£12K portrait...........

I think it is hard to form a true judgement based of a web image - perhaps the actual image is very impressive, the one in the link above does little for me.
 
Not worth it. Much more better ones on 500px or even Flickr.
 
surely the amount of prize money is neither here nor there ?
 
admirable said:
It's not bad but £12,000............seen better on here!
Click to expand...
clarkbai said:
Not worth it. Much more better ones on 500px or even Flickr.
Click to expand...
Phil Young said:
...too much headroom. lol!
Click to expand...

*sigh*

This is not about being pretty 500px eye candy... when will people get this?

""I was keen to include Katie," said Murphy of the portrait. "I wanted to show both her femininity and the toughness of spirit she requires to compete against the best riders in one of the most demanding disciplines in horse racing."

Also.... "I chose to shoot the series on large format film, to give the images a depth and timelessness that I think would have been hard to achieve on a digital camera."

Seeing as most on here, and probably a fair few in this thread have never even seen a large format print from a 5x4 neg... that last one will just wash over you. Most people nowadays don't even have the skill to expose a piece of film correctly.

What would you have done then?.. put her in a studio and used clamshell lighting, placed her eyes on a third and had an "interesting" background?

Some people just don't actually get what photography is about.... I'm convinced of it.

I'm sorry... but I've not seen better on here, 500px, Flickr etc... not once.. ever. That's a stunning portrait, and well worth the win... and prize money.
 
Last edited:
What people see in a photograph is very subjective, me for instance do not see the toughness / feminity etc, to me the posture and expression give an air of dejectedness; the turning down of the corners of the eyes and the slight tilting of the head to me do not signify resolve, again as said it is a personal view. You can argue the technical merits, for instance the signifigance of the pale colour wash on the bottom third, I don't get that, but as with any portrait there is the initial "first impression" which is followed by a period of reflection, it may grow on you or conversely it may become less, that only time and seeing will tell.
 
Pookeyhead said:
*sigh*

This is not about being pretty 500px eye candy... when will people get this?

""I was keen to include Katie," said Murphy of the portrait. "I wanted to show both her femininity and the toughness of spirit she requires to compete against the best riders in one of the most demanding disciplines in horse racing."

Also.... "I chose to shoot the series on large format film, to give the images a depth and timelessness that I think would have been hard to achieve on a digital camera."

Seeing as most on here, and probably a fair few in this thread have never even seen a large format print from a 5x4 neg... that last one will just wash over you. Most people nowadays don't even have the skill to expose a piece of film correctly.

What would you have done then?.. put her in a studio and used clamshell lighting, placed her eyes on a third and had an "interesting" background?

Some people just don't actually get what photography is about.... I'm convinced of it.

I'm sorry... but I've not seen better on here, 500px, Flickr etc... not once.. ever. That's a stunning portrait, and well worth the win... and prize money.
Click to expand...
agreed. It portrays exactly what he wanted it to IMO. I think its excellent.
 
Pookeyhead said:
*sigh*

This is not about being pretty 500px eye candy... when will people get this?

""I was keen to include Katie," said Murphy of the portrait. "I wanted to show both her femininity and the toughness of spirit she requires to compete against the best riders in one of the most demanding disciplines in horse racing."

Also.... "I chose to shoot the series on large format film, to give the images a depth and timelessness that I think would have been hard to achieve on a digital camera."


What would you have done then?.. put her in a studio and used clamshell lighting, placed her eyes on a third and had an "interesting" background?

Some people just don't actually get what photography is about.... I'm convinced of it.

I'm sorry... but I've not seen better on here, 500px, Flickr etc... not once.. ever. That's a stunning portrait, and well worth the win... and prize money.
Click to expand...

So, should I assume you read all the stories behind every photo you saw? I guess you are just the one giving the praise after knowing the fact that this one won a prize. Not everyone compared this to posh studio portrait, but this is still not good enough to win a prize for me. At least, when I saw this one, I didn't even the interest to know the story behind.

It is far below any standards these photos set: http://portraitinspiration.com/famous-portrait-photographers/

I respect your opinion if that was your real opinion not following suit. But you should learn how to respect other comments not "Seeing as most on here, and probably a fair few in this thread have never even seen a large format print from a 5x4 neg... that last one will just wash over you. Most people nowadays don't even have the skill to expose a piece of film correctly."

That made you really cheap, film master. Again people enjoying the film is just like people liking steam train, and it is a hobby not a thing to show off how better you are than other people shooting digital.

Grow up!

Sorry, mentioning 500px or flickr, please don't think they are craps. A quick search already gave you a much better portrait that this http://500px.com/photo/3724814 At least, it is interesting to attract people to get to know the story behind.
 
Last edited:
Its a very very good one. Dof could have been wider I think.... It probably would have won in my local camera club too, although you'd only get a fresh cream cake as a prize.

What is that shot on I wonder, looks like film...edit. ah I see above yes film.... it has the power to convert me thats for sure.
 
Last edited:
The amount of money is irrelevant, it just happened to be the size of the prize.

Interestingly, I saw that image yesterday without knowing what it was about, but immediately the Taylor Wessing competition came into my head - is it just me or are the last few years winners all following a certain similar style?

P.s its still a great exhibition to go see at the National Portrait gallery, I'll be up there next week.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
*sigh*

This is not about being pretty 500px eye candy... when will people get this?

""I was keen to include Katie," said Murphy of the portrait. "I wanted to show both her femininity and the toughness of spirit she requires to compete against the best riders in one of the most demanding disciplines in horse racing."

Also.... "I chose to shoot the series on large format film, to give the images a depth and timelessness that I think would have been hard to achieve on a digital camera."

Seeing as most on here, and probably a fair few in this thread have never even seen a large format print from a 5x4 neg... that last one will just wash over you. Most people nowadays don't even have the skill to expose a piece of film correctly.

What would you have done then?.. put her in a studio and used clamshell lighting, placed her eyes on a third and had an "interesting" background?

Some people just don't actually get what photography is about.... I'm convinced of it.

I'm sorry... but I've not seen better on here, 500px, Flickr etc... not once.. ever. That's a stunning portrait, and well worth the win... and prize money.
Click to expand...
+1. Absolutely stunning and a deserving winner.

Go and see the exhibition at the NPG if you can everyone, it's only a couple of quid and always brilliant.
 
Pookeyhead said:
*sigh*

This is not about being pretty 500px eye candy... when will people get this?

""I was keen to include Katie," said Murphy of the portrait. "I wanted to show both her femininity and the toughness of spirit she requires to compete against the best riders in one of the most demanding disciplines in horse racing."

Also.... "I chose to shoot the series on large format film, to give the images a depth and timelessness that I think would have been hard to achieve on a digital camera."

Seeing as most on here, and probably a fair few in this thread have never even seen a large format print from a 5x4 neg... that last one will just wash over you. Most people nowadays don't even have the skill to expose a piece of film correctly.

What would you have done then?.. put her in a studio and used clamshell lighting, placed her eyes on a third and had an "interesting" background?

Some people just don't actually get what photography is about.... I'm convinced of it.

I'm sorry... but I've not seen better on here, 500px, Flickr etc... not once.. ever. That's a stunning portrait, and well worth the win... and prize money.
Click to expand...

No that would only have won you second prize:

The £3,000 second prize was awarded to Giles Price for Kumbh Mela Pilgrim - Mamta Dubey and infant

His portrait is from a series shot at the 2013 Kumbh Mela Festival in Allahabad, India. Taken outside the main hospital in a pop-up studio, the portrait shows Mamta who was on a pilgrimage to the Kumbh.
Click to expand...
 
clarkbai said:
Sorry, mentioning 500px or flickr, please don't think they are craps. A quick search already gave you a much better portrait that this http://500px.com/photo/3724814 At least, it is interesting to attract people to get to know the story behind.
Click to expand...

I think it would be interesting as to why you feel that this is a better portrait?

I don't believe it is a better fit for the Taylor Wessing Prize. Competitions are an exercise in shooting to a stylistic brief. They're not looking for 'the best shot ever', they're looking for the one that fits that competition. It's also very much a 'current affairs' competition, indicated by the fact portraits have to be less than 18 months old to be entered, and so a female sportswoman looking natural like this is very much in line with current debate on imaging.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CharlotteM said:
I think it would be interesting as to why you feel that this is a better portrait?
Click to expand...

More interesting subject -- grab the eyes at first sight, and make you wonder what kind of life this poor old man lives
Not artificially posed -- expression, running-away eyes and running-nose to make it so natural and touching
Better detailed classy BW -- I don't think I need to explain on this right?

Why don't you think it is better? just because not fit to Taylor Wessing Prize? Or maybe not taken by a British...

probably after i tell you this 500px one won xxx price, then you will think it is better:)

No offense, just discussion.
 
Last edited:
Stories like this make me more ambitious - gives me a drive to shoot better!
 
clarkbai said:
Why don't you think it is better? just because not fit to Taylor Wessing Prize? Or maybe not taken by a British...

probably after i tell you this 500px one won xxx price, then you will think it is better:)

No offense, just discussion.
Click to expand...

Just for clarification, Lee Jeffreis is British and lives in Manchester.
 
Pookeyhead said:
*sigh*

This is not about being pretty 500px eye candy... when will people get this?

""I was keen to include Katie," said Murphy of the portrait. "I wanted to show both her femininity and the toughness of spirit she requires to compete against the best riders in one of the most demanding disciplines in horse racing."

Also.... "I chose to shoot the series on large format film, to give the images a depth and timelessness that I think would have been hard to achieve on a digital camera."

Seeing as most on here, and probably a fair few in this thread have never even seen a large format print from a 5x4 neg... that last one will just wash over you. Most people nowadays don't even have the skill to expose a piece of film correctly.

What would you have done then?.. put her in a studio and used clamshell lighting, placed her eyes on a third and had an "interesting" background?

Some people just don't actually get what photography is about.... I'm convinced of it.

I'm sorry... but I've not seen better on here, 500px, Flickr etc... not once.. ever. That's a stunning portrait, and well worth the win... and prize money.
Click to expand...


+1
 
clarkbai said:
More interesting subject -- grab the eyes at first sight, and make you wonder what kind of life this poor old man lives
Not artificially posed -- expression, running-away eyes and running-nose to make it so natural and touching
Better detailed classy BW -- I don't think I need to explain on this right?

Why don't you think it is better? just because not fit to Taylor Wessing Prize? Or maybe not taken by a British...

probably after i tell you this 500px one won xxx price, then you will think it is better:)

No offense, just discussion.
Click to expand...

I think that the portrait of a jockey is powerful because it's showing a woman competing in a sport dominated by men. A world where she doesn't compete against her own gender, but rather the 'stronger' gender. It's powerful because it shows the engrained mud and the splatters on her uniform, indicating hard work in the face of adversity. It shows that she has achieved a level in her sport that required endless dedication and hard work. I like the red marks on her face that show things can't be easy. The solemn look in her eyes that show perhaps she did not just win. The subtle emotion present in any sportspersons eyes and expression but at the same time she has a 'stiff upper lip' and is not giving in to the emotion. I love the colours, the way that her silks are muted against the background. The 'quality' that comes from film vs digital. The shallowness of the focus. The softness of everything except her features. I love the line that bisects the image. The bottom half defining her as a sportsperson, the top half defining her personality.

And almost most of all, I love it because it is a portrait of a female sportswoman where she is not being 'glammed up'. Where she isn't showing off her body to try and get respect. Where her beauty isn't even being considered. Where her achievements alone define her.

She is a jockey. She is competing at the very highest level. And she is a woman.

The photograph you linked of the old man just tells me that there is an old man who has perhaps had a hard life and that I should feel sorry for him. I learn nothing about him and it has a kind of old fashioned, slightly racist 'orientalist' attitude to me which is not in keeping with a more modern, globalised world view.

(BTW, what is a 'classy black and white'? I feel this might be a language barrier, but I also feel that you might be indicating that there are 'better' ways to take photos.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saw this in yesterday's paper and immediately liked it, a lot. IMO it's a deserved winner but I'm just an am-tog and have very little experience of portraiture or studio work so am unable to give definitive judgement on why it's better than the others:) It certainly tells a story though and my background does give me a insight into the incredibly hard, bone-breaking life of jump jockeys. So perhaps I'm biased but to me the portraits I love are ones which are more than a simple head shot, even if it's the best lit, best exposed shot ever!

The only thing that pees me off is that I went to the NPG on Monday, now I'll have to make another trip down south to the smoke.
 
Last edited:
Interesting comments. It looks a very conservative style of portrait to me: muted colours, almost painterly style, subject looking slightly mournful. It's 'classic' enough to hang in a stately home, and if that was the style required for the competition then it has fulfilled that well. I'd also agree that the image doesn't tell me any of the stuff in the description except for the gentle swell of breasts suggesting the female form - she just looks a bit unhappy.

The thing about photography, just like music, is that it's not an olympic sport with targets, times and goals. It can be hard to forget that if there is a competition, because our tastes and preferences vary considerably and what pleases one may well repel another.
 
Last edited:
Love it, an argument about nothing. :)
 
What I found interesting was that after looking through some of his other work on his website 99% of his portrait work has the subject looking off camera - it almonst looked to be a signature style of his. This one however (and part of its success in my opinion) has the jocket staring deep into the camera.
 
You know what - if someone out of portrait "elite" took it - it would get ripped apart to pieces. It is irrelevant what the shot it on - it is what it looks like. The space on top is probably for a magazine cover title, fair enough :lol:. Light is OK, posing is right from instagram minus the cheeky smile. I don't see much emotion either, except she does look a little annoyed probably with the person behind the camera. And lastly I don't see any context these guys love putting in. Without a tagline it could be anyone after a dreadful yet dull day. Honestly I personally don't see anything moving there. The selected few (judges) however did so I must be missing an elephant here. Please enlighten if you can.
 
I like the shot, but when reading about it (the bbc I think), it stated that the jockey had not ridden that day, so the mud etc are not from racing. I suppose she could have been warming up a horse on the gallops or something, but, if you are taking the background story into account for the image then I would have preferred the mud to have come from her riding in a race.
 
daugirdas said:
You know what - if someone out of portrait "elite" took it - it would get ripped apart to pieces. It is irrelevant what the shot it on - it is what it looks like. The space on top is probably for a magazine cover title, fair enough :lol:. Light is OK, posing is right from instagram minus the cheeky smile. I don't see much emotion either, except she does look a little annoyed probably with the person behind the camera. And lastly I don't see any context these guys love putting in. Without a tagline it could be anyone after a dreadful yet dull day. Honestly I personally don't see anything moving there. The selected few (judges) however did so I must be missing an elephant here. Please enlighten if you can.
Click to expand...

To me the main thing I like is its raw open honesty. its so unassuming and humble, It just does exactly what it says on the tin. Here is a jockey, can you see her?
And boy can we see her! I can see her intensity of character, I can see her strength, toughness and fitness, I can see her natural beauty and I can see her intelligence. I can see she's not very big, but I can also see a warning, as if she's saying theirs more to her than meets the eye, defensive even (in a good way) ...Then, as if that not enough, I can also see what see does for a living and I can see she's just been doing it. (that's not dirt added) ... I have never seen her before but if i bumped into her on the street tomorrow, or in ten years, Id recognise her in an instant, from several angles I reckon...all from just one image, I actually feel I now know her a little.

Plus technically its pretty damn good right, and more to the point, we can't really see it here in that size, so I'm using my imagination and insight because when I saw last years winner in the real (red haired girl, white coat, with hamster) in the gallery full size, I realised just how wow it was. ...It blew my head off kinda WOW! And so now I feel I can sorta see this will be the same full size and adding that to my conclusion. ...hey that's large format for you, it's better than real life. ;)
 
Last edited:
treeman said:
The amount of money is irrelevant, it just happened to be the size of the prize.

Interestingly, I saw that image yesterday without knowing what it was about, but immediately the Taylor Wessing competition came into my head - is it just me or are the last few years winners all following a certain similar style?

P.s its still a great exhibition to go see at the National Portrait gallery, I'll be up there next week.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they are following same style type I think, plain simple and honest is what they love most, not such a bad premiss if you have to have one.
 
PaulButler said:
I think it is hard to form a true judgement based of a web image - perhaps the actual image is very impressive, the one in the link above does little for me.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with this. I would have to see the print to make any judgement on the shot. The way it looks on a screen is rather uninspiring but I'll bet it looks great as a decent sized print!

clarkbai said:
Not worth it. Much more better ones on 500px or even Flickr.
Click to expand...

Possibly - but they didn't win, so the point is moot.
 
clarkbai said:
So, should I assume you read all the stories behind every photo you saw?
Click to expand...

If it was apparent through the image, or provided by the artist, yes. Why wouldn't anyone read about an image they find inspiring?



clarkbai said:
I guess you are just the one giving the praise after knowing the fact that this one won a prize.
Click to expand...

Not at all. In fact I'd already seen this image before it was revealed as a winner in the Taylor-Wessing. This wasn't shot FOR an entry into Taylor -Wessing... this, and many others were commissioned by Channel 4. They've been published and seen before.

clarkbai said:
It is far below any standards these photos set: http://portraitinspiration.com/famous-portrait-photographers/
Click to expand...

Maybe.. maybe not, but there's some great imagery by some illustrious artists in that link though. The initial comments were that there's better in here, and on Flickr. So not sure why you're posting a link to images from peopel such as Avedon, Beaton, Karsh etc. No one is asking of this image is better than anything in that link; the question seems to be is it A) Good enough to win the Taylor -Wessing prize, and B) Worth the £12k prize money.

clarkbai said:
I respect your opinion if that was your real opinion
Click to expand...

??? You don't know me very well do you? :) I'm not best known for following popular opinions :)


CharlotteM said:
I think it would be interesting as to why you feel that this is a better portrait?

I don't believe it is a better fit for the Taylor Wessing Prize. Competitions are an exercise in shooting to a stylistic brief. They're not looking for 'the best shot ever', they're looking for the one that fits that competition. It's also very much a 'current affairs' competition, indicated by the fact portraits have to be less than 18 months old to be entered, and so a female sportswoman looking natural like this is very much in line with current debate on imaging.
Click to expand...

Thank god... someone who seems to understand what this is all about, and why this was a deserved win.





clarkbai said:
More interesting subject -- grab the eyes at first sight, and make you wonder what kind of life this poor old man lives
Not artificially posed -- expression, running-away eyes and running-nose to make it so natural and touching
Better detailed classy BW -- I don't think I need to explain on this right?
Click to expand...

Actually... you do. Naturally posed? He's had a 24mm lens shoved almost up his nose!

Better detailed? The Taylor-Wessing image was shot on 5x4inch sheet film. This is what I meant about people not realising what they are talking about. You can't talk about a shot from a small format digital toy being better detailed than a large format film image... you just can't.

Why is B&W "classy"?

clarkbai said:
Why don't you think it is better? just because not fit to Taylor Wessing Prize? Or maybe not taken by a British...
Click to expand...

No.. because Jeffries work is derivative (although I could argue that Murphy's work is derivative of Thomas Ruff I suppose), and he turns his subjects into caricatures and clichés.

To understand why it won you have to understand the Taylor-Wessing prize. Awards like this aren't based on what you "like"... this isn't a camera club.

Both were taken by British Photographers by the way... so no idea why you are asking me that last question..... again, as I said... if you don't know what you're talking about... bow out gracefully.

clarkbai said:
probably after i tell you this 500px one won xxx price, then you will think it is better:)
Click to expand...

No.... I wouldn't. I'd already seen the work by Murphy before it won the prize. It's astounding.

daugirdas said:
You know what - if someone out of portrait "elite" took it - it would get ripped apart to pieces. It is irrelevant what the shot it on - it is what it looks like. The space on top is probably for a magazine cover title, fair enough :lol:. Light is OK, posing is right from instagram minus the cheeky smile. I don't see much emotion either, except she does look a little annoyed probably with the person behind the camera. And lastly I don't see any context these guys love putting in. Without a tagline it could be anyone after a dreadful yet dull day. Honestly I personally don't see anything moving there. The selected few (judges) however did so I must be missing an elephant here. Please enlighten if you can.
Click to expand...

Why do you say this? I wouldn't call Spencer Murphy "elite".

You don't see the context? That she is A) A woman... B) A jockey... and that C) She's working hard in a brutal, male dominated sport? Really. Tried Specsavers? It could be anyone after a dreadful dull day? Yeah.. I often finish dreadful dull days dressed in racing silks and covered in mud.

Seriously... you have to be trolling.

You're not missing an elephant... you just haven't the experience and knowledge to be able to judge whether this is good or not. You have the ability to judge whether you LIKE it or not... sure.. but they are not the same thing, and it's a common mistake.
 
Last edited:
lawrie29 said:
I like the shot, but when reading about it (the bbc I think), it stated that the jockey had not ridden that day, so the mud etc are not from racing. I suppose she could have been warming up a horse on the gallops or something, but, if you are taking the background story into account for the image then I would have preferred the mud to have come from her riding in a race.
Click to expand...

I wondered why he had chosen to shoot her on a day when she wasn't even racing.
 
jamesoliverstone said:
For once, I actually like an image that has won this! Not sure I agree with the way some people are evangelising it, but its a good portrait...
Click to expand...

That was pretty much my feeling. Like others, I suspect as a large portrait actually in front of you, it will have a far greater impact and depth than a web sized version.
 
markmullen said:
The pressures of a commercial shoot.

I think it is a deserving winner, and whilst obviously it won't be everyone's cup of tea I bet it is mighty striking printed large, as it will be seen in the gallery.
Click to expand...

I could have seen the point of shooting her after an epic win or epic defeat, but it seems strange to photograph her with the crux being 'competing in a man's world', but she wasn't even competing.
 
Laudrup said:
I could have seen the point of shooting her after an epic win or epic defeat, but it seems strange to photograph her with the crux being 'competing in a man's world', but she wasn't even competing.
Click to expand...

"Taken at Kempton Park Racecourse the winning portrait of Katie Walsh was photographed whilst shooting a series of jump jockeys' portraits for Channel Four's The Original Extreme Sport campaign," says the gallery."

For the purposes of the shoot it didn't matter whether it was after a race or after a warm up. If you'd not been told it wasn't immediately after a race would you have known?
 
Ozei said:
What was the brief for this year (assuming there was one)?
Click to expand...

The brief is that it's the Taylor Wessing Prize.

You do not just throw entries at competitions and hope they will win, you look at the historical precedent!

Several years ago there was some discourse I believe about Digital Camera magazines competition winners (it could have been a similar title). There was complaint that you only ever seemed to win if you submitted pictures of poor people from the Indian subcontinent. They were right, those themes did quite consistently win, but what they should have done, rather than complain, is shoot to the historical style or enter a competition that suited their own style more appropriately.
 
CharlotteM said:
The brief is that it's the Taylor Wessing Prize.

You do not just throw entries at competitions and hope they will win, you look at the historical precedent!

Several years ago there was some discourse I believe about Digital Camera magazines competition winners (it could have been a similar title). There was complaint that you only ever seemed to win if you submitted pictures of poor people from the Indian subcontinent. They were right, those themes did quite consistently win, but what they should have done, rather than complain, is shoot to the historical style or enter a competition that suited their own style more appropriately.
Click to expand...

I disagree - unless its a specifically stated aim of the competition - like you have to shoot wildlife to enter WPOTY - just because a competition has a past form of pictures of poor people from india winning doesn't mean you should shoot those - you should submit to the actual brief and the judges shoot judge on the merits of the selection and how well they fit the brief ... if they don't then moaning about it is perfectly justified
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top