In the recent weeks, twice a request was received by photographers to make a portrait.
Why not?
One photographer by the name of Martijn Doolaard had come especially for the portrait making to the Belgium city of Antwerp.
Where the victim was working in the offices of the publisher on the new photo book “Sequences: the ultimate selection”.
In a hall rather dark, an improvised photo studio was made.
Just a lamp on a standard actually.
The portrayed had nothing else to do but just stand in one place.
And look slightly upwards and sideward while not allowed to laugh or giggle.
The photographer himself, this Martijn Doolaard, obviously was nervous.
Very nervous.
His hands trembling around his camera in front of the totally relaxed photo model.
An extreme wide angle was used and the pictures were taking exceptionally close to the face.
This made the experienced pioneering photographer understand that something unusual was being created.
An image of the face very distorted.
At that point the photo session could have been cancelled.
Saying: “No fooling around with my face, buddy!”
But what was the importance and relevance of that concern?
Why not just let it go and have the young dilettante has his ball?
That can be seen right here.
Voila the result of the hard work of the photographer Martijn Doolaard:
The second invitation to be portrayed came from one of the students participating recently in one of the Master Classes.
His name is Walther Walraven.
He had prepared in the photo studio of the Photo Academy in Groningen, the Netherlands, a set up.
A large globe hanging in the air, a large flash and a black cross on the floor where the protagonist had to put himself.
The problem soon discovered was that the globe was swinging and turning.
While Walther wanted the side with Mexico facing the camera.
The solution was to hold the globe in position and just before the taking of the picture lower the hand.
This made the picture as we can all see:
The question now is, which of these two pictures is considered by the fervent and loyal blog readers as the most interesting?
As the best?
As the most revealing?
As the worst?
Send in your jury reports by clicking on the comments button underneath.
.
3 comments:
I like the photo by Walther Walraven better - there is more to consider as you view it.
I find the first one more interesting.
But Michel, you as an artist know that what you are asking is very subjective. Which one is best? Come on! ;-)
Any art historian worth his salt could write long treatises on why one is better than the other, comparing and contrasting with the works of famous artists...
I think they are both unique and interesting.
Post a Comment