File :-(, x, )
Wired's Top 10 Portraits Anonymous
So Wired.com's just had a portrait contest, getting readers to vote and then posting the top ten as decided by readers and the staff. I'm interested to hear commentary on the individual photos, so here they are.

if the filename has a "b" in it, that denotes it was a Wired staff pick as opposed to a reader pick.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:19 11:42:25Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width414Image Height496
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)


Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:09:16 01:45:29Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width368Image Height400
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
End of set.
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
>>261124

I like it, but high key lighting is getting dull for baby photos, but its nice to see one with a spot of originality.

I would have liked more detail in the jacket below the neck, but thats it.

>>261125

Fantastic! absoluty fantastic!

>>261126

Not for me, interesting subject, but feels a bit wasted.

>>261129

Fantastic!!! Reminds me of Taylor-Lind's work.

>>261130

I would say this is good, but after seeing about a million shots of the exact same style (shit, they could be the same guy), it kind loses it touch.

>>261133

Superb! Absolutely love it! the photographer is clearly a fan of Nick Warplington (as should everyone!! this means you /p/!!!)

>>261134

This is good, but am not a fan of the colour.

>>261135

Win!

>>261136

Nah, to much like a million other fashion shots for perfume or something. Not to mention plastic skin, somone loves there photoshop a bit to much.

>>261137

Not sure about this one, make me second take it when i realised all the tress's were shadows, but still.

>>261138

Nice, but again, its been done about a million times b4.

>>261139

Zing!! another winner, perfect lighting!

>>261140

fapfapafppafpafpfpfpapafpafpafpafafppafpfp

Fantastic photo!

>>261142

Hummm..

Am going to say no for this one, yes its technically sound, but not much more.

>>261143

Ok, fantastic set up, but the skin is far to polished for me., in that situation id want to see distress, not perfection.

>>261145

Buuuuutful bokeh, but its the stranded shot, people with a bit of know how, take when they get a new prime.
>> Anonymous
Interesting to see the differences. This is what I see is wrong with voting for competition.. All the highly voted portraits are all very clean, technically perfect. Lots of old men with wrinkles, or good looking airbrushed skin girls, and nice catchlights. Whereas the picked top ten are amazingly creative, pictures storing lots of story and emotions. Especially 1b, 3b, 5b, 6b, 8b are truly inspiring.
Pictures I honestly think shouldn't have ever ended up in the top 10 are: 1, 3, 4b, 5, 6, 7, 7b 9, 10b. They are cliche in almost every way, I don't see any creativity in them. They deserve some random flickr awards.
Was any background info provided with the pictures, as in story? If so you are asking us to comment on them ripped out of context.
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
[feild was two long, had to cut it in half]


>>261147

Was about to say win, then i saw the fucking vanity stamp in the lower right.

>>261148

Fantastic! never stop getting tired of these kind of shots, you see so much emo bullshit and art students trying the same look, when a good one comes along its a breath of fresh air

>>261151

On the fence with this one aswell.. technicly sound, good backdrop, but it feels like somthings lacking....

>>261154

Warhol's style was shit when he did it, nothing has changed.

Gratz to op for resorting my faith in /p/, first topic ive enjoyed in awhile
>> Anonymous
>>261161
No story or blurbs were provided with any shot; no more information than the picture, and in some cases the picture's title or gear info. Here are the links:
Readers: http://www.wired.com/culture/art/multimedia/2008/09/gallery_top_ten_portraits
and
Staff: http://www.wired.com/culture/art/multimedia/2008/09/gallery_faves_portraits
>> huge_tool !wU9wX01ppM
>>261143
>>261133

I love these two.
A lot.

The rest are kind of ho-hum though.
I agree with the comments about a lot of these being technically good without being interesting.

>>261151
This one makes me want to vomit. WAY too much PP, and the colors are hideous.
>> Anonymous
>>261143

This one makes me :3
>> Anonymous
>>261160
>Superb! Absolutely love it! the photographer is clearly a fan of Nick Warplington (as should everyone!! this means you /p/!!!)

Do you have any links to his work?
Because his Wikipedia article makes him sound like a pig-fucker, and what I've found of his work so far is like 10% brilliant and 90% shite.

http://www.papermag.com/?parid=1086&section=article
>> Anonymous
>>261170
>gear info

every proper photographic exhibition should leave this out, especially with the photo itself. If you really care then put it in a little booklet that you can't get until you leave, or something.

Not only does it shit up the discussion with gearfags and produce more people who think that if they only had the $3000 camera instead of the $2000 then they'd be professionals -- but it's also fun to guess what they took it with! (Hmm, near-square format but the verticals aren't converging, and look at the resolution in the background...but that's a really narrow depth of field for that angle of view...must be a 4x5 with rise!)
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
>>261240
>>261240


Go out and buy Safety In Numbers

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Safety-Numbers-Waplington-Mark-Sanders/dp/1861540965

One of the best photography books i own, though his work is very "love it or hate it"
>> Anonymous
>>261242
>BAWWWW!

PROTIP: Gear actually does have an impact on the kind of images you can take. While a good photographer could take good pictures with bad gear, there's a REASON they use the pro shit.
>> Anonymous
How much u sellin that babay 4?
>> Anonymous
>>261252
Pro-tip: You completely missed the point.
>> Anonymous
>>261289
>Pro-tip: bawwwww!!!