Re: Option cover photo

[orion@wpi.wpi.edu (Kenneth G Descoteaux)]

In article <9003190804.AA19145@world.std.com> katefans@world.std.COM (Chris'n'Vickie of Kansas City) writes:
>
>    Well the Option magazine interview is out, and a good one it is too.
>But does anyone out there in love-hounds land have a theory about *why*
>a woman with such a beautiful smile and a broad range of other expressions
>constantly uses a solemn expression on magazine cover photo shoots? I use
>the word "solemn" rather than "blank," the first one to spring to mind, to

I was playing some of my new musical aquisitions for a photographer friend of
mine last night and she started talking about John Carder's (assumption) shot 
for _Aspects_. Anyways, I ended up dragging out almost every KaTe photo I have 
and Sue had some interesting comments about the Option cover. The cover shot 
was done with a wide-angle lens from very close up. This causes several bad 
things. One is a fishbowl effect which mildly distorts KaTe's face. In 
addition, the focus of wide-angle lens is kind of the surface of a sphere. 
If you look at the cover you can easily see, once its pointed out :), that only
KaTe's lips (a good feature), and cheeks (usually not *anyone's* good feature)
are really in focus. Her nose is blurred out (and distorted by the lens) and 
her *eyes* (her *best* feature IMHO, and the seat of expression) are out of 
focus, blurred, vague, and yes even *blank*. 

Looking back at John Carder's covers, you'll notice that he uses lighting to 
produce a highlight in Kate's eyes (amoung other things) in almost every case.
This emphasizes her eyes and puts a 'spark' into them. The shots by Kevin 
Cummins in Option are sadly lacking this extra touch. Now I'm not saying that 
a smile wouldn't have made a difference, I'm just saying that the photographer 
could have made this shot much better with a better choice of lighting and 
equipment.

>avoid flamage. When the "Keyboard" magazine interview came out we were very
>excited because it was such an excellent interview, but probably more happy
>because we finally had a cover photo of Kate *smiling*. In our limited

Sue also brought up the fact that the photographer and the subject often work
together to produce a much better product when they are comfortable with each
other and have been working together for a long time. I'd be curious to know
if John Carder did this cover or if it was a staff photographer. Could you 
tell me what issue it was? I'd like to get a hold of it.

>contact with Kate our overall impression of her was of a happy person.
>I mean at any given moment she's more likely to be smiling or laughing than
>frowning. We've never even seen her angry no matter what the circumstances.
>The closest she gets to it would be a state comparable to "mild pique".
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^
When I first saw the Option cover, one of the first things I thought was 
"What could the photographer have said to KaTe to make her so distant?"
Her expression seemed to be one which she might use when offended or 
misunderstood by someone, kind of a sad, pitying look rather than an angry one.
Of course, I'm probably just misinterpreting it.
>
>                                Chris of
>                                   Chris'n'Vickie
>                                      of Kansas City
>                                         katefans@world.std.com

Any errors in the photography discussion are entirely due to my 
misunderstanding, or mistating what Sue told me due to my lack of knowledge
concerning photography and have no bearing on *her* knowledge of the subject.

P.S. Vickie, in case you didn't know :^) if you use 'h' in rn (UNIX newsreader)
     at the line that says 'Article x of y What next [npq]' it tells you nifty
     stuff about what you can do like list subjects, kill subjects, build a 
     kill file, and catch up on unread news.   :)
Ken Descoteaux
orion@wpi.wpi.edu