I haven't picked a leader from the portraits, so I'm not speaking about anyone in particular.  (Although I may do that later if I have time.  I have a fondue party to attend at 6)

I've been thinking on this, and I think I would start the session as I would with anyone else.  Since the person I'd be shooting with is someone who would be google'able, I'd start with one of their interests.  I do that with people that I know a little about now...friend of a friend, etc.

So conversation could be about sports, about family, etc.

The middle part of the conversation would be very much about the person and their actions to a certain extent.  I wouldn't want to step on toes too much in fear of ending a session before I want to end it.  Not to mention, I would want to build a bit of a repertoire with the person, no matter how little time I have to shoot.

My last question? (if I found it fitting) Probably "Do you ever feel guilty" because I think it's one of those questions that takes people aback a bit.  You don't even have to know much about the person.  It's a question that people hear and think "did she really me ask me that" and if they have a guilty conscious it takes them there...to those feelings of guilt, even if it's just for a moment.

I would hope I could capture that expression after the "guilty" question.  I suppose it would depend on the person and my skills.

That may be very obvious, or predictable, but since I haven't there, that's my best guess at what I would do.  If I were presented the opportunity, my approach might be different (research and questioning would ensue).  But with my limited knowledge of circumstances and my personal approach to portraits (minus the guilty since I photograph senior portraits and the like) I think that would be my method.

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

I don't believe all people are the same. All you need do is read some of the random posts on an internet forum to determine the pecking order in the universe. John Lennon, Hitler, Salk, Stalin, take your pick, they all changed the world. Getting in front of them with my camera would be the pinnacle of my career. I'm sure the resultant pictures would be interesting and just fine, but the process, the time spent with them, would be the reward. Just imagine trying to match wits with a world changer.

A number of you have said they are nothing more than "just people". You and I both know that's pure bullshit. They are the people that have, through pure power of will and talent, changed how we live. they are smarter, more creative, more evil, more devious, than any of us can begin to comprehend. Being given mere minutes to determine how they tick, what made them so different, and bending them to my will, if only for a few seconds, would be a reward that would last a life time. I don't think portrait photography is about the subject, I think it's about me.

As far as what I'm hired to do, and i realize this is just me, but it might give a little insight into a different world, I'm never told to go out and get a portrait of how the subject sees them self. My usual instructions are, "make him/her look approachable", "make him/her look superior", "make him/her look fun". Stuff like that comes from the editors and art directors that assign the projects, and they never once consider what the subject may want. The few personal sittings I do, that involve civilians with no commercial connection, are always shot to my esthetic, without any consideration for what the subject wants. My thinking is they came to me for something they saw in my work, and what they saw was me, not them. I figure if they want to see themselves, they can go to Walmart and get that.

Changing the world is not that hard to do. Everyone changes the world in one form or fashion from the most powerful leader, to the toddler dropping their lollipop on the ground. Some are just better know for their actions, and others do not realize what they do. In the grand scheme of the universe it doesn't really matter who a person is, but how they feel.

For me, making a middle aged housewife feel better about herself is worth so much more than fame and fortune. The reward is greater than all the cash you could plop in my hand. Money and fame are not the driving force in my life. Creating images that evoke feelings of happiness and contentment for the subject and I are worth far, far more to me.

"What's your favorite ice cream?". I like the responses I get from that.

Rue99 wrote:

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

I've experienced this before in other threads on other sites, and I guess it's just another case of not knowing my audience. I was expecting more, I was hoping for more.

People can only extrapolate a little past their own experiences, but not much. When the gulf is too wide, we tend to trivialize or fantasize. For example, that light in the sky must be an alien ship, and the leader of a fifth of humanity will have no impact on our lives. 

I can't imagine what I'd really say, but my normal banter might get interesting expressions. For example:

Do you shave down there?
Let's get undressed now.
How's your boyfriend doing?
How many nude shoots did you do this month?

Excuse my taking liberties with spelling his name, but Moeimore Kadaffy being asked if he shaves down there would be a hoot. I can't imagine the range of expressions that might cause.

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

I don't believe all people are the same. All you need do is read some of the random posts on an internet forum to determine the pecking order in the universe. John Lennon, Hitler, Salk, Stalin, take your pick, they all changed the world. Getting in front of them with my camera would be the pinnacle of my career. I'm sure the resultant pictures would be interesting and just fine, but the process, the time spent with them, would be the reward. Just imagine trying to match wits with a world changer.

A number of you have said they are nothing more than "just people". You and I both know that's pure bullshit. They are the people that have, through pure power of will and talent, changed how we live. they are smarter, more creative, more evil, more devious, than any of us can begin to comprehend. Being given mere minutes to determine how they tick, what made them so different, and bending them to my will, if only for a few seconds, would be a reward that would last a life time. I don't think portrait photography is about the subject, I think it's about me.

As far as what I'm hired to do, and i realize this is just me, but it might give a little insight into a different world, I'm never told to go out and get a portrait of how the subject sees them self. My usual instructions are, "make him/her look approachable", "make him/her look superior", "make him/her look fun". Stuff like that comes from the editors and art directors that assign the projects, and they never once consider what the subject may want. The few personal sittings I do, that involve civilians with no commercial connection, are always shot to my esthetic, without any consideration for what the subject wants. My thinking is they came to me for something they saw in my work, and what they saw was me, not them. I figure if they want to see themselves, they can go to Walmart and get that.

I wonder how many actually read the article, looked at the photographs, and listened to the commentary by Platon. It's fascinating to understand the circumstances involved in this project and how he pulled it off. Platon was given an assignment to photograph as many heads of state as possible, within five days, while they were all visiting the United Nations. In many of the sittings he had only a few moments to capture his subjects. In fact, I think that his sitting with Hugo Chavez lasted only 8 seconds. That's all the time he was given. But the portrait is extraordinary and quite telling. So what do you say to someone when you only have 8 seconds? Not much, I guess, but what would you say to a Head of State when you would have more time with them?

I find that the OP asks a fascinating question, although I have no idea what I would say. However, this isn't unusual because I never know what I will say. Each person and situation is different and it always intrigues me to see what develops whenever someone new is in front of my lens. But my personality tends to be more reserved and casual, so I generally let conversation and events unfold and flow in a natural way. Whatever that may be. I don't think I could be so bold as to call someone an A-hole right before snapping the photo. But hey, you never know.

Which is why I think that Robert's quotes above, and else where in this thread are very insightful. To me, they offer an alternate glimpse of how another photographer approaches their craft. A photographer whose personality is quite different from mine and so therefore is his approach. I have never thought that taking someone's portrait was about me. Ultimately it has always been about the subject. Of course, I light the scene, snap the frame, and process out to my vision but the actual interaction is always about them. I would never think to say, "I like to play soccer, but since they changed the size of the ball it seems more like a sport for sissies than real men, what do you think?" A question like that would never even enter my mind, but I think it's fascinating that someone else would to elicit a response. It's a different perspective to view portrait photography from. For me at least.

Anyhow, I'm not kissing your ass here Robert, I'm simply saying thanks for getting the gears turning... again.


Cheers!!

I'm all smiles. That's priceless.

DarinB wrote:

I actually listened to every commentary. They were wicked!

Ha ha that's pretty funny. You know when he kept saying that, I couldn't help think how his subjects might interpret that word and take it literally. "You're evil!!!, You're evil!!!"

I also watched every commentary. I found the one of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe rather profound. I wonder if Platon used the wicked line with him?

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

I've experienced this before in other threads on other sites, and I guess it's just another case of not knowing my audience. I was expecting more, I was hoping for more.

Does a man who goes by "Kevlar Vest Girl" only want serious replies?

With the avatar and name, how could anyone guess?

Sockpuppet Studios wrote:

Our own presidents have blood on their hands.

Anyone who has lived long enough has blood on his hands.

People are born and live and die everyday.

Doing what you believed was best for your people is not evil, it is survival of humanity at its core.

If any one of us was in charge of an entire population of peoples, all of us would have to accept the position of who gets to live and who gets to die.

Just in case BOB wants to know about me as well:
No college Just a few courses here & there.
Full time photographer
EX full time model
Before that retail for a decade

No matter what we do we all took part in what happens in third world countries and I am ok with that.  From our food, to clothing to medicines.  Hell even parts of our camera's were built on the back of third world countries. 

People love to play all high and mighty with one another however they still are just as guilty as the rest of us on the killing and mistreatment of others.  Just because it was not by their hand they are ok with it.

That being said business is business.  I would of just nicely shook their hands, clicked the picture and collected my money.

W.G. Rowland wrote:

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

The picture in many cases is meaningless, the experience is priceless.

Do you mean that?

Absolutely.

W.G. Rowland wrote:

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

W.G. Rowland wrote:

Kevlar Vest Girl wrote:

The picture in many cases is meaningless, the experience is priceless.

Do you mean that?

Absolutely.

Conquest by camera.  I have no idea why that's bugging me, but it is.

I'm not sure it's a conquest so much as an experience. I've been doing this for so long the meaning of it all is beginning to get a bit cloudy. Sometimes the pictures are poignant to me, and other times they seem like slabs of blank meaningless stares. Platon's portrait of Gaddafi... can you see the evil in the man through his portrait, or does he just look like some schlump in front of a camera? Anymore, it just doesn't matter much to me. I enjoy seeing the details of the man, captured for my viewing pleasure, whether I shot it or someone else did. But the experience of having made the portrait, if I had been fortunate enough to have been the photographer, is worth more to me.