Taylor Wessing Portrait Proze Shortlist

Ed Sutton said:
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
Click to expand...
As may be guessed from my avatar I have an interest in collodion photography, although as a viewer rather than a practitioner..

There's not many digital options that would provide the effect of such a large surface area combined with the properties of the emulsion. Collodion process is generally contact printed, i.e. 1:1 with the negative. Such a massive sensor area has a variety of unique influences, on detail/resolution and the focal length/aperture relationship. And then you need to factor in the unique colour response of the collodion itself. All in all, the end result is not easy to replicate in digital - it's not a matter of "stick a cog on it press the button marked sepia and call it steampunk"..
 
Alastair said:
As may be guessed from my avatar I have an interest in collodion photography, although as a viewer rather than a practitioner..

There's not many digital options that would provide the effect of such a large surface area combined with the properties of the emulsion. Collodion process is generally contact printed, i.e. 1:1 with the negative. Such a massive sensor area has a variety of unique influences, on detail/resolution and the focal length/aperture relationship. And then you need to factor in the unique colour response of the collodion itself. All in all, the end result is not easy to replicate in digital - it's not a matter of "stick a cog on it press the button marked sepia and call it steampunk"..
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting reproducing the 'look' of the picture digitally, I was thinking of replacing the archaic camera with a digital one, with all that would bring to the look. Would the photograph have been any less (or more) interesting in itself if it had been shot digitally? Does the process trump the subject?
 
Ed Sutton said:
I wasn't suggesting reproducing the 'look' of the picture digitally, I was thinking of replacing the archaic camera with a digital one, with all that would bring to the look. Would the photograph have been any less (or more) interesting in itself if it had been shot digitally? Does the process trump the subject?
Click to expand...

The process gets the result you can't take a wet plate photo on digital or even on film and its not even anything to do with the equipment, the gaze you get from the sitter holding still looking at the camera for a few seconds, the tangible artefact the subtle variations in tonal response, the spectral response of the medium etc. Could Sternbach have taken these portraits with a phone, Indubitably, would they have been the same? No.
 
Last edited:
steveo_mcg said:
The process gets the result you can't take a wet plate photo on digital or even on film and its not even anything to do with the equipment, the gaze you get from the sitter holding still looking at the camera for a few seconds, the tangible artefact the variations in tonal response etc. Could Sternbach have taken these portraits with a phone, Indubitably, would they have been the same? No.
Click to expand...
Of course they wouldn't be the same, would they have been any good?
 
davidy233 said:
Love that picture, I like layers and it has them by the bucketful - Of this years I like the surfer pic though not at all because of the 'tintype'
Click to expand...

Why then?

Thats not an accusatory question I'm just trying to work out why people would like to separate the process form the result when they're inherently linked in this case.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Why then?

Thats not an accusatory question I'm just trying to work out why people would like to separate the process form the result when they're inherently linked in this case.
Click to expand...

To be honest I don't think the process matters, to me it would be excellent shot in colour on any camera - it's just a really compelling pose and look from the subjects
 
Ed Sutton said:
I wasn't suggesting reproducing the 'look' of the picture digitally, I was thinking of replacing the archaic camera with a digital one, with all that would bring to the look. Would the photograph have been any less (or more) interesting in itself if it had been shot digitally? Does the process trump the subject?
Click to expand...
You're asking the wrong person when it comes to the collodion process :D

The process does drive the outcome, people behave differently in front of different cameras. The very precise and deliberate process of this technique influences the outcome in many subtle ways. The limitations of the equipment and technology make impositions on the choices of the photographer.

But if it was taken digitally would it be any better or worse as an image? - whilst arguing that the process of taking the photography is perhaps taking too much importance, you are in your own argument attaching even more importance to the process. It becomes a circular argument which is perhaps something that struck in the judges minds, perhaps there is something about the process after all that makes this series stand out?
 
steveo_mcg said:
Why then?
why people would like to separate the process form the result when they're inherently linked in this case.
Click to expand...

First of all I'd like to say that the Surfer photo is my favourite, I like the pose/body language/expression.

BUT

I fail to see how the process had any influence on the shot at all.

Obviously I'm looking at a low res scan on a PC monitor but it looks like it could have been easily shot on an IPhone with an Instagram filter.

It would also give the same pose/body language/expression "Woman - not another trendy hipster taking photos of Surfers with his phone & the Man - **** off out of my face dude"

If it was on Facebook it would have got a few likes but thanks to "Name & influence" it's up for a prize
 
mrgubby said:
First of all I'd like to say that the Surfer photo is my favourite, I like the pose/body language/expression.

BUT

I fail to see how the process had any influence on the shot at all.

Obviously I'm looking at a low res scan on a PC monitor but it looks like it could have been easily shot on an IPhone with an Instagram filter.

It would also give the same pose/body language/expression "Woman - not another trendy hipster taking photos of Surfers with his phone & the Man - **** off out of my face dude"

If it was on Facebook it would have got a few likes but thanks to "Name & influence" it's up for a prize
Click to expand...

You'll never get the full impact of any photo at web resolutions but the nuance of wet plate is near completely lost in a thumbnail and I expect the artist never intended it to be stuck on facebook to collect a few likes.
 
steveo_mcg said:
I expect the artist never intended it to be stuck on facebook to collect a few likes.
Click to expand...

So the fact it was taken by an Artist makes it Art ?.


Actually that would make an interesting study (if it hasn't been done already) ...... Remove the name of the Artist in a gallery & substitute it with a Like button ?
 
mrgubby said:
So the fact it was taken by an Artist makes it Art ?.


Actually that would make an interesting study (if it hasn't been done already) ...... Remove the name of the Artist in a gallery & substitute it with a Like button ?
Click to expand...


Oh, god. not again....
 
mrgubby said:
First of all I'd like to say that the Surfer photo is my favourite, I like the pose/body language/expression.

BUT

I fail to see how the process had any influence on the shot at all.

Obviously I'm looking at a low res scan on a PC monitor but it looks like it could have been easily shot on an IPhone with an Instagram filter.

It would also give the same pose/body language/expression "Woman - not another trendy hipster taking photos of Surfers with his phone & the Man - **** off out of my face dude"

If it was on Facebook it would have got a few likes but thanks to "Name & influence" it's up for a prize
Click to expand...

steveo_mcg said:
You'll never get the full impact of any photo at web resolutions but the nuance of wet plate is near completely lost in a thumbnail and I expect the artist never intended it to be stuck on facebook to collect a few likes.
Click to expand...

Still not the same as seeing the actual plate, but clicking the image in the original linked post takes you to a 2422 x 1920 pixel image, so you don't have to view it as a thumbnail. It looks beautiful IMO and would love to see the plate in real life.

Brian, as has been already said, people react differently to being shot with different cameras. I have experienced this. Subject interaction from the photographer to use a process like this which exposes for seconds rather than hundredths of, creates a different reaction and image.

It's not just about the subjects, it's not just about the medium or the process. It's the whole thing combined.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alastair said:
If you're genuinely interested Grayson Perry gave a very good series of lectures on What Is Art? that you can download as mp3 files from the BBC archive..
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll give that a listen/look

I'm afraid that when it comes to Art I'm the cliché "I may not know much about art, but I know what I like."

I've been to many exhibitions all over the world but thanks to my ignorance of Artist names I only judge by what that piece makes me feel/think, there and then.
 
mrgubby said:
Thanks, I'll give that a listen/look
Click to expand...
It's quite lighthearted, Martin Parr's answer to what makes a photograph art is along the lines of, "2 metres and five figures" i.e. printed very large and with a big price tag.

mrgubby said:
I've been to many exhibitions all over the world but thanks to my ignorance of Artist names I only judge by what that piece makes me feel/think, there and then.
Click to expand...
There are some art movements I really struggle to understand the significance of. Over the summer I saw the Dada Africa exhibition, and I still struggle to see what it is that somehow makes it not "white guys appropriating cultural artefacts" or the art equivalent of the black and white minstrel show. But I can see the significance it played in art that came after it. It's not always about understanding, it's about being open-minded enough to try.
 
If the surfer shot was shot on digital...

I think there's a difference in the approach. There's a huge wooden camera in front of you, someone diving in and out of a material screen, as a subject/sitter that build up of expectation, interest in something unusual. The fact that a plate is slid in, the photographer appears at the side and then pushes a cable shutter release. All different to the norm of soneone with a camera stuck top their face.
That approach must have an impact on the subjects and hence the final image. In the case of the selected image, theres a dreamlike feel to the girlfriend, almost like shes drifted away somewhere into her own thoughts whilst waiting for the photo to be taken.
And the historical reference to other old time western images...
 
Alastair said:
...perhaps there is something about the process after all that makes this series stand out?
Click to expand...

That it looks more 'arty' than a digital image? :D

For me it stands out because of the poses, expressions and the fact there's a sense of place.

steveo_mcg said:
You'll never get the full impact of any photo at web resolutions but the nuance of wet plate is near completely lost in a thumbnail and I expect the artist never intended it to be stuck on facebook to collect a few likes.
Click to expand...

Which brings us to the aspect of photographs as objects with a scale, and photographs as reproducible, transmittable, information.
 
Imagine the Horror of consensus.

This one really appeals to me. As soon as I saw it I knew I liked it. There was a visceral reaction. It was one of the few Blink moments I've had. Her wonderful expression really drew me in.

These arguments are taking place in every forum on the internet: fishing, pottery, car modification, tattooing, real ale, wild life, etc, etc, etc.

Cheers.
 
Yep. I've always liked that shot of Katie but then I'm biased because I cover racing.
 
Collodion is most sensitive in the Uv spectrum, making the images unique from digitally shot photos, unless you had a UV converted camera it would be almost impossible to reproduce, even shot on a converted DSLR they still lack something compared to collodion
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Crap:(
Click to expand...

Not my favourite from the selections but not crap. There's a history in photography of documenting small differences between things that are supposed to be uniform. In this case it's a series of images of school children and the way they personalise their uniform to have their own individuality. As with everything in a series, the sum is significantly greater than the single image.

It's a shame the exhibition doesn't start until later this week as I've been in London the last few days. I'll have to revisit to see it.
 
Byker28i said:
As with everything in a series, the sum is significantly greater than the single image.
Click to expand...

This is always a problem with competitions for single images.

It's not the picture I expected to win from the shortlist, but none of them particularly stood out to me.
 
This one to me looks like a decent quality Venture shot you'd get a shopping centre done by a decent photographer. I suspect as a set, as project, it all hangs together much better but as an individual image, meh.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Just doesn't do anything for me, I know a lot of the images are "different" but some of them are still thought provoking, but not this one for me. certainly not for a £15k prize.
Click to expand...

So that means it's "crap" as opposed to say "competent but nothing special"? Suppose the judges were confronted with nothing but technically good, well posed and framed portraits, the kind of thing that is on every page of a fashion magazine, how would they decide which one is worthy of the prize?


May be they are trying to look beyond the technicalities to the story.
 
sirch said:
So that means it's "crap" as opposed to say "competent but nothing special"? Suppose the judges were confronted with nothing but technically good, well posed and framed portraits, the kind of thing that is on every page of a fashion magazine, how would they decide which one is worthy of the prize?


May be they are trying to look beyond the technicalities to the story.
Click to expand...
For me there is no story, it's an isolated image that looks like a school photo, therefore I'm my opinion, as a £15K winner, it's Crap.
 
Do we know if the images were judged in isolation or were they judged as a set or series? I ask because in isolation the winning image is totally un-engaging (is that a word?) - it evokes no emotion in me whatsoever and I can see little or no story in it. Rather disappointing. Much preferred the surfer dude, it does evoke emotion, it is engaging and it does suggest a story. Ho-hum.
 
Surfer dude image got second, as as previously mentioned I liked the work and approach to producing that series of images.

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...e-won-photo-boy-school-uniform-claudio-rasano

The portrait was part of Rasano’s series called Similar Uniforms: We Refuse to Compare in which he is exploring whether individuality can be preserved when school uniforms are worn.

Before the ceremony Rasano explained the issues he was interested in. “Children themselves have been known to rebel against uniforms,” he said, “especially as they approach the awkward age characterised by the need to fit in and the desire to stand out, all at the same time.

“Some experts too have spoken against school uniforms on the grounds that they suppress individuality and diversity.”

Basel-born Rasano has twice featured in the Taylor Wessing prize exhibition, in 2011 and 2013, but this is his first win.

So unengaging? It's not a normal portrait - no smiling, a disinterested child, almost accusing stare directly at the camera, the pose of the head, so no I don't think it's unengaging, I think even as a single image it provokes thought, even without knowing the back story above
 
Ed Sutton said:
What would you say makes a portrait that isn't crap?
Click to expand...
For me, Emotion, passion, strength, vulnerability....depending on the subject and background.
Nothing to do with technical merit.
When I look at the winning portrait I feel none of those emotions, it doesn't make me think about the subject, their background, story etc.
It might if I knew him, but I don't.
But that's just my thoughts. as a series, I may think differently.
 
Last edited:
PaulButler said:
Do we know if the images were judged in isolation or were they judged as a set or series? I ask because in isolation the winning image is totally un-engaging (is that a word?) - it evokes no emotion in me whatsoever and I can see little or no story in it. Rather disappointing. Much preferred the surfer dude, it does evoke emotion, it is engaging and it does suggest a story. Ho-hum.
Click to expand...
Already answered on the first page of the thread..
Byker28i said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Well ... yes unengaging to me - not sure why is it so hard to accept that? All I see is a surly child who is clearly disinterested at which point I could see nothing else. The 2013 winner wasn't smiling btw yet that was totally engaging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top