Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer (1933)

December 27th, 1933 hi AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER ta 6 CINEMATOGRAPHER 3 PICTURES oftkeWEEK Some Critical Comments “ "" p'JP.r0d““<1 “ IF there is one thing more than another that must be avoided, when the making of portraits is in question, it is a suggestion of discomfort or strain. Yet it is by no means easy. The subject may be almost ready for the exposure to be made, but some little defect of pose is seen, and, in correcting this, another portion of the body becomes affected. Expression and Pose. The consequence is that, instead of the position being comfortable for the sitter, some little effort is required in order that it may be maintained, and the appearance of the features suffers on account of the resultant expression of strain. The impression of naturalness is impaired, and it is something of this character that is responsible for the slightly drawn expression in the case of No. 2 of the prints on the opposite page — “ Portrait,” by Max Rosher. What seems to have happened here, is that, in the first instance, a pose was adopted more in accordance with the inclination of the body, but, because a three-quarter view of the face would then be displayed, the sitter was directed to turn her head, and, either at the same time or subsequently, to look upwards. Within limits, such a procedure would be perfectly sound. There is a point, however, beyond which the turning of the head needs a certain effort, and if it is too closely approached the tension on the muscles of the neck shows its effect in the features. If the eyes are then directed upwards, the strain is emphasised, and an effect similar to that now illustrated is an inevitable corollary. It might have been avoided, had the effect been observed, by arranging for the body to be turned in the same direction as the head, or, possibly, by providing a support against which the head could rest. The Point of View. The latter, however, is a somewhat doubtful expedient, and one which usually invites more disabilities than it cures. The former is much to be preferred, and, in this instance, would be more likely to be effective, par ticularly if the direction of the gaze were also lowered. Quite apart from its effect as a contributing factor to the sense of strain it is far too high for perfect naturalness. If the operator were standing up and the camera were at an appreciably lower level, it may have seemed satisfactory to the eye, but would necessarily be exaggerated from the lower viewpoint. This may ac¬ count, to some extent, for the defect as it now appears, and there would seem to be some justification for the assumption that the camera was also too low in the somewhat undue emphasis given to the chin. With a model of such charming and regular features, there would seem to be no reason for any departure from the normal point of view, which, in portraiture, is on a level with the sitter’s eyes. Had this been chosen, the faults to which reference has been made would not have been quite so marked. They would, however, still need cor¬ rection, and, if it be possible for the subject to be repeated, will doubtless receive consideration when that event takes place. Scale and the Subject. At the same time, it would be wise to allow a little more space for the setting, for, as the subject now stands, its scale is rather too large for the picture space, and suffers from a slight suggestion of constriction. In other respects, the work attains a remarkably high level for the class in which it is entered, and it is because it shows so much promise that its little weaknesses have been so fully discussed. Its quality, and the differ¬ ence between it and the others on the page, are much more marked in the original than in the reproduction, its finish and technique being particularly good, features which are brought, more or less, to the same level in the process of blockmaking. The proportions of No. 1, “ Laura,” by W. G. Flores, are, perhaps, nearer the ideal, but the lighting is somewhat too forceful, and the pose, with the arms behind the body, seems inclined to awkwardness. A more frontal lighting would afford an improvement, but the setting is commendably plain, and compares favourably with that of No. 3, “A Portrait,” by M. W. Elliott, and of “ Dorothy” (5), by W. R. Beattie. Softness of Rendering. Foliage as a background is always inclined, to spottiness, and, in the former, its dark tone coming against the light of the figure, conveys a suggestion of harshness that would be better avoided. A similar im¬ pression arises from the exaggerated contrasts in the setting of the latter, the feeling being heightened by the strongly-patterned garment the figure is wearing. A softer rendering could be obtained by the substitution of a paper of longer range for that employed, but the harmony of tone displayed by No. 2 could only be obtained by arranging for a like harmony in subject and setting themselves. No. 4, “ Bessie,” by James Taggart, exhibits a similar tendency, but not to the same degree. It arises, prin¬ cipally, from the inclusion of the chair, which is out of tone with the remainder of the subject. A similar adjustment would provide an improve¬ ment over the present rendering ; but, of course, the thing is to avoid such clashes of tone in the subject in the first place. It will be seen, too, that the head is at a different angle from that of the body, but, in contrast with No. 2, it is not turned so far as to create a sense of discomfort, and there is not a like impression of strain. Accessories in Portraiture. So far so good ; but that chair is a drawback, and stresses the need for the avoidance of accessories when por¬ traiture is essayed. The setting, as in Nos. 1 and 2, should be kept as simple and free from them as possible ; and a further instance of a desirable background is shown by No. 6, ‘‘Indoor Portrait,” by S. J. Vella, though the long shape scarcely seems appropriate. The horizontal way of the plate very rarely suits a portrait subject, and, as in this case, usually suggests a feeling of truncation, too much of the body being cut off. The point of view seems rather too high, and displays too much of the top of the head. “ Mentor.” 591 17