Here is a picture I'm quite proud of (printed two days ago). It seems anyway I'm the only one among my circle of critics (i.e. friends)! How do you (leicaphiles) like it? Just out of curiosity in a lazy friday afternoon...

ps: even I'm no leica-equipped yet, but I usually enjoy the level of this forum, so here we go.

Ciao

-- Antonio Carrus (Milan, Italy) (antoniocarrus@yahoo.it), February 22, 2002

Answers

i dislike the photo,not because its not shot on a Leica but,the whole concept.Its all distorted,badly composed.Sure it looks like what is being published these days.Ask yourself,is this how You would choose to be remembered!i think not.Forget funny angles and weird lenses. Show us somebody we would like to meet...not ET's aunt! The light is great.Show more of the person,i no longer do "heads-on-a stick portraits".I do not want other photographers to take photos like me,or any one else,but their own viewpoint.i have taught photography and equipment or lack there of is NEVER the problem.Its being articulate with the medium.Look at John Loenggards photo of his daughter against a door.Similar light to yours.The difference is he shows his love,you appear ready to trampel this insect.... Anyway there must be something in this photo to get me worked up. Hey! most folks hate my photos too....

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), February 22, 2002.

An "interesting" photograph, maybe...but an entirely unflattering portrait. Not what a portrait should be. Remember the words of Yousef Karsh: "Tell the truth, but always in terms of beauty." The beauty, and therefore truth, in this image is grossly distorted.

-- Luke Dunlap (luked@mail.utexas.edu), February 22, 2002.

This picture is terrible. Piss poor tonal range. Nothing interesting at all about this image. Now if you had said please critique this image I took with a M6TTL and 28.2 Summicron I would have said great shot! Wonderfull tonal range! Nice to see an unconventional portrait. Keep up the good work.

Regards Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), February 22, 2002.

I quite like the photograph myself. Who says a portrait has to be flattering or must show "more" of the person? I like the contrast and the lack of tonal range. I like the composition, and I think this is good use of a wide angle lens.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), February 22, 2002.

It's a well exposed and composed photo . The eyes are delicate and beautiful . What other angles did you shoot from ?

-- leonid (kotlyarl@mail.nih.gov), February 22, 2002.

I forgot to say in all honesty I like the image.

Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@adelphia.net), February 22, 2002.

Hmmm, lemme put it this way. Camera is okay, film is great, lens is, well, this is what it's all about here. I don't know the chick, but if I did, and was looking up really close to her as usual, finding that this is a true picture of a special character of hers, then I'd say the 24mm is good too. But since I don't know her, I'm afraid the 24mm brings me up tooooo close. IMUO.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), February 22, 2002.

Just saw the other angles . This one is the best ( light is too harsh in the other ones ) . If I had to use one word to describe this picture , it would have to be delicate .

-- leonid (kotlyarl@mail.nih.gov), February 22, 2002.

If you want flattering portraits every time, you can get them at K- Mart, if their bankruptcy doesn't close the stores. Photography is about a whole lot more than "flattering." I make no attempt to "flatter" the subjects in my portraits, and it hasn't stopped me at all.

I think this is an interesting shot that challenges a bit, you have to think about it. That's a positive. It looks like a CD cover, maybe it could be.

The problem with asking for criticism is that you get too many responses that aren't about your photograph, but about what someone's taste, however bad, may be, rather than any kind of helpful comments. I'm sure you know that this isn't flattering to the subject, but it doesn't appear that has sunk in with some of the "critics."

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 22, 2002.

Add my list of names to those in favor of this image. Classic Rembrandt lighting used with a very unconventional viewpoint. To bad some think that being 'textbook' looking is more important than being creative..........

-- Bob Todrick (bobtrodrick@yahoo.com), February 22, 2002.

I like it. A thumbs up from me. But my opinion doesn't count-- what did Sylvia say?! She looks mildly amused. Nice photo!

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), February 22, 2002.

Una bella foto, Antonio. I like this picture a lot. It's a very quirky photo. It's very strong graphically, well composed, and the tones are nice. I think it's the best of the five in your folder (though some might like number 4 better because of the lack of distortion).

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), February 22, 2002.

I like the picture, but I feel that I If I knew the lady I would appreciate it more. Her character shows, but not quite strong enought for me. A little more humour might have done it. Well done technically. I like the composition.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), February 22, 2002.

Attn: Bob Todrick

Sorry for the off-topic posting, but I sent you email at the address above and it bounced. Can you email me?

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 22, 2002.

Great photograph, Antonio, in my opinion. Any camera can merely take a photo. What you succeeded in here is to create a mood to go along with the lady's portrait. You have blended the science of photography's objectivity (accurate focus and exposure, etc.) with fine art's subjectivity concerning a means to create mood, emotion, humor and so forth.

-- Steve Brantley (sbrantley@nccommerce.com), February 22, 2002.

Interesting photograph! It grabs viewer attention. Hey, almost everyone either really likes it or hates it: a sign of a good photo. I don't think anyone said boring,which it definitely isn't. I reviewed your entire photonet exhibit[except color] and also liked your metro work. I think your metro work, which I like, would improve with a rangefinder camera. Keep shooting!

-- John Elder (celder2162@aol.com), February 22, 2002.

F. beauty, the shot is beautiful in the distorted sense although the tonality of the picture isn't varied enough. The Leica/CZ lenses would have provide better contrast in lower light.

-- Alfie Wang (leica_phile@hotmail.com), February 22, 2002.

Antonio, I'm sorry to tell you that I share some of the opinions here that your picture is interesting but not a good example of portrait taking. My personal principle in portrait taking is that it must be beautiful to look at, and it must flatter the subject, unless it's done for humourous reasons. Look at Mike Dixon's portrait photos and you'll see what I mean. You can see one of Mike's beautiful portraits here: http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=0089Sg. Then again, if you and the subject like the picture, it really doesn't matter what others think, does it?!

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), February 23, 2002.

Thank you very much to all the people here who took their time to critique this photo. I agree, I consider a success having both strongly negative respones and positive ones, IMHO better than something which leaves you so-so, neither warm nor cold. Anyway, I should point out that this photo wasn't intended to show Silvia as a beauty (which she really is) but as one of the most curious and never- ever-relaxed people I've come to know and appreciate. It was a joy to realize these shots, anyway. OK, thanks again to all of you, I was very pleased to read your comments!

-- Antonio Carrus (Milan, Italy) (antoniocarrus@yahoo.it), February 23, 2002.

Sorry Antonio, but bug eyes with bulbous nose is crude overstatement and far too easy in my opinion. The lighting is also stating the obvious - "see the light is on this side and the darkness is on that side"

Now if you can capture character in what at first seems ordinary (and maybe you can), perhaps then you can break the rules. I'm all for being adventurous but this one belongs back in the box.

Nothing personal Antonio - one man's opinion.

-- Tim Gee (twg@optushome.com.au), February 23, 2002.

if you and the subject like the picture, it really doesn't matter what others think,

Someone explain to me why the subject must like the portrait, unless it was being done for pay. It appears that a lot of people expect to shoot for the subject, rather than for a great photograph.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 23, 2002.

Well, Jeff, I was referring specifically to Antonio's case, and his subject is certainly no paid model.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), February 23, 2002.

Besides, great photographers are always sensitive to their subjects, giving them beauty and dignity instead of revealing their worst or distorting who they are. Dorothy Lang, Lewis Hine, E. J. Bellocq and Eugene Smith (particularly, his photos of mecury-poison victims in Minamata) are examples of such great photographers whose senstivity to their under-privileged photo subjects rendered them beautiful and dignified. Of course there are many photographers who just want to get the "great picture" without sensitivity or consideration to the subjects--they're call paparazzi!

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), February 23, 2002.

Of course there are many photographers who just want to get the "great picture" without sensitivity or consideration to the subjects--they're call paparazzi!

I'd recommend a dictionary...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 23, 2002.

I'd recommend a dictionary...

Please do, I'm sure everyone can learn something from you.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), February 24, 2002.

Antonio, just want to make it clear that I'm not trying to impose any of my ideas here. What I've yakked away is, as Tim Gee said, one man's opinion. Since you and Silvia like the photo, then it's a great photograph! Thanks for sharing it and using it to generate a lively discussion.

-- Hoyin Lee (leehoyin@hutchcity.com), February 24, 2002.

Hoyin - your statement "Besides, great photographers are always sensitive to their subjects, giving them beauty and dignity instead of revealing their worst or distorting who they are" does in fact not sound like 'one mans opinion'. "great photographers are always sensitive' leaves little room for anyone elses opinion (IMO). As well you are talking about subjectives here. Who give you the right to dictate what myself, my subject, or anyone else thinks is flattering. If the subject in the above photos is happy with it, because it portrays a part of her in some way she is pleased with, than that is the end of the story. You please your subjects, let others please theirs...

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), February 25, 2002.

Hi, Antonio !

Great shot IMHO.

However I would have given my preference (by far !) to Nbr.5 in your portfolio if the shapes in the background were less distracting. But being things the way they are, yes the image you posted is my preferred selection though under protest.

Funny how vastly different our opinions can be regarding the same subject, isn't it ? And please be aware that nobody told you to go somewhere else with your not-Leica photo. There must be something to it, definitely.

Regards, Antonio, and thanks for sharing.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), February 25, 2002.