Subject Failure?

Nick Owen

Nick Owen

Messages
595
Edit My Images
No
There's a problem with this picture. Well, ok, there may be more than one problem... But the main problem I want to address is that I feel it looks more like a corporate brochure shot than a portrait. Yes, this is my fault. But, had the subject (the craftsman) instead of being young and smartly dressed, been instead a grizzled old worker wearing a battered leather overcoat, would that have been more acceptable?

The fact is this was not a set up shot, it was a hand held available light shot of actual work in progress. And is it my prejudices that dismiss the result? A grizzled 'character' might in fact be more of a cliche, might it not? At least this is an honest depiction of a craftsman. And yet... I still feel it lacks strength. The scene feels (to me) like it requires a grizzled character to better work as a picture. Or perhaps it just looks posed and static. On balance, I think it's probably subject and photographer failure.

Craftsman Low Res.jpg
 
If he was old and grizzled, it would have still looked like an editorial shot, but we'd assume the business was different maybe: Young man = we think modern, hi-tech; Old man = we think traditional/hand crafted. It would still be the same shot though and it would still seem editorial or commercial in nature.


It looks commercial/editorial because that's how you shot it. Conventional framing with face on a third. Conventional "doing" something with his hands... conventional processing with vignetting highlighting him... you shot, and processed it conventionally, so it looks commercial in nature, because most commercial and editorial portraiture takes no risks because it is intended for a visually unsophisticated audience that doesn't want to think too hard about what it's seeing.

How can it be subject failure? He is what he is... his business is what it is :) Don't blame your subjects... you pointed a camera at him, so the result is entirely yours :)


I don't dislike the shot. It does have an editorial feel, but that's not too bad a thing.

I really do not think black and white is appropriate for it though. Why did you chose that?
 
By taking the photo in a way that the workshop takes makes up nearly as much space in the frame as the craftsman, you are telling the viewer of the image that the environment the craftsman works in is just as important as the craftsman himself. Typically in a portrait the subject would be placed in prominent position of the frame, the background usually does not compete with the subject for the viewers attention.
 
I'd agree with David, I don;t think the subject has anything to do with it not feeling like a "portrait". For me the biggest reason it looks like a brochure shot and not a portrait is that the subject has no interaction with the camera whatsoever. You've photographed him whilst he's fully absorbed in the act of his work so the work becomes the subject of the image and not him. It also looks to be a fairly meticulous but mundane task he's involved in where there's not much else going on at that moment. The processing, whilst it draws you to the area of the person, it looks like you've used a radial gradient or maybe nik software with the pins to brighten the area of the image you want and its made the paper the brightest part rather than the person.

It would work as an editorial set with other images but a standalone portrait for me should be more focused on the person and whilst the cliche says it should reveal something the persons inner soul, I'll settle for feeling engaged with the person.
 
Thanks guys, yes, you're all quite right, it's cleared up my thoughts on this. Thanks for the great feedback!
 
Nick Owen said:
The scene feels (to me) like it requires a grizzled character to better work as a picture.
Click to expand...
•


I would agree if the craftsman was not working
on modern product and materials!
 
Nick Owen said:
...But, had the subject (the craftsman) instead of being young and smartly dressed, ...
Click to expand...
In this picture he appears (to me) netiher young nor smartly dressed.
I like it, its a good photo of someone working. The light is interesting. He looks the spitting image of a certain actor in cowboy films, but his name escapes me.
If it was intended to be a portrait maybe the field of view is just way too wide ...
 
Way too wide imo. The left third of the image is dead space with very little going on. I'd crop it personally.

Other than that, I get what you mean about the old bloke, big beard etc but I still really like it as is.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I really do not think black and white is appropriate for it though. Why did you chose that?
Click to expand...

I chose monochrome because I felt the colour components to be distracting. However, as most feel this is editorial (and I have to agree) then colour perhaps is more appropriate. Also I agree that I failed to shoot this as a portrait (had I done so, I would have had eye contact) and hence it really isn't. It's actually more of an editorial, environmental portrait and the person here really isn't the main POV. My confusion was in trying to make him the subject. I was only wandering around the factory, taking snaps. (This wasn't a portrait commission or anything) So here's the colour version for comparison. Cropped tighter as per suggestions from Adam & Ulfric.

Craftsman Colour Low Res.jpg
 
•


The colour version just confirms
the modernity of everything!
 
I do prefer the B&W.
I don't want this to be taken the wrong way, but to me, the B&W suggests Craftsman and Artist.
The colour version suggests 'process'...
 
No worries, it's perhaps a built in prejudice which style we actually prefer. I much prefer monochrome. Colour I do find distracting from any inherent shape form and structure. And I like deep shadows
to intrigue the eye and investigate. Here's another shot taken from on the same day. Available light hand held.

The Apprentice Low Res.jpg
 
I like the second image, clean and to the point. What bothered me with the first was:
a. losing the subject's head (the hair) in background
b. a bright white object in front of him that I kept looking at trying to figure out what it was.
I found it difficult to focus on his face. Much clearer in colour but then as you see it, what is the point of it.

If it helps a little :)
 
Last edited:
I think if you were going for the portrait, then get tighter and get the eye contact. If you're going for the environmental/craftsman at work shot, then staying looser is ok, but I wonder if a couple of seconds later, when he was applying that sheet to the thing (car seat?) he was making, would have given a more interesting shot.
I like the black and white mostly, it does get rid of the distracting colour, but I wonder if it's too dark. If you are shooting the craftsman in his workshop, you've lost most of the workshop to the shadows and so you're drawing attention more to him, meaning it feels more like a portrait, but lacking the eye contact. Perhaps that's why it doesn't quite fit in either the portrait camp or the candid craftsman camp.

Interestingly, I watched a video by Jared Polin the other week where he photographed a craftsman at work in his workshop. It was interesting to see how he shot it and the results he got from the angles, focal length and the variation between the candid and portrait shots. Even if you don't care for Jared Polin (FroKnowsPhoto) it's still an interesting watch. Plus there's the editing video too:
View: https://youtu.be/EvYGIZFIYAg?list=PLWbUbVp5Rk9RomSFU98s0y6lwjLC5kOs1
 
Well - everyone sees all images differently don't they? I'm not an expert or anything but you can have my opinion if you want it. I liked both photographs (the second one more) - I think for the first one then you could possibly have considered focussing in on that lovely gunked up can from a lower perspective and consider having the guy out of focus, a slightly less formal approach. Just my opinion for what it's worth. :)
 
Does a ''portrait'' always have to have the subject interacting with the camera ?? Does it always have to be just head and shoulders or can the picture still be a portrait if it includes other things that say something about the person being photographed. ?? To me these are both strong atmospheric portraits that say much more than a head and shoulders shot would. JMO
 
The colour image separates the craftsman much better from the background than the mono version, so works better as a portrait in that respect. As pointed out, there's no contact between him and the camera, and that weakens the portrait aspect compared to that second image you posted. A portrait doesn't *need* conact between subject and camera, but it does need the person in the shot to be the subject, and contact often helps establish that for the viewer. Going in closer would have been nice, but possibly not feasible.

Nice pics though. :)
 
As a personal preference I prefer the colour version. My view is that the picture is giving out mixed messages; if it was a corporate shot then I guess it works.
It shows the workshop the tools the idea of traditional craft and traditional ways, but with a modern product; as a portrait I think it doen't work to well.
As a proportion of the frame the craftsman is relatively small, personally I would be cropping to the area of the racking in the background to the just below the seat base.
The can and heat gun would be in the way but as you said it was a candid shot; careful PP could remove them, perhaps, the two co-workers would go also.
Again on the second shot, nice in B&W, but the curves of the car body are opposite to the stark linear lines of the lockers (labelled 6) behind the tinsmith so they would go.
The available light would then draw the viewer to the tinsmith, and the curves of the bodywork, foreground below the small block on the bench, gone also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top