Representation of the People?

In times past I liked to take portrait pictures.  I must have taken hundreds of pictures of people and have at least one really good one and two I like.  Now I only have the wee camera, and no models, I don't take any, which is irksome.  However I always collect such portraits if I see any I like, either paintings or photos.  Today I found myself wandering through sites offering vintage portraits and I am amazed so many see the light of day.  There is something about these I like.  The attractive women, the clever way they have been posed, the expressions.  A good portrait offers you the real person, and the person does not always like what they see!  Some photographers have a way of making the sitter what the photographer wishes them to be rather than what they actually are, and this irritates.  There are those who put the sitter in a box, or with a background that makes them something other than themselves, these are often famous photographers, but the subject is not in my view themselves, just a mannequin.  

The use of light and dark, the background that forces the eye onto the light areas is very Rembrandt like.  I think it was Karsh, a famous portrait photographer, who was instructed to spend time in art galleries studying Rembrants work before he began his own.  It shows in what he produced.  Karsh made his name during the war with a famous 'bulldog' picture of Churchill.  He obtained this after the first pose revealed a smiling Prime Minister with an expression usually give to grandchildren.  Karsh stepped forward, said "Sorry Prime Minister," and grabbed his cigar out of his hand.  The resultant expression of disgust gave the world the appropriate picture.

One day when rich I will get a camera similar to the aged Zenith 'E' or the Minolta, scrape together a lens of around 105 -150 length and go find myself some willing (cheap) models.

Until then I trawl the net.

     

.