Next thing you know, someone will try another portrait with a softbox at 30 degrees camera right, with the subject smiling. Egads!

Just to be clear. The B&W image has the light coming from above, and the color image has 2 different light coming from the sides. Very different effects.

You refer to “uplighting”… doesnt that mean lighting from below? And not represented in either photographs…?

just trying to get your point…

One of the hardest things to do in a formal portrait, whether a photograph , a drawing or a painting is answering the question: what do you do with the sitter’s hands?

It is a question with at least three aspects: How will a gesture be read on the emotional level; what is the cultural symbolism of the gesture (which also ties in to the emotive question); and finally how does the position of the hand or hands work as a graphic element in the composition.

Irving Penn and Richard Avedon tackle the issue better than most portrait photographers; Greg Heisler, Annie Leibovitz, and Mark Seliger do it well too.

Try this experiment sit in front of a large mirror for a good half hour and try different poses with your hands in different positions, making different gestures. Think of yourself as a character in a story. What messages do your poses and gestures convey?

But in general I’m with ‘dude’ (post # 29).
It isn’t important if the images compared are identical pixel by pixel, color or b/w , lighting …
Although I have to state that the lighting in Krupp’s portrait (causes the evil look) is a major factor …

To agree with dude … It’s the basic idea (assuming there is one *g) of the image that counts, imho …

For example:
- if you ‘redo’ Da Vinci’s last supper in black and white … is it based on the same idea ? (in my opinion: yes)
if you use other ‘models’ (of course you would have to do so*g) .. do both sujets still share the same idea (again, in my opinion: yes)
etc, etc …
I would agree such a copy is plagiism.

But, of course – I could be wrong … just one opinion.

I guess who’s right and who’s not depends mainly on the gun (the lawyer) you are able to hire

I could supply you with two far ‘better’ and far more identical samples of plagiism.
But I’ve agreed to keep still with the lawyer of the (self called) international-top-star-photographer who copied one of my images for commercial work.
At present I don’t have the time (and nerves) to go through a law-suit for the next years. Especially on a very ‘greyish’ theme.
At least I know now that he’s just a ‘fake’ who lacks on own ideas …

Anyway .. cheers,
Reini

You’re absolutely right in regards to the emotional aspect of Arnold’s photo. He went into that portrait with a very clear idea of how he wanted to represent Krupp. I always wondered why Krupp would have allowed a well known Jewish photographer to take his portrait…how did he not see that outcome from a mile away?

I think about sueing him now because after all I know for sure I have shot this pose before he copied it – sucker!

Thanks, Ellis Vener, for the clear writing stuffed full of facts. Thanks for looking carefully at the photographs, for figuring out how they’re lit, for the differences in vantage point and in angle of view. Newman was particularly cruel when he came in close with a wide-angle lens, leveled the camera, and dropped the front standard (or raised the back), pulling Krupp’s chin downward. The character actress Margaret Hamilton wore putty on her chin when playing the Wicked Witch. Newman did it with a camera movement.

Gratefully,
Andre Friedmann

Yours,
A Perpetual Assistant.

The ONLY element that is similar is the pose.
( and if you think otherwise , ask a professional photographer to explain lighting to you.. )

And what portrait artist has’nt used that pose ?

Come on people… REALLY?!

Everybody here is obsessing about the technique – the pose, the lighting, the lens, blah blah blah, and although these factors are important, the most important thing, which is being overlooked, is the subject of the photos.

My point here is that, sure, the pose has been done before and the lighting isn’t the same and the location isn’t the same and so on, but neither portrait would have any power if it were a different person sitting in front of the camera. My 2¢ is that I’m sure Nigel Parry was aware of the Arnold Newman photo, and I am guessing from the inference that he’s not a big fan of Newt, so he made a visual reference to it. There’s very little truly original work and it’s done all the time so I don’t get what the hubbub is about.

It was Saturday night and I figured I’d just throw it up and see what people have to say.