# face in the crowd



## automaton2 (Jul 8, 2008)




----------



## Local_Skater (Jul 8, 2008)

Did you purposely try to find unattractive people?


----------



## MyaLover (Jul 8, 2008)

These dont do it for me, and #5 grosses me out.  Im sorry but these arnt "street" photography nor are they "candids" they are just snap shots


----------



## toots23 (Jul 8, 2008)

i guess I have to say nice try , not my intrest but good shot Im sure that you wiill get better


----------



## tirediron (Jul 8, 2008)

The main issue I have with these is that there's no situation; with one or two exceptions, it's a bunch of head-shots which don't really tell a story, and unfortunately aren't of good enough quality to be artistic. One suggestion which may work however, is to conver to fairly high-contrast black and whites, with the head shots framing a main image of the event.

Perhaps if you could explain what you wanted to achieve, we could provide some suggestions on how to arrive at a more mainstream result.

Just my $00.02 worth - your milage may vary.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jul 9, 2008)

The last one is my favorite.  With the red, green and yellow background, I think of something Rastafarian, or even better I think of a man who is proud of his African heritage.  I am probably just imagining this, but that's part of the fun of photography!   It makes it more powerful to me

I think people are being kind of hard on you, but that's their right to be so.  The subjects are kind of rough-looking, but IMO (and I'm a beginner, so take this lightly), the sharpness is a bit much for people photography.  It shows every detail and flaw, and even makes the young man in the first photo look older.  If that's the look you're going for, that's great.  But if you want them to be more soft and appealing, I would try not bumping the sharpness up so much, and maybe even do a little bit of Photoshop makeup on them and smooth out their skin.

In all, I'd say you have a good idea of capturing people in their essence.  Maybe zoom out a little, too, so we can get an idea of the situation and (hopefully) get some more context out of it.  But I like what you're trying to do, and please keep posting your new work!


----------



## K8-90 (Jul 9, 2008)

Yikes!
I find these images amusing... But unfortunately don't really see the appeal. Sorry!


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 9, 2008)

I would not go as far as to call these "snapshots" only.
The separation of the subject from the background, and the idea "get up close to your subject" is not normally followed by mere snapshot takers. You did think about what you did, and you even got a nice response by some of the "faces in the crowd" that you photographed. Many spotted you and smiled for your camera. 

The first, so I take it, wasn't all sharp to begin with, but you applied unsharp mask (and a bit too much of it). 

As to the context in which these were taken, I assume it was a kind of parade. Gay Pride or something like that? And you captured people who marched in the parade and onlookers?

Photographically, also I feel that the last is the best. It is well focused, a profile photo is a nice addition to all your (in part VERY close!) portrait shots, his expression looks proud, and I also like the colour stripes that form the background. 

Have you considered try out b&w conversions on some of these? Where the colours are not playing an important part in the photo as such?


----------



## ryan7783 (Jul 9, 2008)

Local_Skater said:


> Did you purposely try to find the most unattractive people possible?



I thought the exact same thing while I was looking through them


----------



## mmcduffie1 (Jul 9, 2008)

Apparently you found the spot where ugly people go. I didn't like them.


----------



## LynziMarie (Jul 9, 2008)

wow... I guessed I missed the memo where it's insult the subjects day.  hmm...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyways.
I see nothing but unique and individual beauty in all of them... so... good news for me! 

as for photography, I think you ALMOST got what you were going for...
keep in mind I'm very much a beginner, but I can see what you were trying for and that in itself makes these more than merely snapshots.
I think LaFoto was right on with her analysis... and she's one to listen to


----------



## kundalini (Jul 9, 2008)

[rant]

I am insulted and thoroughly disgusted by all the comments given to the apparent "lack of beautiful people" in your subjects automaton2. 

I find each one to have something of beauty or interesting in them, certainly a few are quite unique. They all had a mother and a father, perhaps a sister or brother, and possibly have a son or daughter. Would you (those responders above) tell them that their relative has been photographed where "the most unattractive people possible" could be found? Have you looked in the mirror today and decided that you're "all that"? Shame on you.

[/rant]

The rips on your photography may be warranted, but not those people in the photos.


----------



## IllegalDamage (Jul 9, 2008)

kundalini said:


> [rant]
> 
> I am insulted and thoroughly disgusted by all the comments given to the apparent "lack of beautiful people" in your subjects automaton2.
> 
> ...




I like optimistic people (like yourself) but some people are just ugly... if a person is unattractive (not only sexually but also simply unapproachable) then facts are facts and they are ugly  Their personalities may be good and they may be good people at heart, but we are talking about their physical outer appearance...


----------



## Toni Marie (Jul 9, 2008)

I agree mostly with kundalini. Although I would not rip on your photography. It does need some work just keep shooting and take the positive advice. I would also suggest reading some as well taking tips from the authors. Don't give up!!!


----------



## Senor Hound (Jul 9, 2008)

IllegalDamage said:


> I like optimistic people (like yourself) but some people are just ugly... if a person is unattractive (not only sexually but also simply unapproachable) then facts are facts and they are ugly  Their personalities may be good and they may be good people at heart, but we are talking about their physical outer appearance...



Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  And as I said before I believe these people would benefit from a little less sharpness.  Detail is great on almost everything but skin.  People want to look, "perfect," for some reason, and an unsharp mask that shows every detail (and consequently, flaw) doesn't give that feeling of perfection.  I honestly think if you took a gorgeous model (whatever gorgeous is to the critic) and put too much sharpness on their face it would give the same effect somewhat.  Though I could be wrong.

I know I've learned something.  If I ever post photos of people on here, make sure they're hot.  I'd hate to think what people would say if someone had taken a photo like this of me (I'd probably run away crying).


----------



## K8-90 (Jul 10, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> I know I've learned something. If I ever post photos of people on here, make sure they're hot. I'd hate to think what people would say if someone had taken a photo like this of me (I'd probably run away crying).


 
There were several harsh and unfair comments. An yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, I don't think the above comment is fair. Through photography, a photographer is usually trying to convey something - whether it be a story, a message, beauty, etc. I think that (this is only my opinion) this is what is "wrong" with these images. For the most part, they do not provide the viewer with anything.  They are cropped so close that there is little story or context. While this could work if the emotions were right, it didn't. For instance, image 5 (could you number them please?) Has the person completely off-guard, cropped in closely in a manner that is unflattering to that person. You can even see crumbs on their face! So it's not that you must post images only of "hot" people, but you have to be considerate as a photographer. You could take a well exposed image of a beautiful model, but if it is while they are blinking and talking, or chewing, or something of the sorts, it will not be a correct representation of the person.

I hope I have made my thoughts clear - it's sometimes hard to type the intended meaning. Basically, I think that these shots - while techinically correct - are unflatttering, and do not offer the viewer any interest. This highlights any "flaws", as that is all there is to see. Comments were very inconsiderate, and it makes me wonder...


----------



## Senor Hound (Jul 10, 2008)

K8, thank you.  That was an awesome post that helped me gain some enlightenment on proper critique.  But at least we agree some of the posts are uncalled for (but that is part of the price of posting on an internet forum, lol).

And to the OP, I hope you haven't been offended by anything that has been said, and PLEASE keep posting your photos.  PLEASE!?!


----------



## K8-90 (Jul 10, 2008)

No problem, and thank you! I'm glad it came out right!

And yes, automaton2, don't be scared away!


----------



## andrew99 (Jul 10, 2008)

Hey, if you can generate some controversy with your images, that's great!  Art is supposed to make you stop and think, and sometimes make you feel a little uncomfortable... so I think you've done that!     Personally I find the pictures a little bit voyeuristic and creepy, and maybe even a bit exploitative, but if you can evoke an emotional response from people who see your photos, that is not always easy to do.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 10, 2008)

IllegalDamage said:


> Their personalities may be good and they may be good people at heart, but we are talking about their physical outer appearance...


 Hmmm.....  My bad. 

I certainly overlooked that part of the OPs request for C&C.


----------



## LynziMarie (Jul 10, 2008)

kundalini said:


> Hmmm..... My bad.
> 
> I certainly overlooked that part of the OPs request for C&C.


yeah me too.....

I guess we missed when it became a beauty contest and not about the photography..... In my opinion people who aren't perfect make the best stories in photographs. It gets boring looking at the same model every day. So, when this became Miss America I don't know, but all in all it's none of our business the looks of someone who happens to be a subject, it should be about the photography.... some photography is supposed to convey beauty, in this case... I don't think these are beauty shots, so having completely beautiful people would have been a waste of a shot, and a waste of my time....


----------



## Local_Skater (Jul 12, 2008)

I can't believe the people that are saying that "they are beautiful on the inside", its ridiculous. Do you know these people? When the people are the main focus of a shot, they should be appealing to the eye. Are they doing anything to take your attention away from that? If there were action in the shots or anything else, it wouldn't matter, but there isn't. This isn't a preschool where you have to be conscious of others feelings. And just b/c something provokes controversy doesn't make it art...Michael Jackson dangling his baby over the railing was controversial, so was that art? I'm not shallow by any means, but we live in a world where looks matter, like it or not. The one of the black girl is actually decent. Her pose and the composition actually create a sense of curiosity. The others are basically just snapshots with a nice camera.


----------



## ryan7783 (Jul 12, 2008)

Oh get off your high horses. Some people are ugly for God's sake. Our differences are what make the world go 'round but that doesn't take away from the fact that some people look like hey got their asses beat with the ugly stick. 

If you can honestly tell me that there aren't ugly people in those photos, then you're obviously a better person than me....and blind.

As for the photos, I'm not too impressed. I don't see anything special about them.


----------



## Katz (Jul 12, 2008)

I like the focus you got in the eyes of most of the pictures. To me that is where my eye went first. While they were not super models by any means, they almost all had stunning eyes. 

I do agree that they would benefit from being less sharpened, not the eyes though, those look great. 

I personally like seeing "REAL" people in photographs once in a while. Like it or not THAT is what most of america(don't know about other countries) looks like, the 'supermodel' look is just unrealistic in most people and shouldn't be expected. 

I hope that people do not judge their clients under the same "must be beautiful to get picture taken" attitude. The goal of a good photographer is to find beauty in anything, and to me, the OP found that in these peoples eyes.

Good Job!


----------



## tirediron (Jul 12, 2008)

LynziMarie said:


> yeah me too.....
> 
> I guess we missed when it became a beauty contest and not about the photography..... In *my opinion people who aren't perfect make the best stories* in photographs. It gets boring looking at the same model every day. So, when this became Miss America I don't know, but all in all it's none of our business the looks of someone who happens to be a subject, it should be about the photography.... some photography is supposed to convey beauty, in this case... I don't think these are beauty shots, so having completely beautiful people would have been a waste of a shot, and a waste of my time....


 
Golly-gee... I must be a Pulitzer Prize then!     Oh, and Ryan, when you have a moment, could you please post a picture of yourself with your "World's Most Beautiful Person" award?  I've never actually seen one.


----------



## Tyjax (Jul 12, 2008)

There is a story in every face. There is a window we each have into the lives and emotions of the people we meet every day. That window is our face.  


That being said there is some technical work that could be done here.


----------



## ryan7783 (Jul 12, 2008)

***Edit: Everyone is beautiful and always will be. No one is any less attractive than anyone else because we are all beautiful inside.


----------



## Tyjax (Jul 12, 2008)

Hmm. I think thats Kevin Rose!


----------



## ryan7783 (Jul 12, 2008)

***Edit: Because apparently it's ok for others to make smartass comments but I can't


----------



## Tyjax (Jul 12, 2008)

Your picture? We have a thing about only posting our own pics... :thumbup:


----------



## ryan7783 (Jul 12, 2008)

***Edit: It's a sad day when one must tip toe on egg shells to avoid hurting anyone's feelings.


----------



## Tyjax (Jul 12, 2008)

It's just basic respect man. But you are showing a notable lack of the ability to show basic respect so I guess you are just following form.  Cheers. And have a good life with that. Welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## ryan7783 (Jul 12, 2008)

What is your perspective on photography, automaton? I ask because after checking out 1 of your other threads, I feel you seek out less than perfect people to photograph. Is it a shock factor you're going for or is it just one of those towns? Maybe it's to show the everyday people of the world? Maybe I'm completely off and it's just coincidence.


----------



## O'Rork (Jul 12, 2008)

They're very well exposed. Crisp even. In accordance with the title they are faces. Well done.


----------



## Senor Hound (Jul 13, 2008)

Local_Skater said:


> This isn't a preschool where you have to be conscious of others feelings.



Being conscious of other's feelings is not something which should only be practiced in preschool.  They teach you courtesy at a young age not because the children are capable of empathizing with others, but because when they don't keep a check on young children, some of them become VERY messed up...for life.  

The ability to be conscious of other's feelings is very difficult, and requires great emotional intelligence, something even mentally intelligent people are many times incapable of.  Commonly, they pass off the ability to empathize with others as being childish or irrelevant, or something they feel they, "shouldn't have to," do (which is untrue).  Just like someone of a low IQ would pass of something which requires a lot of mental intelligence as irrelevant, or boring.

Although this thread has already derailed, this will be my last post in here concerning this subject.  But to say that empathy is something for children shows a level of immaturity on your part, IMO.  But I could be wrong.


----------



## Mitica100 (Jul 13, 2008)

Local_Skater said:


> I can't believe the people that are saying that "they are beautiful on the inside", its ridiculous. Do you know these people? When the people are the main focus of a shot, they should be appealing to the eye. Are they doing anything to take your attention away from that? If there were action in the shots or anything else, it wouldn't matter, but there isn't. This isn't a preschool where you have to be conscious of others feelings. And just b/c something provokes controversy doesn't make it art...Michael Jackson dangling his baby over the railing was controversial, so was that art? I'm not shallow by any means, but we live in a world where looks matter, like it or not. The one of the black girl is actually decent. Her pose and the composition actually create a sense of curiosity. The others are basically just snapshots with a nice camera.


 
Hey, how about this shot (not mine, I wish):







Not quite appealing to the eye, he's not your typical good lookin' dude but I'll tell you, it says quite a story.

I don't mind various degrees of beauty in pictures. Richard Avedon (the author of the above picture) would agree with me, were he alive today. Yes he shot fashion photography but he shot plain American faces as well, like the one above.

Someone said above 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'...


----------



## Local_Skater (Jul 13, 2008)

Do you not realize that the difference there is this is a portrait? The way he is dressed and the expression on his face are what tell the story. That picture is moving in the fact that it is so raw. Its a gateway to another time period. The pics posted by the op don't tell me anything except that there's a bunch of people out for no apparent reason to do something that no one knows.


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 13, 2008)

Well, with only one step towards further interpretation, I myself felt able to see context in Automaton's photos, and expressed what I feel I can see here. Whether I am right in my interpretation I don't know, Automaton has not returned to his thread, but it's not that the photos don't say anything at all. 

As to passing judgement on the outward appearance of the subjects when everything should only be about the photography as such is mean and low on the part of those who had nothing else to say BUT that they personally don't like the faces, looks and smiles of the persons photographed. What is THAT to you? 

And who has the right to say "These people are beautiful enough to get their photo taken, but those are NOT beautiful enough to get their photo taken"??? Who's the judge here? What kind of THINKING is behind such statements? To me, such kind of judgement is arrogance in its purest form.


----------



## K8-90 (Jul 13, 2008)

Mitica100 said:


> Hey, how about this shot (not mine, I wish):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Bingo. 
As I said before (I don't think people read my post, though...) It is not about "ugly" people vs. "pretty" people. It's about photography. Photography hs a purpose, even if it just conveying beauty, or more significantly, a story, as in above. 

Please read my post from before, and tell me what you think...


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 13, 2008)

K8-90, I am sure no one bothers to read my posts ever, too... :roll:
For some odd reason, this thread has taken a certain drift ("ugly people"), and everyone seems to only have jumped onto that wagon ... makes me wonder how a thing of the kind can happen!?!?! (In general, I mean).


----------



## K8-90 (Jul 13, 2008)

I read your posts! They are always most constructive, tactful and useful 
And I agree - it often surprises me that things that I take as commen sense and curtesy, is not neccesarily common :S


----------



## abraxas (Jul 13, 2008)

Congrats on a successfully thought provoking series!


----------



## AF44 (Jul 13, 2008)

i think #11 is my favorite... all i can say is try to capture an interesting expression that relates to the environment they are in...


----------



## ryan7783 (Jul 13, 2008)

K8-90 said:


> Bingo.
> As I said before (I don't think people read my post, though...) It is not about "ugly" people vs. "pretty" people. It's about photography. Photography hs a purpose, even if it just conveying beauty, or more significantly, a story, as in above.
> 
> Please read my post from before, and tell me what you think...




It's not about ugly vs. pretty, it's about conveying a story - you're absolutely right. So what story are these photos telling? Because I can't seem to decipher any story line from 98% of those photos. All I see is a bunch of random people at an event that we still don't know was about. I appreciate the human body and the differences among us that make everyone unique but as far as I can tell there is no story line here. If the photos were good, it would be one thing, but I don't feel they are anything more than snapshots of random "unique" people on the street. They don't do it for me. 
And you can call me cynical and immature and rude and disrespectful but every one of those people, save maybe 1 or 2, are ugly. That's life - and so is the fact that people are going to say so. If you've never once in your life said that someone was ugly, then you deserve a pat on the back and a high five.


----------



## K8-90 (Jul 13, 2008)

ryan7783 said:


> It's not about ugly vs. pretty, it's about conveying a story - you're absolutely right. So what story are these photos telling? Because I can't seem to decipher any story line from 98% of those photos. All I see is a bunch of random people at an event that we still don't know was about...


 
Than we agree...
What I said earlier was that these photos lack a certain appeal due to the photographic method in which they were created. Through photography, a photographer is usually trying to convey something - whether it be a story, a message, beauty, etc. I think that (this is only my opinion) this is what is "wrong" with these images. For the most part, they do not provide the viewer with anything. They are cropped so close that there is little story or context. While this could work if the emotions were right, it didn't. 

For instance, image 5 (could you number them please?) Has the person completely off-guard, cropped in closely in a manner that is unflattering to that person. You can even see crumbs on their face! So it's not that you must post images only of "hot" people, but you have to be considerate as a photographer. You could take a well exposed image of a beautiful model, but if it is while they are blinking and talking, or chewing, or something of the sorts, it will not be a correct representation of the person.

Basically, I think that these shots - while techinically correct - are unflattering, and do not offer the viewer any interest. This highlights any "flaws", as that is all there is to see.


----------



## Kanikula (Jul 13, 2008)

I think you have found a wonderful array of "off the wall" subjects and personaly feel its a breath of fresh air from the usual. However  think the technical execution of the shots isnt the best, but i see here you were going with this. With some more practice and understanding you will start producing some brill captures


----------



## IllegalDamage (Jul 13, 2008)

Mitica100 said:


> Hey, how about this shot (not mine, I wish):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wouldn't (personally) call that beauty, however it is very interesting and I love the shot... just because it look amazing doesn't mean is has to be beautiful


----------



## Local_Skater (Jul 14, 2008)

K8-90 said:


> Than we agree...
> What I said earlier was that these photos lack a certain appeal due to the photographic method in which they were created. Through photography, a photographer is usually trying to convey something - whether it be a story, a message, beauty, etc. I think that (this is only my opinion) this is what is "wrong" with these images. For the most part, they do not provide the viewer with anything. They are cropped so close that there is little story or context. While this could work if the emotions were right, it didn't.
> 
> For instance, image 5 (could you number them please?) Has the person completely off-guard, cropped in closely in a manner that is unflattering to that person. You can even see crumbs on their face! So it's not that you must post images only of "hot" people, but you have to be considerate as a photographer. You could take a well exposed image of a beautiful model, but if it is while they are blinking and talking, or chewing, or something of the sorts, it will not be a correct representation of the person.
> ...



Thus making these bad photographs! The point I was making in my first post was not to be mean. I wanted to know the reason behind selecting those people, b/c of exactly what you said.  There is no cohesion, no story, nothing to provoke anything but exactly what this thread has become. Just b/c this has become debate of morality doesn't change the fact that when it comes down to it, these just lack photographic merit. Like I said before, P&S with a nice camera.

I guarantee there is a way each one of these subjects could have shined in a photojournalistic situation. Thats the problem though. I see awkward, off guard looks that tell nothing, pissed off old men with the sun in there eyes, and a few women who I can't understand why they are dressed the way they are. Take something unique about each subject (aside from their faces) and portray it in a way that can be understood and appreciated by anyone (not just those who are trying not to hurt feelings). That is what makes the picture of the miner posted earlier so good and what sets it apart.


----------



## K8-90 (Jul 14, 2008)

Exactly. There was potential, but the manner in which it was photographed didn't quite make it...

But this does not give reason or justify the comments that were made. I'm not talking to you specifically - I remember the comments, but not who said them. They really showed a lack of thinking, much like what is being argued to have caused "the problem " with these photos. This makes those who posted the comments hypocritical, in addition to rude, immature, materialistic, arrogant...


----------



## automaton2 (Oct 6, 2008)

love the debate

a sense of humanhood in all hopefully:heart:

thanks for huge amount of replies:hug::


----------



## Jon_Are (Oct 7, 2008)

I actually like #8 (?) - the Truman Capote dude in the straw hat.

Jon


----------



## unnecessary (Oct 9, 2008)

nah... they are all ugly


----------

