, and it was mostly empty.
I photographed her with a 28mm lens and HP5 pushed to 800 . . . meaning I basically opened the textbook to "nude portraiture" and broke every rule.
And I'm glad I did, because these photos are saved from the tried-and-true glamour look by the focal length, and by the freaking railroad ballast that passes for film grain. I don't think I even took my 50mm, and at the time, I didn't own a flash.
Sometimes I regret the grain: The label on the slot behind her says "Razor Blades." You can't see it even at 100% resolution. But I don't regret the focal length. I wouldn't shoot these photos the same way today, but I'm glad they are how they are. Long lenses make people look pretty. Short lenses make people look like they're actually there.
Posts
6 comments:
excellent photos, i like the first one better
what about editing a photo? that takes months for me... can't decide to save my life.
You mean editing photos (choosing which ones to use) or editing a single photo (making adjustments to the aesthetic)?
I could see taking months for either, but choosing which to use is harder for me. When working on a single photo, it's usually obvious when something makes it look better.
The second shot certainly tells a story more effectively.
I can't explanin why, but the second one is better. Actually the secon one is much much better. Sorry, don't have the vocab to articulate why.
I liked the first photo before I read your description and thoughts, and now I like the 2nd one. Maybe I'm influenced too easily...
I'll go against the grain: I like the first one better. I don't thing the second one is improved by being more "environmental" or with black toenail polish. Her expression in the first is more disapprovingly enigmatic to me, more in fitting with the (all but) empty medicine cabinet, and I'm in love with the skin tones in this photograph, as well as the tight but inclusive composition.
Post a Comment