Whilst I’m setting this record straight, let me add one more thing. Although I believe all of us can do harm unintentionally and, on some occasions, with intention, I don’t see you as incapable of noting the difference.

In a non-defensive way I’d like to explain what I did and why.

There is a lot of manipulation (about an hour) in this shot but I left a few things so it didn’t look manipulated.

No, I’m not joking.

One time the great art dealer Leo Castelli once asked Any Worhol why he had a few paint drips in his otherwise perfect paintings of Campbell’s soup tins, Andy replied, “so you can see that it is a painting”. I’d like to think that such portraits will look natural. For other types of shots I’m happy to make the manipulation obvious.

The left ear was sticking way out like Clark Gable’s and I pulled it in back to about a half of it’s real size. I’ve removed ears before but you’d be surprised that people who understand anatomy (I have doctor and artist friends) will know it missing and I’ve been caught out before. Bastards!

I totally got rid of all the wisps of hair that were sticking out on his left as well. I left the handle on the pan because I wanted it to read as a pan so it would add to placing mark within context. I do agree that it is a little distracting.

I’ve also blurred the background a little.

I like the wrinkles on the brow because it adds to emotional depth of the photo. The expression is not straight forward and I’m sure that people (who think about the image they look at) will get a little more out of the shot if they have a few other things to engage with.

I also desaturated the colour a bit to help give the shot a little more of a sombre look. I wanted to show a quiet and complex guy looking back at the viewer in a way that makes the viewer feel as they are being appraised just as the viewer appraises the subject.

I’ve been thinking a lot over the last couple years about how the camera can cause a reaction in the subject. I love seeing that questioning look on people’s faces as they look back at the viewer.

I think that pat’s right about the colour of the pen. I was a bit “target fixated” on the rest of the shot that I over looked it.

I’m lucky, I only do this stuff for myself. I don’t have to cater to a paying client that expects flattery.

Pat

I wasn’t offended. I take it for granted that you mean no harm. And you know me, I’m too insensitive to notice if you did anyway!

When I made the album for my mom’s 75th birthday, I spent hours photoshopping some of her wrinkles out. Of course I did not tell her. After she saw the album, she told my brother it would have been nice if I had helped nature a little bit… You can’t win!

-TP

Actually he kept on smiling and I told him to stop. I prefer portraits to be a bit more serious as I think it shows a lttle more of his character. Mark is fairly quiet guy, a bit of a thinker.

He’d already finished up for the day (he runs a private hospital kitchen) when I turned up and we just hung out, shooting the breeze for an hour or two. Mark and I go way back and he’s also into photography. The reason why I dropped by was to return a lens he had kindly lent me.

Mark is the friend who is getting married in November and I helped him out with trailing various Indian dishes for his wedding.

http://blog.allthedumbthings.com/2008/07/09/what-ive-been-up-to-lately-and-whats-on-my-fridge/

Just cooking for 20 was bad enough but Mark is expecting 250 at his reception. Mark has finally allowed himself to be talked out of cooking the food for the wedding, by his wife and mother-in-law to be. I told him he’d go out of his mind if he tried to do it as well.

Pat

Ah yes, the dangers of colour. I might just desaturate the blue if I make a print out of the shot.