Timmers wrote:
During WW II there was a portrait made of the European Babe-A-Luscious Margret Bourke White. She had gone on what was suppose to be 'A milk run' over Germany, Of course she was Ikes main squeeze and got anything she wanted, even beyond reason, like flyingin a B-17 bomber over Germany. She got some standard photos but stood shooting snaps when the bomb group came under heavy fire, it turned out to be less than a 'milk run', the two waste gunners died and Bourke-White took over the fifty cals and returned fire taking out several Me-109s that were attacking. Almost everyone on that bomber died or was wounded.
The image you see is of her as she exited the shot up B-17 after it landed made by her assistant photo guy. This ran in as the center fold in Stars and Stripes for the rest of the war as the replacement to the 'girly' center fold because the GIs in Europe wanted it as the center fold pin up, so many requests were there made. She would sign autographs of all ranks from these center fold pin up prints out of Stars and Strips, some while across from German troops in the fox holes of American and allied soldiers in the front lines between fighting.
Portrait or pin up? Sexy? Hot? Babe! In her era Margret Bourke White was the shining center of being a sexy hot babe to women and men alike in a world dominated by the male gaze. Guess what, the world has changed and men are beginning to understand that women are becoming powerful beings in many respects to any and all things that men can imagine. If you think that women don't know just how powerful they are by using there sexuality, the raw power that a necked woman's body is to the males around them then you have missed the boat and are lost in a past that will not be returning if the women have anything to do about that.
Women DON'T need to be nude to have power, it's just that many women love to be nude, and they really do like being ogled by men in or out of their clothing! Live with it.
During WW II there was a portrait made of the Euro... (
show quote)
Interestingly, she is holding an aerial camera which was used for recording images of the ground from high altitude. She most often used a 4x5 Graflex or a 2-1/4 twin lens camera for her photojournalist endeavors.
Four "character" portraits. Definitely portraits.
The BW is the lead shot for an article about the subject. Its for a literary periodical, and hes a poet, so the background is very much part of the message.
The 2nd shot is from an event coverage. The idea of "event attendee" is only gently hinted by the "nightlife" make up and the disposable beverage glass. The background here tells you nothing, but provides a hint of a "non home" location, as also does her wearing a winter jacket indoors.
Third shot is for the subjects promo materials. Hes a performer and looooooves that shot and so do I. Im proud to report than when it was posted to the UHH "Critique" subforum it was shredded. Noise, WB, lens flare, pose, etc, etc. (Mission very well accomplished there.)
I love that type of work. OTOH, when I parade a dozen VPs though the headshot umbrellas against a blank backdrop, Im never moved to save any copies for myself.
4th pic is my personal work. While it *IS* a portrait, part of the face is obscured. Yet the gesture that obscures the chin reveals waaaay more character than his chin could ever hope to deliver on its own were it "properly" visible.
I like them all! Very good individual portraits.
radiojohn wrote:
Most of the loosely moderated FB pages for portraits are hit with semi nudes, heavily tattooed glamor, staged model shots and other sexually charged images.
As one poster said, "A portrait should let you see something of a person's personality regardless of what that may be. A glamor or cheesecake shot is meant to display sexy or attractiveness regardless of what a person's personality may be."
Has there been a blurring of types of photos or just sloppy admins. Your thoughts?
Most of the loosely moderated FB pages for portrai... (
show quote)
The German word "Gestalt" is a word that points to "Cultural Consciousness"
Cultures rise and fall just like individual lives. All are destined to die eventually. Cultures also oscillate. They rise and fall. I am an eternal optimist. I think ours is in a low valley dip right now, but heading upward.
Timmers wrote:
During WW II there was a portrait made of the European Babe-A-Luscious Margret Bourke White. She had gone on what was suppose to be 'A milk run' over Germany, Of course she was Ikes main squeeze and got anything she wanted, even beyond reason, like flyingin a B-17 bomber over Germany. She got some standard photos but stood shooting snaps when the bomb group came under heavy fire, it turned out to be less than a 'milk run', the two waste gunners died and Bourke-White took over the fifty cals and returned fire taking out several Me-109s that were attacking. Almost everyone on that bomber died or was wounded.
The image you see is of her as she exited the shot up B-17 after it landed made by her assistant photo guy. This ran in as the center fold in Stars and Stripes for the rest of the war as the replacement to the 'girly' center fold because the GIs in Europe wanted it as the center fold pin up, so many requests were there made. She would sign autographs of all ranks from these center fold pin up prints out of Stars and Strips, some while across from German troops in the fox holes of American and allied soldiers in the front lines between fighting.
Portrait or pin up? Sexy? Hot? Babe! In her era Margret Bourke White was the shining center of being a sexy hot babe to women and men alike in a world dominated by the male gaze. Guess what, the world has changed and men are beginning to understand that women are becoming powerful beings in many respects to any and all things that men can imagine. If you think that women don't know just how powerful they are by using there sexuality, the raw power that a necked woman's body is to the males around them then you have missed the boat and are lost in a past that will not be returning if the women have anything to do about that.
Women DON'T need to be nude to have power, it's just that many women love to be nude, and they really do like being ogled by men in or out of their clothing! Live with it.
During WW II there was a portrait made of the Euro... (
show quote)
Well said! I once remarked to a female Marine, " Do you think men and women should be equal?" Her reponse, "Why should I give up my superiority?"
sippyjug104 wrote:
I hate those semi-nudes, heavily tattooed glamor, staged model shots, and other sexually charged images. I visit Facebook, looking for them all day and night to remind me why I look for them. 😁
If you do nudes or semi nude, you better be damned good. Maybe 1% on the nude section of UHH are good...artistic. Great lighting, posing, etc. The rest is a peep show. I have not tried, and am not really interested in nudes...way out of my league.
radiojohn wrote:
Most of the loosely moderated FB pages for portraits are hit with semi nudes, heavily tattooed glamor, staged model shots and other sexually charged images.
As one poster said, "A portrait should let you see something of a person's personality regardless of what that may be. A glamor or cheesecake shot is meant to display sexy or attractiveness regardless of what a person's personality may be."
Has there been a blurring of types of photos or just sloppy admins. Your thoughts?
Most of the loosely moderated FB pages for portrai... (
show quote)
Neither blurring nor sloppy. Meerly the inability of mass humanity to think logically. I saw a lion picture the other day. The lion had no clothes on??? Same occurred with several hundred other mammals, birds, arachnids, fish, and probably others I can't think of now. Where is the storm over these nude pictures? The idea that one patch of skin on a (usually female) human is pristine while another one inch lower is obscene is ridiculous. I agree that there is obscenity in photography. The rear view of a 5'4" 280# person (gender matters not) in Walmart wearing latex shorts is definitely obscene. I good looking female (again the prejudice), no matter the presence or lack of clothing is not. Don't you just love foolhardiness base on religion?
Don, the 2nd son wrote:
Interestingly, she is holding an aerial camera which was used for recording images of the ground from high altitude. She most often used a 4x5 Graflex or a 2-1/4 twin lens camera for her photojournalist endeavors.
If she'd have tried to use a Graflex 4X5, the wind through the open gunner's windows in the side of the plane would likely blown the bellows out of the camera. What she was holding was probably the most usable camera available. Or...maybe it was just a prop?
Anyhoo....good photo, and well printed!
Nudes!
It's difficult work and requires great skill. Think of it. Many folks have trouble creating a good likeness- and undistorted and flattering image in a simple head-shoulder portat- with a fully clothed subject. Shroud the body in a lot of cloth; all you need to worry about is the head, shoulders, and maybe the hands. Folks use the wrong focal and the wrong distance. Bad lighting and poor posting direction can yield some pretty rough stuff like elongated or exaggerated facial structures, beak licenses, "dead" and yes, disproportionate had and arn sizes and lengths- a real mess. No clothing? The photographer has to manage all kinds of arms, legs, tummies backsides, breasts, pits, cracks, and a stack of private parts that are best not seen. They end up with a "naked person picture, not a tasteful study. Talk about composition and lines in the pose- a big job.
Some of this stuff looks like medical photogahy! In my humble opinion, the most sensuous images do NOT show it all.
Nudes, figure studies, etc have been around forever. Noting new.
I understand and respect folks who find this kind of art antithetical to their morals, religion, or beliefs about modesty. Nobody, however, is forced to see, display, or indulge in any of it. Those who are offended by the centerfolds in those sexy magazines would have to have seen them to become offended. They usually don't have those magazines in the waning room of the dentist's office- you gotta go out and buy 'em. I was once shooting for an act in a nightclub- dancers. There was a stand-up comedian on the bill using vulgar language- I mean heavy-duty cussing and swearing! An older lady was sitting ringside (no less) who seemed to be heckling the comedian. She was loudly saying "Tsk, tsk, tsk, I NEVER heard such filthy words...disgusting!!!" The comedian retorted, "If you never heard those words before, how do you know waht they mean"?
Smut or art? It's all in the eyes of the beholder!
flyboy61 wrote:
If she'd have tried to use a Graflex 4X5, the wind through the open gunner's windows in the side of the plane would likely blown the bellows out of the camera. What she was holding was probably the most usable camera available. Or...maybe it was just a prop?
Anyhoo....good photo, and well printed!
But she *IS* holding a 4x5 Graphic. It is specifically designed around the challenge which you described. Definitely not a prop.
Given that you call yourself "flyboy", you really need to look that one up. I have no doubt youll be glad you did.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.