General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStriking Photos Will Change The Way You See The Average American
What does the average American look like? As time goes on, the answer to that question is becoming more and more complicated.
The country is living up to its melting pot reputation as American faces become less homogenous and more diverse, a phenomenon that renowned photographer and portrait artist Martin Schoeller captured for the October 125th anniversary issue of National Geographic magazine.
The images, which are coupled with the individual's "self ID" and the box he or she checked to indicate race as specified on the 2000 and 2010 census, are a striking reminder of Americans' complex cultural and racial origins.
The 2000 U.S. Census presented the question of race differently, allowing respondents the option of selecting more than one racial category, with nearly 7 million Americans identifying as members of two or more races. The 2010 census included changes to more clearly distinguish Hispanic ethnicity as not being a race, with data revealing that whites would no longer be the majority in the country by 2043.
Schoeller's photographs capture "the changing face of America," a trend that is no doubt picking up speed with the increase of both interracial marriages and the births of biracial babies. The images also challenge traditional ideas of identity, providing evidence for the fluidity of racial and ethnic classification, which is explored more deeply in the magazine: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/national-geographic-changing-face-of-america-photos_n_4024415.html
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I like the front page better, too. Huffpost loads really slow for me.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/10/changing-faces/schoeller-photography
Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)
Luminous Animal This message was self-deleted by its author.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The white is re reflection of these elements, one on each side of the camera which provide even symmetrical lighting on the subjects.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)As if white is the standard. Are you looking at the changing face of the U.S. through a white lens?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Martin Schoeller, the photographer, it's his style:
Im about four or five feet away. Im not that close because Im using a fairly long lens to make sure that the face is not being distorted.
At the risk of getting too technical, how do you do it?
I use a medium format camera that takes roll film. I light them with these light banks. Fluorescent light. Basically they look like fluorescent light bulbs but their color temperature is daylight color temperature. Theyre called Kino Flos. Theyre mainly used in the film industry, because its not a strobe light, so its not actually that bright. I mean theyre bright to look at because theyre much brighter than the flashing strobe obviously. But theyre for a very shallow depth of field and a very narrow depth of field which kind of also emphasizes what Im trying to do with bringing out the eyes and the lips, where most of the expression in a persons face is all about the eyes and the lips. I try to get my focus right so the eyes and the lips are the focus. Everything falls away so quickly because of the shallow depth of field. Everything else becomes secondary. So not only am I focusing on just the face, Im even concentrating it more by having everything else look like its out of focus.
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/aroundthemall/2009/09/the-technique-behind-martin-schoellers-photography/
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)http://digital-photography-school.com/using-flash-diffusers-and-reflectors
Using the diffusers and/or reflectors actually give a more realistic photo of the subject.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)It is the single commonality of every photo.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Said nothing about skin.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)with that. It's a reflection and most people have reflections in their eyes when lighting or flash are used so it's normal that they would all have the same type of reflection given the same type of lighting was used for each photo.
Many photographers go out of their way to get those reflections.
PS I'm not a dude and your original answer was a little confusing the way it was written.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It's distracting and it's not common in all portrait photography, it's something that Martin Schoeller was using for a while and certainly in this series, with every single subject, the diffusers' reflections are pronounced.
And distracting, an unnecessary (Schoeller on left) :
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)than in lighter eyes, but it really doesn't bother me given the advantages to not having shadows on the face. I see your point though.
I don't think it's an artistic choice I would make but I think they are stunning portraits.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)pupils bracketed by white light.
There was a choice here to have diversity presented with a white commonality. With white being the standard to judge our differences.
I'm not a dude either. I just call people dude.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)I don't see it as a white commonality personally, to me it's just a reflection of light. I have an angular face that casts all kinds of shadows and that was the first thing I noticed - lack of shadows on the face.
Each to his/her own.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And a poor choice to illustrate diversity.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)enough
(13,259 posts)Thanks for the link.