Where did you see them? How do you think that the content of the portrait changes based on the context in which you see the image (news, facebook, magazine, advertisement, television, youtube, etc)? In other words, what is the difference between the portraits you see on facebook vs. those on the news? What is the difference between the “viewpoint” of the photographer in each situation? What is the difference between their “intents”?
I like to think of all the portraits I seen in one day as split into two groups, useful and useless. Starting with the useless, I am talking about facebook. Pictures taken by people holding their own camera at odd angles, doing weird little faces. Or candid photos taken at parties that are often of low quality. I'm not saying all of these facebook photos are bad, but when it comes to portraiture, they aren't what most might think of.
Then comes the useful portraits. These include news, magazine, advertisement, and televisions photographs. The intent with these portraits is much more informational than with facebook. The news and advertisements are looking to portray people in a certain light with quality camera gear and emotion-inducing photos. The viewpoint of the photographer in "useful" photography is to do a job. Her or she is being paid to photograph a story or ad just right. With facebook, any person with a camera, or phone can take their own pictures for free and without much thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment