“My portraits are more about me than they are about the people I photograph.” ~Richard Avedon.

When we photograph people, we usually (though often unintentionally) photograph them the way we want to remember them, with the places and objects we associate with them. It's about us and controlling our memories. When we are casually taking photos, it's usually for our own purposes and not always for the people we are photographing.

For example, recently I took some pictures of my mom at the gardens where she works. She's smiling and doing something she loves. I wouldn't want a photo of my mom frowning or crying or in a place that looks completely uncomfortable... because looking at those photos would make me and anyone else who looked at them uncomfortable, and it would completely clash with what I remember about my mom. I'd much rather remember her best moments, and I think that's something we all can relate to.

“You don't take a photograph, you make it.” ~Ansel Adams

At first I read this quote and thought; "no way! Ansel Adams photographed landscapes. He had the ability to influence about 1% of what he was photographing, and I don't even know what that 1% would be!"

But then I realized... sure, Adams couldn't adjust the height of a mountain or the shape of the clouds, but he had complete control over how he chose to capture his subjects.

Shutter speed. aperture. Angle.... the photographer controls these and more, and the result can greatly influence the look and feel of a photo.

It's a lot easier than trying to move mountains.

“All photographs are there to remind us of what we forget..."

"... In this - as in other ways - they are the opposite of paintings. Paintings record what the painter remembers. Because each one of us forgets different things, a photo more than a painting may change its meaning according to who is looking at it.” ~John Berger



I disagree. I think that photography is an art like any other, and art can almost always be interpreted in a variety of ways based on the viewer's past experiences. If anything, I think that photos are more inclined to be more restrictive to interpretation than paintings. Captions often accompany photos, and these tend to influence how a person interprets a photo. A caption can add bias.


Paintings are usually only accompanied by a title and sometimes an artist statement. I also tend to see paintings as more unrealistic than a photo. No matter how accurate a painting might be, a photo is often the most exact replication of a moment and a painting is always an interpretation that is more inviting to more interpretations.... if that makes any sense?

AB Portrait

Jill Greenberg

 "Glass Ceiling" http://www.manipulator.com/Fine-art/photos/glass-ceiling#/

Though born in Montreal, Canada in 1967, Jill Greenberg grew up in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Outside of her traditional education, Greenberg also attended Kingswood, Birmingham Bloomfield Art Association, and the Center for Creative Studies in Detroit. After high school, she continued her arts education by taking classes at Rhode Island School of Design and Brown University.


Greeberg's focus appears to be portraiture (of both animals and people) and commercial photography. As her website indicates, Greenberg has adopted the title "Manipulator" to describe they way she approaches her work. Her images are manipulated both manually and digitally, and she enjoys staging and creating characters for her photographs. As such, her images have a idealized feel to them, with the subjects looking so perfect that they feel unreal.


My favorite set of photos on her website is the "Glass Ceiling." The photo above is one from that set. The photos are all taken from underwater, looking up at the subject. The set is actually outtakes from a commissioned photo shoot if the 2008 US Olympic Synchronized Skating team. Two setups from the shoot used high heels. As Greenberg writes; 


"They attempt to perform and pose but the water knocks them into awkward positions. They wear high heels to be "sexy" in this performance, yet this is absurd, it hinders their movement and amplifies their lack of control. They adjust their swimsuits, shoes; gasp for air, and are pushed by the relentless force of the water, a metaphor for their world."


It is a metaphor for how women struggle to make themselves into how society wants them to be, no matter how unnatural and destructive these expectations may be.  


Jill Greenberg: http://www.manipulator.com/

Everyday Portraits

Pay close attention to the types and number of photographic portraits you see in one day. 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”?


Facebook + Twitter: "Profile pictures" are the photos we choose to brand ourselves. They give a face to a name. They are what a person sees first upon viewing a friend's profile. Naturally, people try to put up the "best" photo of themselves, I mean, why wouldn't you? You want to portray the best image of yourself as possible. In this situation, a person has complete control over how they are presented to the world.


Magazines and Advertisements: Much like Facebook, the portraits found in these mediums are usually aimed at portraying the best images of people as possible--at least for feature stories. Why would a celebrity want their blemishes plastered over the front page of a nationally published magazine? Though sometimes this happens anyway, when a man with a camera leaps out of the bushes for an impromptu, unflattering photo shoot) And as for ads, why would a shampoo company want an "ugly" person promoting their newest conditioner?


News: This is where you generally see the widest variety of portraits, because the goal of the news is to portray the truth of a situation. The people being featured in this medium generally have the least control over how they are presented. However, this mostly means showing people at their worst and at their best. Usually it is one of the extremes, otherwise it's not news.


If the intent of the photographer is to make a person look good, then usually a "good" photo will be used. If the reverse is true (i.e candid celebrity shots, the unwanted 'tag' on Facebook) then there will be a "bad" photo for the world to see.

In your opinion, when is it beneficial, ethical, or appropriate to digitally alter photographic portraits? When do you think it is inappropriate or ethically wrong?

This is tricky, and I think that it largely depends on the situation and the audience that will be viewing the photo.

This topic comes up often in my journalism classes as a huge ethical issue. In my opinion, a photojournalist's job is to capture the very essence of a situation to the best of their ability, meaning that they are to show the situation in it's most raw and pure form. Even the smallest of edits can completely alter the look and feel of a scene, so I think that the photojournalist must always be very careful in order to give the most honest story to their audience. As long as the edits are working to clarify the message of the photo, editing would be okay. But then, how do you know that that is truly what you are doing, and that you aren't just adding a bias to the image? It all gets really dicey. Probably the best way to go is to just not edit the photo at all. Gosh--wouldn't that change the look of our front pages? I wonder...

Celebrity magazines would be VERY interesting if they were never edited. I think it would be great if they weren't ever airbrushed to remove a blemish or take some weight off of a celeb. Then, would the celebrities still allow these photo shoots?

 I even hard time editing my personal photos. While Photoshopping a few pictures I took at Lake Michigan, I kept having an inner monologue about whether it was ethical or not. I thought the picture looked so much better with a little more contrast and a blue filter... but then again, is it the same image anymore? Was that what I saw that day when I was taking the picture? It's almost like I was creating a moment that never really existed.