«

"Paul H." <> wrote in message
news:Ad8tb.438$ .net...
>
> "Martin Francis" < m> wrote
in
> message news:bp15ro$qe1$...
> > Okay, first of a series of questions relating to my dissertation. I am
> > polling photographic newsgroups in search of varying opinions, and
> anything
> > said may be quoted.
> >
> > Q1: What constitutes a good portrait?
> > Excluding basic technical considerations, i.e. longer focal lengths,
> > wider apertures etc., what particular elements do you look for in taking
> and
> > viewing people photographs? Do you have particular reasons for this
> opinion,
> > or is it based purely on aesthetics? Please be as specific as possible.
>
> Never forget to airbrush the nose hair before printing the shot. That's
> just about it, really.
>

So, what about the equivalent of removing eyeglasses to avoid glare?

"Martin Francis" < m>
wrote:

> Q1: What constitutes a good portrait?

The only good portrait captures the soul of the imaged so carefully,
so perfectly, so exquisitely, in such fine, resolved detail, the
patterns of the personality, the bad habits, the neuroses, the
intelligence (or lack thereof), the very quintessential essence of the
person that they are left an empty shell, a hard neurological vacuum
normally encountered in intergalactic space.

Yes, the only good portrait serves as a veritible encephalectomy. The
oscillating, quivering, neural networks of the subject are
photonically yanked through their eyeballs and smeared over the
imaging sensor. All possible questions that could be asked of the
subject can be answered by any viewer of such a portrait. The nuances
of their thoughts and aspirations, their inner creativity, the
beliefs, their goodness and happiness, as well as all of the
calamities they have been subject to, the insults their have endured,
the profound sadnesses that may sit at the core of their being ... the
perfect portrait is all of this and more. It is both reductionist and
holist. Their ying, yang, all the karma.

The person has been captured in complete totality, the schematic
diagram of their soul has been laid bare, draped before the viewer
like a Playboy centrefold is over Harley.

Frank ess writes:

> So, what about the equivalent of removing eyeglasses to avoid glare?

Light it properly and the glasses can stay on, if the subject so
desires.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Can anyone top this one?

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


<> wrote in message
news: om...
> "Martin Francis" < m>
> wrote:
>
> > Q1: What constitutes a good portrait?
>
> The only good portrait captures the soul of the imaged so carefully,
> so perfectly, so exquisitely, in such fine, resolved detail, the
> patterns of the personality, the bad habits, the neuroses, the
> intelligence (or lack thereof), the very quintessential essence of the
> person that they are left an empty shell, a hard neurological vacuum
> normally encountered in intergalactic space.
>
> Yes, the only good portrait serves as a veritible encephalectomy. The
> oscillating, quivering, neural networks of the subject are
> photonically yanked through their eyeballs and smeared over the
> imaging sensor. All possible questions that could be asked of the
> subject can be answered by any viewer of such a portrait. The nuances
> of their thoughts and aspirations, their inner creativity, the
> beliefs, their goodness and happiness, as well as all of the
> calamities they have been subject to, the insults their have endured,
> the profound sadnesses that may sit at the core of their being ... the
> perfect portrait is all of this and more. It is both reductionist and
> holist. Their ying, yang, all the karma.
>
> The person has been captured in complete totality, the schematic
> diagram of their soul has been laid bare, draped before the viewer
> like a Playboy centrefold is over Harley.

No. And I thought I knew how to rant...

"Joseph Meehan" <> wrote in message
news:svotb.5748$...
> Can anyone top this one?
>
> --
> Joseph E. Meehan
>
> 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
>
>
> <> wrote in message
> news: om...
> > "Martin Francis" < m>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Q1: What constitutes a good portrait?
> >
> > The only good portrait captures the soul of the imaged so carefully,
> > so perfectly, so exquisitely, in such fine, resolved detail, the
> > patterns of the personality, the bad habits, the neuroses, the
> > intelligence (or lack thereof), the very quintessential essence of the
> > person that they are left an empty shell, a hard neurological vacuum
> > normally encountered in intergalactic space.
> >
> > Yes, the only good portrait serves as a veritible encephalectomy. The
> > oscillating, quivering, neural networks of the subject are
> > photonically yanked through their eyeballs and smeared over the
> > imaging sensor. All possible questions that could be asked of the
> > subject can be answered by any viewer of such a portrait. The nuances
> > of their thoughts and aspirations, their inner creativity, the
> > beliefs, their goodness and happiness, as well as all of the
> > calamities they have been subject to, the insults their have endured,
> > the profound sadnesses that may sit at the core of their being ... the
> > perfect portrait is all of this and more. It is both reductionist and
> > holist. Their ying, yang, all the karma.
> >
> > The person has been captured in complete totality, the schematic
> > diagram of their soul has been laid bare, draped before the viewer
> > like a Playboy centrefold is over Harley.
>
>