I got an old lady to pose for me...

tony4563

tony4563

Messages
538
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
No
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27093369
Mod Edit : Removed attachment due to copyright issues, linked to BBC article instead.
OK. So I didn't actually take it. Its actually Her Majesty's latest portrait taken by David Bailey.

Critics please!

Not bad but I'd have gone for a longer lens personally. Looks like the slightest touch of distortion to me

Her hairdresser needs sending to the tower too. Too much forehead!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is such an unusual look for HM that I think I might not have recognised her without the credit.

Typical Bailey, getting something unusual out of his subject. Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during the shoot.

And yes a bit too short on the lens, makes her look a bit like the old spitting image puppet.

David
 
There seems to be a trend at the moment (I think the Vanity Fair Hollywood edition photos were similar) of thinking a bulging distorted lower face and receding forehead is good photography.

While I appreciate the difficulties of this particular person as a subject and that he got a nice smile out of her, the overall photo is dire.

If an amateur presented this they would be inundated with criticism for the very same shot. Emperors new clothes me thinks. Shame as I am sure he can create much better stuff than this, without following silly trends.
 
Oh and I think referring to anyone as 'an old lady' or 'an old man' is really rude, whether they are the Queen or a beggar in the street.
 
Apologies to mods about the copyright. I had no idea at the time, but do now.

Jay... Relax a little.

I'm also sorry if that offended you. It was only a harmless tongue in cheek quip for a new thread title
 
Last edited:
Happy Birthday to the elderly lady concerned!

I rather like the picture TBH - and I'm not sure it would have been released had the subject disliked it. I think it shows a pleasant smiling face enjoying life and at 88, she's doing well
 
I think the picture is very flattering for an 80+ yr old.

Do I like it? "no" (but that doesn't really matter)
 
I like it, but then I quite like Bailey's work. If you think that a portrait isn't just an image but shows the personality, then I think it hits the brief well. Also the queen has often been open to different takes on portraits.

Mind you - got to love the Devon press take on it:

Devon photographer takes official portrait of Queen to mark 88th birthday

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co....rtrait-Queen/story-20989519-detail/story.html
 
one or two catchlights in the eyes . i wonder how a professional would do it ?
 
MidnightUK said:
There seems to be a trend at the moment (I think the Vanity Fair Hollywood edition photos were similar) of thinking a bulging distorted lower face and receding forehead is good photography.

While I appreciate the difficulties of this particular person as a subject and that he got a nice smile out of her, the overall photo is dire.
Click to expand...
Dire, really? are we looking at the same photograph?
MidnightUK said:
Shame as I am sure he can create much better stuff than this, without following silly trends.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he will be pleased you think he can do better

Steve
 
tony4563 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27093369
Mod Edit : Removed attachment due to copyright issues, linked to BBC article instead.
OK. So I didn't actually take it. Its actually Her Majesty's latest portrait taken by David Bailey.

Critics please!

Not bad but I'd have gone for a longer lens personally. Looks like the slightest touch of distortion to me

Her hairdresser needs sending to the tower too. Too much forehead!
Click to expand...

That's an awful photo. I don't care who he is. Horrible perspective and makes HRM look decidedly goofy.

It looks badly lit, too. Two cores, dark left and soft right.

I don't like the PP. Too much black added.

ER does seem to have mastered the squinch, though!
 
Last edited:
most of the guys here would take a better shot i believe, giving the opportunity, Sorry i don't think this is the best portrait of the queen bless her, just because it was DB behind the camera it must be the bees knees ,please .............................
 
I'm not in the 'let's churn it another cliched photograph of HM' camp. It think it's a cracker. Great sense of humour and the perspective just adds to that.

Good show Mr B (y)

Cheers.
 
A couple centuries back there would be a firing line for this sort of work. She is not some upcoming rock star celeb or street portraiture subject to shoot such wide perspective headshot; processing also fails my words. Did all his lenses except 35mm broke that day? And he couldn't make even edgier lighting?

In Bailey's defence, it is a lot better than the recent painting of duchess of cornwall. The latter work is plain dreadful.

That is my personal opinion...
 
If anyone thinks a great portrait is about technical excellence, they're not a portrait photographer. Portraits are about people. This is one of the rare images of her that shows her as human... someone you could be having a conversation with, and probably one of the few that show her as she is without all the forced, regal bearing that is no doubt the usual demeanour she would portray with a lesser photographer who would be intimidated by her. Bailey, by his own admission, is not really bothered about how technically perfect his images are... Bailey is about people, and no one has the ability to get a response from their subjects quite like Bailey.

Technically it's pretty shoddy, yeah... but so what? There are oodles of technically better images of her than this one: Annie Leibovitz's images of her were astounding, but they were still all regal, and inaccessible... just photographic representations of the royal portrait canon that's been the staple diet of royal portraits for centuries. They were technically beautiful.... but told me nothing about the Queen other than she's the Queen, and I already know that. This shot by Bailey is a breath of fresh air. It's one of the few times I've seen the queen as anything remotely approaching "normal" in terms of having emotions and expressions we'd recognise as social and engaging. I can imagine talking to this representation of the Queen, and it's the only one I've ever seen that does that. The only other images I've seen of the queen that show her as human are press photos when she has her guard down, but to get a result like this in a formal studio portrait takes balls!

If you don't get that, then you don't get contemporary portrait photography. I can't believe people are completely ignoring the achievement of breaking through the iron clad stoicism of her usual demeanour and doing what no other portrait photographer has done in a formal studio session, and instead saying stuff like "I don't like the PP". **** the PP!
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
If anyone thinks a great portrait is about technical excellence, they're not a portrait photographer. Portraits are about people. This is one of the rare images of her that shows her as human... someone you could be having a conversation with, and probably one of the few that show her as she is without all the forced, regal bearing that is no doubt the usual demeanour she would portray with a lesser photographer who would be intimidated by her. Bailey, by his own admission, is not really bothered about how technically perfect his images are... Bailey is about people, and no one has the ability to get a response from their subjects quite like Bailey.

Technically it's pretty shoddy, yeah... but so what? There are oodles of technically better images of her than this one: Annie Leibovitz's images of her were astounding, but they were still all regal, and inaccessible... just photographic representations of the royal portrait canon that's been the staple diet of royal portraits for centuries. They were technically beautiful.... but told me nothing about the Queen other than she's the Queen, and I already know that. This shot by Bailey is a breath of fresh air. It's one of the few times I've seen the queen as anything remotely approaching "normal" in terms of having emotions and expressions we'd recognise as social and engaging. I can imagine talking to this representation of the Queen, and it's the only one I've ever seen that does that. The only other images I've seen of the queen that show her as human are press photos when she has her guard down, but to get a result like this in a formal studio portrait takes balls!

If you don't get that, then you don't get contemporary portrait photography. I can't believe people are completely ignoring the achievement of breaking through the iron clad stoicism of her usual demeanour and doing what no other portrait photographer has done in a formal studio session, and instead saying stuff like "I don't like the PP". **** the PP!
Click to expand...


Nail, head.

Although I slightly disagree that this is the only shot that shows her human side, but most of those have been candids- which sort if agrees with your point anyway!


Sent from my iPhone using Talk Photography Forums
 
It must be hard to think of something that hasn't been done with the Queen, this chap has managed it. Pity about the two catchlights in the eyes - could have fixed that in post.
 
I can think of some less choice names then "an old lady". I think she got off lightly.
 
It is a lovely photo of the queen (the capture itself) but I do agree with others, its not very flattering to the most well-known woman on this planet. The distortion is a little too much for me, but a lovely lovely capture of her smiling (for a change).
 
JennyGW said:
I don't like the PP. Too much black added.
Click to expand...

I take it you've not seen many other Bailey portraits then? The blacks are something of a feature ;)

I like it - it's a very human portrait of the Queen.

Declaring an interest: the company I work for do David Bailey's scanning and digital PP, including for this particular image, which was shot on film.
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
I take it you've not seen many other Bailey portraits then? The blacks are something of a feature ;)

I like it - it's a very human portrait of the Queen.

Declaring an interest: the company I work for do David Bailey's scanning and digital PP, including for this particular image, which was shot on film.
Click to expand...

Not seen many Bailey portraits? lol first an insult at my knowledge and then an assumption that because the great Bailey did it we have to love it.

I am sure you make David a fine cup of tea :)
 
Strange - I didn't read the comments as that, just Rob saying the blacks are a feature in some of Bailey's portraits (or most of his images shot against a white background).
Not sure it warranted the dig. It's supposed to be a friendly forum.
 
It's never been a friendly forum... it's just a myth we like to believe in. Nice as you like to each other... all matey and chummy, but show them something contentious from a someone famous, and they'll rip that person a new one without mercy like a pack of starving dingos :) You'd all consider it extremely poor form if I, or anyone else started slagging off the work of a TP member in this thread.. in fact, you'd all start crying and RTMing the moderators, so why do it to someone else just because they're famous? It's easy to slag off Bailey's (or anyone else's) work off when there's no come back and they're not here to answer you back. I'd love to see you all do it to his face in a public forum. There seems to be no real discussion around how such a seemingly problematic portrait could be regarded so differently by different people.. no.. none of that... it's just awful... we could do better... emperors new clothes... all the usual BS.


Anyone who puts their work up in a public forum should be willing to have it subjected to the same scrutiny, and general slagging off the majority are giving Bailey in this thread. None of you are though. You want nice crit and ego strokes. When someone just barges in without finesse and constructive crit, and says "That's an awful photograph" people start reaching for the RTM button.
 
Byker28i said:
Strange - I didn't read the comments as that, just Rob saying the blacks are a feature in some of Bailey's portraits (or most of his images shot against a white background).
Click to expand...

This. Bold blacks are commonly a feature of what he does. No one says you have to like it, but it rather does go with the territory in a Bailey portrait.

I haven't seen the original print in this case (most or all of Bailey's images I've seen in the office are scanned from prints rather than from negs) but I'd suggest it's not 'PP' but the printing, depending on how literal you are about what is and what is not 'post processing' (I tend to think of it as a digital term).

I do make a decent cup of tea, too. Ta.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's never been a friendly forum... it's just a myth we like to believe in. Nice as you like to each other... all matey and chummy, but show them something contentious from a someone famous, and they'll rip that person a new one without mercy like a pack of starving dingos :) You'd all consider it extremely poor form if I, or anyone else started slagging off the work of a TP member in this thread.. in fact, you'd all start crying and RTMing the moderators, so why do it to someone else just because they're famous? It's easy to slag off Bailey's (or anyone else's) work off when there's no come back and they're not here to answer you back. I'd love to see you all do it to his face in a public forum. There seems to be no real discussion around how such a seemingly problematic portrait could be regarded so differently by different people.. no.. none of that... it's just awful... we could do better... emperors new clothes... all the usual BS.


Anyone who puts their work up in a public forum should be willing to have it subjected to the same scrutiny, and general slagging off the majority are giving Bailey in this thread. None of you are though. You want nice crit and ego strokes. When someone just barges in without finesse and constructive crit, and says "That's an awful photograph" people start reaching for the RTM button.
Click to expand...

Not that I entirely disagree with you, but if this is how you feel about the patrons here it does beg an obvious question...
 
The23rdman said:
Not that I entirely disagree with you, but if this is how you feel about the patrons here it does beg an obvious question...
Click to expand...

I think David is trying to educate... in his own inimitable way, but never the less....


Now then, perhaps if a few people were far less personally sensitive, things would be a little calmer in here.
 
Yv said:
I think David is trying to educate... in his own inimitable way, but never the less....


Now then, perhaps if a few people were far less personally sensitive, things would be a little calmer in here.
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother me one bit - I find it interesting, tis all, hence the question.
 
The23rdman said:
Not that I entirely disagree with you, but if this is how you feel about the patrons here it does beg an obvious question...
Click to expand...


Why am I here? Because there are still thought provoking discussions to be had, and I enjoy debate on the subject of photography. One of the things I have to reconcile on a daily basis is the dissonance between the amateur's perception of what is deemed good, and what certain aspects the industry actually commission and publish. It's an argument and subject that fascinates me, and makes my blood boil at the same time.

I also like to discuss the other stuff... gear etc... There's still the gear head within me that likes to discuss that.

I also like to look at imagery from as many places as possible. I could eschew the amateur images because I've had an art based education and become elitist, but I think amateur imagery has a great role to play. There are many occasions in history that the vernacular has led the way - photography always has been a ground up influence on the art world, which is why it's often regarded as not being art at all. It's a democratising force. Despite this, the amateur photography community is probably far more discriminatory than the art world. Just because it speaks for the masses, doesn't make that any more valid; To suggest it does, is merely reverse snobbery.

There's also the fact that I don't think everyone in here (or any other online forum) is cut from the same cloth.
 
Mark_T said:
Pity about the two catchlights in the eyes - could have fixed that in post.
Click to expand...

Erm, you mean the reflection of the window?



JennyGW said:
Not seen many Bailey portraits? lol first an insult at my knowledge and then an assumption that because the great Bailey did it we have to love it.

I am sure you make David a fine cup of tea :)
Click to expand...

He's got a point though, whether you take the comment as an insult or not. The shot is archetypical Bailey, saying you don't like his processing is a bit like saying you like Van Gogh but not the swirly bits.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Why am I here? Because there are still thought provoking discussions to be had, and I enjoy debate on the subject of photography. One of the things I have to reconcile on a daily basis is the dissonance between the amateur's perception of what is deemed good, and what certain aspects the industry actually commission and publish. It's an argument and subject that fascinates me, and makes my blood boil at the same time.

I also like to discuss the other stuff... gear etc... There's still the gear head within me that likes to discuss that.

I also like to look at imagery from as many places as possible. I could eschew the amateur images because I've had an art based education and become elitist, but I think amateur imagery has a great role to play. There are many occasions in history that the vernacular has led the way - photography always has been a ground up influence on the art world, which is why it's often regarded as not being art at all. It's a democratising force. Despite this, the amateur photography community is probably far more discriminatory than the art world. Just because it speaks for the masses, doesn't make that any more valid; To suggest it does, is merely reverse snobbery.

There's also the fact that I don't think everyone in here (or any other online forum) is cut from the same cloth.
Click to expand...

Great answer. :)
 
The fact is that great portraits don't have to flatter all the time. They don't have to be shot with a 105... they don't need a certain lighting ratio, and why oh why is more than one catch light a bad thing? That's just the same pointless obsession with rules of thirds put to another use. Eyes are shiny and round.. they reflect stuff. As Mark pointed out, the portrait of Liz doesn't have two catch lights.

This isn't a nice, flattering portrait either.....

...but it's still a fabulous portrait. If you're just going to judge it based upon it's technical merits, you're so missing the point of a portrait.

Does anyone in here SERIOUSLY think that David Bailey doesn't realise what effect a short lens has? Really? You actually think that David Bailey needs educating on the effects of focal length and perspective? Shoudl we send him a link to a Ken Rockwell page?

Come people... be sensible.
 
True but he only gets away with it because he's david bailey - so its like art innit , if one of us took a picture like that of a standard client and then told them "well portraits don't hasve to be flattering y'know" by way of justification we wouldn't stay in business very long
 
big soft moose said:
True but he only gets away with it because he's david bailey - so its like art innit , if one of us took a picture like that of a standard client and then told them "well portraits don't hasve to be flattering y'know" by way of justification we wouldn't stay in business very long
Click to expand...

Yes and no...if that was your style and you were commissioned to shoot in that style... ;)

FWIW, I like it, not for its 'technical flaws' but for the fact it is just so human, it has emotion and a depth often not seen in royal portraits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top