Friday, July 31, 2009

Julie (169) - Anne



This exemplifies one of the downfalls of my style of portraiture: there is no room for error. The glasses obscure the eyes: I should have moved further to the right. This angle would only have been justified if she had magnificent ear-rings or a mole or something. This is just a standard face.

5 comments:

Ann said...

I think it would have been more interesting if we could see more of her. There is nothing here to give a clue to who she is.

Julie said...

I agree.

Up until I saw this image, I had been working on the theory that you ALWAYS learnt something from a photograph of a person. But this portrait gave the lie to that.

By the way, if I ever become a grandmother, this woman will probably become a grandmother yet again!!

Ann said...

As I got further along in my 100 I started rejecting people because to me they weren't interesting. That's probably why I go more for environmental than close up.

Julie said...

Ah, yes: that is a basic difference, I guess.

I have this theory that EVERYONE is interesting, maybe not to me but what is it that others can see that I cannot. Just like I don't comment on the partners of my friends or criticise whomsoever that fall in love with: they can see something that I cannot.

This is what urges me on: to try to come to the essence of another person.

Useless, really. Because I would have to see through the eyes and heart of the person who DOES appreciate them.

I might go back to my rusty doorknobs. I spent my lunchtime yesterday wandering the back lanes of Glebe shooting rusty gate latches ... up close and in detail, spider webs 'n all ...

No wonder my kids simply shake their head ...

Ann said...

I love your close up work. Its so different to what I do and when I do try it, I can't do it anywhere near as well.