Taylor Wessing Portrait Proze Shortlist

I don't know why they restrict the shortlist to just three images. I always enjoy the full exhibited selection but frequently find that the judges' shortlist is somewhat flat and uninspiring in its choices.

I've seen Joni Sternbach's work in a few online articles before and I really like it, but I've always liked images produced with the collodion process. However, there are other images in her surfer series that I prefer. It's the standout image for me of the three. Probably destines it to come third.
 
Emperor's new clothes. :D

What I don't understand is how come Konowiecki has been short-listed for two pictures from the same series?

I wouldn't like to pick a winner from that dreary selection.

The only picture that tells me anything about the subjects is the Sternbach, although the medium used seems mannered and unnecessary. This is 2016 FFS! The others don't work for me without the write ups - although they might well do seen as part of the series they come from. As stand a alone pictures the surfers is my preference. Pity it wasn't shot on digital. :D

I preferred it when a redhead with an animal was a shoo in!
 
Proze is an apt typo.

It seems to me that they've judged the images not on their pictoral content but on the accompanying text.

Pretty effing atrocious for what is meant to be the World's premier portrait prize promoted by the country's premier portrait gallery.
 
DemiLion said:
Proze is an apt typo.

It seems to me that they've judged the images not on their pictoral content but on the accompanying text.

Pretty effing atrocious for what is meant to be the World's premier portrait prize promoted by the country's premier portrait gallery.
Click to expand...

Indeed. A "picture paints a thousand words"... but just in case you don't get it, here's a 200-word caption.
 
DemiLion said:
Proze is an apt typo.

It seems to me that they've judged the images not on their pictoral content but on the accompanying text.

Pretty effing atrocious for what is meant to be the World's premier portrait prize promoted by the country's premier portrait gallery.
Click to expand...

An 'interesting' selection which appears to consist of the following:

Two girls photographed by their mother using a single use film camera.

A boring static photograph of a couple which appears to have been chosen because it was produced using an approximately 100 year old imaging process.

A photograph of a school pupil which is one selected from the 500 or so taken on the same day by a very average schools photographer.
 
furq said:
Indeed. A "picture paints a thousand words"... but just in case you don't get it, here's a 200-word caption.
Click to expand...
A photographer should be able to say something about the images they take and present to others for viewing.

The forum would be a lot better as a medium for talking about photography if images presented on it were accompanied by a few words. If you can't say a few words about your image, it probably isn't worth sharing. It's even less likely that it'sworth sharing if a photographer can't string a few words together to introduce an image when it's being presented to other photographers for consideration,

Oh dear, am I mistakenly equating photography with art on TP? there goes the neighbourhood... :D
 
furq said:
Indeed. A "picture paints a thousand words"... but just in case you don't get it, here's a 200-word caption.
Click to expand...


It paints a thousand different words to a thousand different people though. The reading of an image will change from one person, culture, social strata, geo-political area to the next. There's nothing wrong with words and images.. they're made to go together. In fact, they're the same thing. This is why images and words are collectively just referred to as texts in semiotics. Usually if a picture needs no words, it's because it has nothing to say. This idea of images needing no words in nonsense. Even something as gripping as Nick Ut's "napalm Girl" needs words... without words, and without context, it doesn't give any accurate information at all. If people just saw it with no words, would we know if she is North or South Vietnamese... is she naked because of napalm, or something else? Is it even Vietnam at all? We look BACK at it now, and hold it up as an example of how an image needs no words, but that's because we already KNOW what it's about... so of course it needs no words.. now. :) That photo could have just as easily been used as propaganda for both sides of that conflict depending on what words accompanied it, and you, the sheeple would have just believed what words went alongside it, like you do every time you pick up a newspaper. That's how it works. The irony is we then hear the "A good picture is worth a thousand words" rhetoric from those who happily sit there in the morning getting their world views from mainstream press who apply more spin to the media than a figure skater on amphetamines.




Alastair said:
A photographer should be able to say something about the images they take and present to others for viewing.

The forum would be a lot better as a medium for talking about photography if images presented on it were accompanied by a few words. If you can't say a few words about your image, it probably isn't worth sharing. It's even less likely that it'sworth sharing if a photographer can't string a few words together to introduce an image when it's being presented to other photographers for consideration,

Oh dear, am I mistakenly equating photography with art on TP? there goes the neighbourhood... :D
Click to expand...


^ This


The idea that a good picture needs no words is just a bunch of boll***s... a security blanket used by those who have nothing to say about work that says nothing any way. Just meaningless pretty pictures: A justification for those who can't be arsed, or do not have the ability to think critically about their work. Good photography comes ALIVE when it's accompanied by words... it finds a real purpose, and has influence, impact, and USE.
 
Last edited:
Each image makes me feel something. The first is almost visceral in it's pathos, but there is the same sense in the other two as well. I think that they're perfectly in line with the world that we live in.
 
I am getting a bit bored of the judging on the Taylor Wessing prize though. There does seem to be a consistency in style that pervades from year to year. I wish there was more variety in the short list. I'm not suggesting crap like you see on Flickr should be in there, but there's something unadventurous about it lately. They are all still stunning portraits though.


I'm just waiting for some idiot to say "They'd be better if they were smiling" though.. LOL. A Taylor Wessing thread wouldn't be complete without that.
 
Last edited:
Graham W said:
I have to say, the first pic of the two girls has "Taylor Wessing" written all over it. Young girls check, long hair check, deadpan expression check. Yep, that'll do.
Click to expand...


But in reality... most people, most of the time, do not smile. Why must people smile when you point a camera at them?

That aside, the fact that an image "looks Taylor Wessing" is a sign that it is stagnating as a high profile portrait prize. It is definitely lacking in diversity.
 
Earley Man said:
An 'interesting' selection which appears to consist of the following:

Two girls photographed by their mother using a single use film camera.

A boring static photograph of a couple which appears to have been chosen because it was produced using an approximately 100 year old imaging process.

A photograph of a school pupil which is one selected from the 500 or so taken on the same day by a very average schools photographer.
Click to expand...

Hum, I doubt the shortlist is just 3 images as the exhibition usually has lots.
I like the surfer and girlfriend photo, there's a lot going on there, a moment captured, and with where it was taken, links to a lot of the American Indian images from over a century ago.
 
Pookeyhead said:
But in reality... most people, most of the time, do not smile. Why must people smile when you point a camera at them?

That aside, the fact that an image "looks Taylor Wessing" is a sign that it is stagnating as a high profile portrait prize. It is definitely lacking in diversity.
Click to expand...

This, it's almost as though there's a forula peple are shooting to specifically for this prize, or perhaps this prize is seen as defining the style for all?

There was an interesting article in the Guardian about ones that were rejected. See what you think
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...the-taylor-wessing-portrait-prize-in-pictures
 
Pookeyhead said:
I am getting a bit bored of the judging on the Taylor Wessing prize though. There does seem to be a consistency in style that pervades from year to year.
Click to expand...
And this probably turns people off visiting the exhibition or buying the catalogue.

I think I've made it down to the NPG once (or maybe twice) during TWP season, and I've bought the catalogue three or four times. The wider selection in the exhibition usually contains a variety of very interesting portraits.

Byker28i said:
This, it's almost as though there's a forula peple are shooting to specifically for this prize, or perhaps this prize is seen as defining the style for all?
Click to expand...
I don't think so, the majority of short-listed entries I can remember have been part of larger/longer term projects or series.
 
Pookeyhead said:
But in reality... most people, most of the time, do not smile. Why must people smile when you point a camera at them?

That aside, the fact that an image "looks Taylor Wessing" is a sign that it is stagnating as a high profile portrait prize. It is definitely lacking in diversity.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree entirely about the smile thing, it just turns a portrait into a snapshot. Your comment about "Looks Taylor Wessing" was what I was getting at.
 
Byker28i said:
There was an interesting article in the Guardian about ones that were rejected. See what you think
https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...the-taylor-wessing-portrait-prize-in-pictures
Click to expand...
That refers to photos which were not winners or shortlisted in the 2015 competition, so strictly speaking they weren't in competition with the ones we're discussing here.

The 2015 winners and shortlisted images are here:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/nov/10/taylor-wessing-photographic-portrait-prize-2015-in-pictures

But still, to my mind some of those "rejects" are far more captivating and interesting than many of the images that were judged to be superior. I guess it just goes to show that I don't know anything about Art.
 
Last edited:
I deferred comment to my wife, who knows nothing about photography or art, so she is my go-to for a 'normal' opinion

She looked, she looked unimpressed and her only spoken comment was something like "What a load of sh**e"

Which also nicely sums up my view of work like this too :D

Dave
 
When you see the images presented in the exhibition they have far more impact than on screen. There's actually a lot of depth in some of them.
 
DG Phototraining said:
I deferred comment to my wife, who knows nothing about photography or art, so she is my go-to for a 'normal' opinion

She looked, she looked unimpressed and her only spoken comment was something like "What a load of sh**e"

Which also nicely sums up my view of work like this too :D

Dave
Click to expand...

If someone posted on here that your photos are a load of s***e they'd have the mods on them like a ton of bricks. But it's OK to say it about photos that are in line to win a major competition. :rolleyes:
 
I think one issue is when images are "part of a series", you just don't get the full impact when it is shown on its own. I believe last years winner was sort of a reshoot and it's only when you know the back story does it fully make sense. This is where the accompanying text comes in.

And yes, it has all become very predictable.
 
Ed Sutton said:
If someone posted on here that your photos are a load of s***e they'd have the mods on them like a ton of bricks. But it's OK to say it about photos that are in line to win a major competition. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It says a lot about a person, really. It's looking but not seeing.
 
DG Phototraining said:
I deferred comment to my wife, who knows nothing about photography or art, so she is my go-to for a 'normal' opinion

She looked, she looked unimpressed and her only spoken comment was something like "What a load of sh**e"

Which also nicely sums up my view of work like this too :D

Dave
Click to expand...


Sorry, but the fact that you're using your wife's opinion (who knows nothing about photography or art) as a benchmark for whether this work is good or not, makes you an idiot. So.. complain to the mods for calling you an idiot if you want, but calling other people's work s***e just because they're not here doesn't alter the fact that you are making an unqualified judgement and calling the work of others s***e. If I called YOUR work s***e (which in my opinion it actually is) you'd be raging and pressing the report post button in a spastic fit of anger and indignation.

Perhaps you need to stand back a bit, and accept the fact that you know less about photography than you think you do, as you seem to be in complete agreement with your wife, who also knows precisely **** all about photography.

There is nothing in the short list that is s***e Dave... just stuff you don't understand or appreciate based on your limited knowledge and experience or photography as an art form. The Taylor Wessing Prize's short list is getting a bit formulaic now, but I'd still rather look at that then the unmitigated s***e you produce. There I said your work is s***e again... just like you called theirs s***e. Am I as bad as you, or are you going to pretend that calling the work of a published artist s***e is OK, whereas because you're here in this forum I can not call yours s***e with equal facility?

Go for it.

I'm glad your signature says photo "training" because you clearly lack the photographic education to actually teach people anything other than technical b*****ks.

I hate it when someone calls other people's work s***e and gets away with it because they're not a member of this forum, yet if you do the same to someone who is a member of this forum you're the devil incarnate.

Hypocrisy... so come on mods... suspend me again... hypocrites. If you do, just make sure you get rid of Dave as well, or you'll just look like a bunch of... what's that word again? Oh yeah... Hypocrites.
 
Last edited:
fabs said:
I think one issue is when images are "part of a series", you just don't get the full impact when it is shown on its own. I believe last years winner was sort of a reshoot and it's only when you know the back story does it fully make sense. This is where the accompanying text comes in.

And yes, it has all become very predictable.
Click to expand...

They changed in 2015, encouraging submissions as a series rather than a single entry.
For the first time, entrants to the competition are being encouraged to submit works as a series – either a group of individual portraits based on a particular theme, or two or more photographs that form a single portrait when shown together – in addition to stand-alone portraits. One series of photographs submitted to the competition may be chosen by the judges to be exhibited in its entirety. In another change to the competition, there is now no minimum size requirement for submitted prints.

David Stewarts Five Girls 2014, was lost a little because you needed the reference to his original work Five Girls

National Portrait Gallery currently has an Egglestone Portrait exhibition, thats very interesting
http://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/eggleston/exhibition.php
 
DG Phototraining said:
I deferred comment to my wife, who knows nothing about photography or art, so she is my go-to for a 'normal' opinion

She looked, she looked unimpressed and her only spoken comment was something like "What a load of sh**e"

Which also nicely sums up my view of work like this too :D

Dave
Click to expand...

Wow,
My favourite is Joni Sternbach’s work using a large-format cameras and wet-plate processing which must be prepared and developed on location, hence the effect and feel. It's not a point and shoot then add a post processing filter.

It's a very good series, worth a look
http://jonisternbach.com/category/surfland/

Kovi Konowiecki is an interesting study of jewish people, theres an image on there that looks exactly like an old master
http://kovi.format.com/#10
\London photographer too: http://showtime.arts.ac.uk/kovikonowiecki

Cladio Rasano's work harks back to every school time, forced to wear uniform, yet everyone was slightly different, choosing to be an individual with little differences int he way the clothes were arranged.
https://www.lensculture.com/claudio-rasano?modal=project-223638
 
Last edited:
OK, so I folowed the link and looked at the images without reading the blurb and for me the surfer is an outstanding photo. Following @Byker28i 's link I saw the set and it got even better. I cannot understand how anyone could just write these off so I have had to read through this whole thread just as a sanity check, just make sure I wasn't completely off my trolley and no I'm not, I still can't see how anyone with even a passing interest in anything visual can just write these images off...
 
Just read some more.

The Process: Sternbach uses the historic and instantaneous wet-plate collodion process (which dates back to the 1850s) to create one-of-a-kind tintype photographic plates. The 8x10" aluminum plate is hand-coated and sensitized in a bath of silver nitrate just before being loaded in the artist's 19th-century-style, wooden view camera. Sternbach uses a variety of antique brass and modern lenses. The entire process is done on location, with a portable darkroom. The tonal variations in the finished images reflect their hand-made character; the corners rubbed where they were held in the camera. The original, finished plates are later scanned to create these archival pigment print photographs.

Theres an image on her instagram showing the work in progress. Thats some serious commitment
View: https://www.instagram.com/p/BJqTtfBDu9p/?taken-by=jstersurf

and an Article in the Daily Wail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-day-surfers-using-Civil-War-era-camera.html


And a behind the scenes
View: https://vimeo.com/21676809


How magic is that producing prints in front of the subjects
 
Last edited:
sirch said:
OK, so I folowed the link and looked at the images without reading the blurb and for me the surfer is an outstanding photo. Following @Byker28i 's link I saw the set .and it got even better. I cannot understand how anyone could just write these off so I have had to read through this whole thread just as a sanity check, just make sure I wasn't completely off my trolley and no I'm not, I still can't see how anyone with even a passing interest in anything visual can just write these images off...
Click to expand...
Easily understood, there's a big gulf between someone interested in photography and someone that owns a camera.

This is primarily a forum for people that own cameras.
 
furq said:
I've heard these awards described as "divisive". That's being polite imo.

Still can't believe that this won in 2014: https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...ic-portrait-prize-2014-the-winner-in-pictures
Click to expand...

Barrysprout said:
I like that shot more every time I see it.
Click to expand...

I am mesmorized by that photograph. Out of interest and because I'd really like an insight into what it takes to take a photo like that, on a scale of "candid iPhone shot" to "the photographer spend 4 hours setting up lighting and chose the womans nose ring", does anyone know how much of that shot was set-up and how much was ... well ... serendipity?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top