# A Recent Portrait, Martin Schoeller Inspired



## ColeGauthier (Jan 22, 2015)

Good afternoon to all! Here is a recent portrait on a variation of Martin Schoeller's photos.

C&C is welcomed!


----------



## Braineack (Jan 22, 2015)

#2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #1


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Jan 22, 2015)

Very nice homage. It looks like his eyes have teeth!! 

The issue I have is he's ever so slightly turned from the camera, and it's throwing me off because It makes one side of his face appear larger.


----------



## ColeGauthier (Jan 22, 2015)

W.Y.Photo said:


> Very nice homage. It looks like his eyes have teeth!!
> 
> The issue I have is he's ever so slightly turned from the camera, and it's throwing me off because It makes one side of his face appear larger.




Thanks! Now that I look at it, it does appear that way... I will pay attention to that on my next shoot. Cheers


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 22, 2015)

Looks good.. More light around the eye sockets maybe if you want it to look like Martin's.


----------



## Designer (Jan 22, 2015)

ColeGauthier said:


> Good afternoon to all! Here is a recent portrait on a variation of Martin Schoeller's photos.
> 
> C&C is welcomed!


My question is; why? 

I looked at the gallery online and just have to ask; why?


----------



## ColeGauthier (Jan 22, 2015)

Designer said:


> ColeGauthier said:
> 
> 
> > Good afternoon to all! Here is a recent portrait on a variation of Martin Schoeller's photos.
> ...



Well, I like to study people's work so I can improve my own and what better way to do that then try out techniques that I've never dealt with. Practice with different settings, positions, lighting, does make a difference. Plus, I do love his other stuff too, not just his personal portraits.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 22, 2015)

At least you'll know what NOT to do in the future


----------



## e.rose (Jan 24, 2015)

Designer said:


> ColeGauthier said:
> 
> 
> > Good afternoon to all! Here is a recent portrait on a variation of Martin Schoeller's photos.
> ...





Braineack said:


> At least you'll know what NOT to do in the future



WHY?!

This is the thread that officially kills any credibility I gave this forum.

WHAT. the hell. is WRONG with Martin Schoeller's work? I HAVE to know, what you think is so terrible about it.

.........................

OP:

Your first image, I opened and literally said, "Wow. That's a really solid portrait." You don't get that much around here. So good job on that.

Second one isn't as strong. I feel like the lighting isn't quite there.

But by all means... Schoeller isn't a bad person to study at all.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 24, 2015)

Braineack said:


> At least you'll know what NOT to do in the future



Can you explain what you find objectionable?  Or what we "shouldn't" do?


----------



## Braineack (Jan 24, 2015)

do I need to?  Isn't my subjective opinion just as valid as yours?  So because I don't like a particular person's style I'm killing the credibility of this forum?

How is it not any different to what Cole said in post #7 that I was responding to in jest?


----------



## pgriz (Jan 24, 2015)

Braineack said:


> do I need to?  Isn't my subjective opinion just as valid as yours?  So because I don't like a particular person's style I'm killing the credibility of this forum?
> 
> How is it not any different to what Cole said in post #7 that I was responding to in jest?



If you're responding to me, then the question I asked is valid.  You have a subjective opinion, and I am trying to understand why you have that opinion.  As well, you say "what NOT to do in the future".  So there's something about that style that you find distasteful and we "shouldn't" do.  I'm trying to understand your point of view.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 24, 2015)

I just don't like his close portraits.

its unflattering, its the same over and over, its capturing bad expression, its not good lighting--overall its very gimmicky to me.  Doing the same thing over and over again with a new twist to keep it "fresh".


----------



## ColeGauthier (Jan 24, 2015)

e.rose said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > ColeGauthier said:
> ...



Thanks Rose, if that's you correct name! I do find I am lacking some light in the face, it was a tough one because the house wasn't very big and I tried placing a few reflectors to get that light in there but at least it opened up his eyes,  a little, anyway. I hope to improve on this in the next shoot I have today.



Braineack said:


> I just don't like his close portraits.
> 
> its unflattering, its the same over and over, its not capturing bad expression, its not good lighting--overall its very gimmicky to me.  Doing the same thing over and over again with a new twist to keep it "fresh".



I would have to agree  with you, I wouldn't like to this exact same stuff over and over again, I mean don't get me wrong, I do like his work but doing this type of portrait a few times over again would be enough for me. It's really just to get a feel of the lighting used and the symmetrical practices of the face.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 24, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I just don't like his close portraits.
> 
> its unflattering, its the same over and over, its not capturing bad expression, its not good lighting--overall its very gimmicky to me.  Doing the same thing over and over again with a new twist to keep it "fresh".



Thank you for your reply.  There is a certain austere aesthetic going on there in those portraits.  They definitely are not "pretty", and almost clinical.  However, I do find them very interesting in that they bring you up close to the person, within the personal space even, and they appear to use no makeup or other means to hide the blemishes of the human face.  So you get the emotional effect of being very close to someone.  Certainly, if I was that close to a stranger, I'd feel uncomfortable.  Having said that, I do find the portraits worth looking at as they seem to bring you within a certain space.


----------



## Designer (Jan 25, 2015)

e.rose said:


> This is the thread that officially kills any credibility I gave this forum.
> 
> WHAT. the hell. is WRONG with Martin Schoeller's work? I HAVE to know, what you think is so terrible about it.



Please don't wait for my posts to agree with you in order to give this forum credibility.  This forum is partly yours too.

As to why I don't think Martin Schoeller is a photographer for anyone to emulate; it is because his portraits are not intended to capture the subject's personality, but rather to promote himself as a courtier photographer.  The technique leads to a very flat and boring portrait in spite of the fact that his subjects would not be thought of as boring by anyone who recognizes them.


----------

