A few days ago Gizmodo ran a piece lauding the amazing art of portrait photography. The video shows the history of portraiture and what artists say they are trying to do today, the stories they are trying to tell, the experiments they're doing and... the conversations they are having. It's fun seeing the Egyptian stuff and all the other things you are familiar with, a review, but, maybe you'll find it more interesting than I.
I was really hoping for some pointers.
But. Somewhere along the line, maybe even in the comments there at Gizmodo, I found this little gem. A guy named Guglielmo Galvin who took an awful lot of photographs of famous people in their own environments. He says in his profile that digital pretty much ruined his career, now everybody has cameras. Too bad. You get to see what he looks like now and then and his camera and his lenses. And his gallery and his notes are amazing, if you click on those over there.
12 comments:
What do you think of his gallery, Chip?
That vid about portrait photography was interesting. I especially liked the one where the woman took pictures of random people grouped into family portraits. How she said something like people had a natural template or archetype for the family grouping.
My pic of Stravinsky
(snapshot pic of old 8X10 print)
Tri-X Leica F 90mm lens, 1963
You sly boots.
That's a wonderful portrait. You really captured him.
I read a biography of Disraeli. He lived at a time when portrait painting and photography overlapped. He was strikingly handsome during the era of painting, but his good looks were diminished after the invention of photography. I've also seen a photo of Andrew Jackson. He bears a resemblance to the guy on the currency but mostly he looks like a worn old man. A lot of famous people, born before photography, were real eyesores.......I've seen that Goya painting of the Spanish royal family. I bet they were probably even uglier in real life.
I always consider it an extreme courtesy whenever I see a photograph of myself at some public event and the retouchers have removed all signs that I was shitfaced.
Everyone has cameras, but not just anyone can take great photos. Every now and again I accidentally get a good photo. The majority of my photos are just blah. The good news with digital is that it doesn't cost a lot of money and time waiting for the negatives to be developed to discover that my photos were bad.
The answer to cost was black and white film bought in bulk (wind your own casettes) and your own darkroom.
Still it was a penny a shot, though.
You made a contact sheet, and only printed what seemed worthwhile.
Things always looked better on the contact sheet, unfortunately.
Great post Chip Ahoy. Loved the photos.
deb, sorry so late, I fell asleep.
I loved his gallery. I'm fascinated with all the clutter. And I think his story is incredible, but then there is the proof. And he said that was the remnant of what he destroyed in frustration.
Ah, rhhardin, the Stravinsky shot is excellent.
Post a Comment