What is more important in self-portraiture – envisioning who you are (i.e. your “true self”) or envisioning who you wish to be (i.e. your “best self”)? Why?



I believe your true self is the most important part of a self portrait. In my opinion, if you're calling it a "self" portrait, it should really represent yourself. If you want to call it "What I Aim To Be", then I believe who you wish to be is good to use, but I believe it is misleading to use it and say it really describes you otherwise. In a self portrait, I'd want to give people a look at what I'm really like, show them something they didn't see before, like maybe a hidden trait I have. However, I would not put a picture up, calling it a self portrait, if it wasn't really descriptive of how I am, unless I clearly said it was how I want to be. If I'm terrible at sports but my self portrait shows me dunking a basketball, I believe that is, in a way, lying to the viewer. They now see "self portrait" and they see this image and assume it's true. I believe that takes away from the essence of self portraiture. It will be very cool to do a portrait of what we wish to be, but when we do, I will make sure it is not misleading as to say "this is how I really am".

In the article I just read, called “Smile and Say ‘No Photoshop’,” there are many issues brought to life about the fashion and modeling industry. I believe the main points were that unrealistic standards of women (and men!) are being shown, and many people are taking them to heart. When I look at a magazine, it’s easy to see someone beautiful and not give it a second thought, but what most people don’t realize, is that almost all of these images are changed through Photoshop and other editing tools.

I do believe that these standards are unrealistic, and are leading to a bigger problem. Not everyone is naturally confident, and seeing these pictures in magazines is bound to make you look at yourself with less confidence as time goes on. If we could see natural pictures, I believe it would be easier to see ourselves in a more kind light. If these models are okay showing their unique freckles or the size of their waist, then it could become easier for so many other people to embrace their unique qualities as well.

I believe Photoshop could be used to enhance natural light, make certain things more noticeable, or edit a picture to the point of it clearly being fake. However, I don’t believe the amount of editing that goes into models is reasonable at all. I would understand more minor changes, but the drastic ones they are doing are simply too extreme. Maybe taking away a pimple, or making eyes brighter, but completely cutting off parts of their stomachs? I find that COMPLETELY unrealistic. I think our magazines need to embrace more natural real pictures, and less ones that simply look plastic and dreamlike.

A. POV B. Macro/Minutiaen C. Motion

What is your interpretation of the purpose of each of these three assignments? What do you think the most important thing was you learned from each assignment? Why do you suppose these three projects were assigned in this particular order? How do you feel you did on each project? Be specific about areas in which you think you did well and not as well. What was one thing you wish you would have done that you didn’t, and why didn’t it happen? (you may comment on any of the three projects or all three) Which was your favorite of the three projects and why? Has one or more of these topics had an impact on your photography? How?



A. The point of view photos really showed me the importance of angles and the message that can be portrayed in the things that before seemed so miniscule. I realized that taking a photo head on can be boring, and now I look at my subject and think about how I want to portray it before I decide the angle. If I want it to seem bigger, for example, I would take the picture from a lower angle facing up to make my subject seem powerful and large. The most important thing I learned was that an angle can be what originally sets the mood of the photograph, and can encourage the way the viewer sees your photograph (without them even knowing it). I think point of view was assigned first because it was so basic and could really help when it came to setting up the macro/minutiae pictures as well as the motion ones. My point of view project seemed okay at the time, but now that I have learned more I think there are a lot of things I could do to improve it. It is nice to be able to look back and see how much I’m improving! I liked the vibrancy and colors in my photograph, but I think the background was boring and I could have been more creative in the angles I used such as getting ones that were less normal. I wish I had been more creative in my background such as using possibly a desk or another area crayons might be found, or even a colored picture!




B. The Macro/Minutiae collage we made really taught me about the importance of detail, but also the importance of an overall final product. Some pictures I took of my subject (the beach) did not end up fitting into my final collage, while others quickly looked like they should always be together. I also realized the importance of detail, because when you use a photograph that does not show detail, it is harder to get an overall message from the picture. I believe that I did very well on this project, and even though it may not have been the best, I tried very hard and I think it looked pleasing to the eye, as well as showed a lot of details in the sand and water as well as close ups of shells. I believe this project was assigned after point of view because now that I have an idea on the angles to take pictures from it was easier to decide how I wanted each picture to look and then be able to focus on the texture and close-up view. However I do with I could have found a way to get more shots of the water from above it, focusing on the shells and what was in the water (however it was rather cold and I was not very interested in getting wet). This was definitely my favorite project because I feel like I really am beginning to understand some key points in photography and I think I’m just starting to be able to make decisions on what will improve a photo, where to place subjects in a photo, how to capture in certain light, and overall I’m beginning to have a lot of fun with my photographs! These photographs have also had the most impact on my photography because I am now starting to analyze things and be able to be critical of my photographs but then be assertive about them and go back and change what I don’t like and learn from my mistakes and fix them to the best of my ability!





C. The motion set of photographs (of my sister doing a cartwheel on the beach) was a fun photo assignment which really taught me about the technical ways to manipulate my camera to how I want. Although they were not used as my final photograph, I took pictures in which I tried to incorporate blur and I also got to mess around with my modes (sports, landscape, etc). I believe the most important thing I learned in this assignment was how to be resourceful with my camera and figure out how to capture a picture in the most appealing way possible. The background of my picture is all I need to mention to show how the other two previous assignments have really helped me in this one. With the waves moving in the background, I think it shows that macro/minutiae really affected me in making me always think about the smaller details as well as the whole picture. While my sister was cartwheeling, the waves were moving, and I think that’s awesome to look at! I think I made this assignment look fun and interesting, but I also think I could have gotten a more dramatic movement from a different subject. However, I think that a girl on the beach doing a cartwheel was a perfect subject at the time I took it (when it was just starting to get warmer and all I could think about was summer)!

Consider the quote: "God is in the details."

What is your interpretation of this quote?

I've heard that the devil is in the details, but I think I like this saying more! I interpret this saying as meaning that opportunities for discovery and creativity come from delving deep into the details that surround you, and you can't be content with simply floating by all God's beauty. It's not truly beautiful until you look close enough to see the intricate-ness that makes it awing.

How can we see God in the details every day?

Let's say you're walking down the street, either going somewhere or coming back from something. Well, that seems pretty boring right? No! It doesn't have to be! When you're walking, try looking at the ground around you. I guarantee there's some pretty interesting stuff down there you might never have noticed if you didn't take a few seconds and glance. Now that it's spring, you can see all types of things surrounding you that are almost all tiny intricate details. Like bumblebees! Now, I'm not saying we should all go really close to a bee and try to examine it for God, but we should try to be conscious the next time one flies past. They're so fuzzy and really the only thing intimidating about them would probably be the buzzing. These little things can be enough to get you through that long walk in what seems like half the time!

How might we use our cameras in order to discover and preserve these details?

There are things all around us that we can find God's beauty and detail in. There is texture, color, and shape all so small we barely even notice it if we're not looking. We can use our camera's (in a macro setting if needed, of course!) to get close enough to those small details that we can capture them and preserve them for everyone to see! Some things last only a few seconds, a few days, maybe even years, but with technology today, a picture can be preserved for a very long time!!!

"Photography is about finding out what can happen in the frame. When you put four edges around some facts, you change those facts." -- Gary Winogrand.

What does this quote mean? Consider the quote in context of our work with framing and composition.

The photographs that I have been working with over the course of learning how to use Photoshop have drastically changed in the way I look at them. As you change what the viewer can see and what they can't, you change what the photograph means! If there is something unnecessary or distracting in your photograph, before it simply meant to take another without it, but now we can go back and crop or feather it, making the distraction disappear! I believe this quote means that as a photographer, you can change what people are seeing. You have all the power of the message YOU want to portray. You can change what others are seeing by cropping things out and editing them, and I think this really relates to what we did today. Our work and what we want to portray is all our own choice, and I think by being able to go back and edit your photograph gives you the power to change a photograph in ways that were previously not available. You can change the color or make something brighter, feather it, or crop it, but it won't have to look deliberate and forced, you can make it look all its own. This quote is showing you that the message your photograph is portraying is all your own, just because people interpret it differently does not mean you have no control. By doing any form of editing, you are making the photograph all your own.

How do you think you did on the lighting assignment? Be honest and specific about the feedback you received. Did you think your positive or negative feedback was deserved? Why or why not?

My photograph of a porcelain doll was a silhouette. I had never thought about it as any more than that, but a few people commented that it also seemed direct, since it was coming from directly behind. I didn’t get a lot of feedback, but people seemed to like the detail they could see, rather than think it wasn’t good because so much detail was visible. This made me happy to hear because I had been particularly worried that too much detail was visible and this might hurt the photo. There was a line in the background I was also worried about, but no one commented on it at all, and I’m beginning to realize maybe it wasn’t that big of a deal. This made me realize that I may have been too hard on myself when looking for all the errors I saw. I think people could have been harder on me, but everyone was kind of quiet. I think my photograph was decent, but not exactly on to evoke emotion or encourage people to have comments on. I believe it may have been a little boring, and it was from a rather straight on view, so I believe it could not have inspired them to say much.

However, I learned a lot from others’ photographs, and I now believe that if I was to repeat my picture, I could take it much better. One photograph, also silhouette, had the light coming in from the side. I think this looked much less boring and also did a good job showing details. I also feel inspired to not use a plain white background anymore, because I saw many backgrounds that were textured or bright colors. A classmate who had an orange background was my favorite photograph of silhouette, making a picture of a dinosaur amusing rather than frightening. I would change a lot about my photo if I could go back, but I think I will take this as a learning experience and really take to heart everything I learned.

When you first look at a photograph and make an initial judgment of it as being 'great', is it because it is technically great or because it makes you feel something? In other words, are you reacting to its technical quality or its emotive quality? Explain in detail.


When I first see a photograph, I initially judge it on the way it makes me feel. However, if there are any glaring problems with it, then my eyes jump to them instantly, so I don't have a chance to see how the overall photo would make me feel. I love the way that V-J Day in Times Square makes me feel, not because overall it is a great photo in the technical aspects, but because it just looks so romantic and everyone looks so happy. There is happiness seeping out of the photo, and anyone looking at it can find it easy to get caught up in that. If I was being technical, I could find things wrong with the photo, like how its not in great focus. However, until now, I'd never tried to do that, I'd always just looked at it and instantly liked it because of the feeling I got.

The message the photographer is relaying to us; that is what we feel. If it is a message of joy, we most likely see the photo and feel joyful. Then we will most likely like it, at least initially. A story is told in a picture, and that story is all we need to see to know if we like it or not. If the story evokes happiness or worry or sadness, that is how we initially feel. Emotions are contagious, and the ones being portrayed in a photo can often be found in the viewer too. You just have to be willing to look at the photo for its beauty, not for technicality.




People always say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I really do believe them. Do you?