Conceptual Portrait Photography By Mariesol Fumy

Conceptual Portrait Photography By Mariesol Fumy

Looking through Mariesol's work leaves me inspired and wanting go shoot some conceptual portraits. The way she puts everything together to tell a story with each shot really bring you in and makes you look hard at the images.

Little word from Mariesol:
"The very first moment I held a camera in my hands, I fell in love with it! I love creating emotions and life in photos- every one of my pictures is supposed to tell a story! I wish I could picture it all, but after 5 years of photography I am so not done yet! I want people to look at my photos and feel like ‘I know how that feels’, because when you feel a story of a picture, it is no longer only a photograph. It becomes an emotion. This is art." ~ Mariesol Fumy (AKA SunnyMarry)

Make sure to check out Mariesol's work on Flickr for more!


8386040935_c03b5f17fd_z

8386040981_4d7200517b_z

8386041221_f660d496fd_z

8386041293_a37b7d3cc5_z

8386041371_384fd2c0e2_z

8386041411_cc5671d979_z

8386041545_9690a7e535_z

8386041715_d4d42c1c6c_z

8387126450_eafe42a64a_z

8387126596_3ceab5216a_z

8387126686_077915db9d_z

8387126898_bd1e649ded_z

8387126972_08463e7322_z

8387127298_a6f3f20d63_z

8387127306_200319d463_z

8387127486_c4867c188f_z

via - thedphoto.com

Log in or register to post comments

25 Comments

Don't get me wrong, these photos are beautiful and emotional. But I keep seeing this kinda stuff over and over again. They could might as well come from the same artist. Not meaning to sound naggy at all. Mostly just wondering about how to take this in a new direction. 

Hi Carlos, my belief is that we see this kind of work a lot because it's the visual equivalent of "hyperbole."

Expression is metaphorical and involves a transfer in realm. For example, if we were to describe a photograph as "sad" then we wouldn't mean that the photograph is actually sad. Only sentient beings can be sad. Photographs are not sentient beings so they can't actually be sad. If we were to apply the label "sad" to a photograph then we would be using a metaphor. The use of the metaphor involves a transfer of the word "sad" from it's home realm of sentient beings to a new realm of photographic objects.

Hyperbole is similar to metaphor because it also involves a shift. But it's different than metaphor because the shift stays within the same realm. For example, hyperbole would alter the relationship between the labels of "small" and "large" within a realm by shifting small objects into large objects and large objects into SUPER-LARGE objects. This type of shifted exaggeration within the same realm is exactly what is going on in photos of the kind previously mentioned. A model might be wearing a dress, but the dress is now SUPER-LARGE! The wind might be blowing a model's hair, but its not a breeze... it's a tornado! Photographic hyberbole usually involves extremes of exaggeration.

Ultimately, I think that hyperbole in photography is usually a failed attempt at expression. It's similar to expression because both involve a shift. But hyperbole makes a shift within the same realm while metaphorical expression is a complicated transfer between conflicting realms.

Is it just me, or do the highlights on ALL these "conceptual" images seem blown out, and then the slider brought all the way down to try to compensate? 

What is more intresting is the fact that it appears to be the same clouds in alot of the pictures. :)

Edit* That might be intentional and to be honest here I did just skim the text.

Matthew Baltrusitis's picture

Really, really good catch.

^^ to me they look great

Jens Marklund's picture

Three of the photos has the exact same birds in them, haha (1, 2, 15).

FAIL.

Alain's picture

Hey! Good catch!
But that doesn't make it a fail imo. Nobody claimed that these photos are just random shots taken on the moment with a broken iPhone... they are heavily staged. So adding a bird for artistic reason seems reasonable.

lol @ Jens Marklund, good eye!

Kristian Dale's picture

Some of these are pretty amazing! Thank you for sharing!

its not detail.... if u see the 1st picture , is not edited well.......see the frame n got building reflection the the 2nd pic layer.... :(

Joe Russo's picture

I agree
Very poorly edited :/

i mean few posts before you have annie liebovitz and than this? i have a feeling that guys at fstoppers just add anything that has more than 100 likes or views :) cause its buzzzing? *)

 I think we have mr. Lambeth to blame for that...no screening whatsoever...

Sure...i can see the relevance of the point made above that this type of conceptual photography can be seen around the internet and this may not add anything substantively new to the genre. But you need to bear in mind that this is an individual perspective made real,the maker is saying something personal (or reaching for a universal set of symbols we can all identify with) and is taking the time to craft it together and carry through with the concept.
How many of the negative critics who posted above last used their camera and equipment creatively, which of the above tried to create the unreal from the real, so easy to throw stones, is it not?
Any photographer (with an camera phone or Phase 1) who reaches to voice a vision,just from the intent and hard graft) should be commended on that fact alone. Easy enough to shoot street,portraits and landscapes but putting your head above the parapet to craft an inner vision requires more drive,vision and balls.
Good work here, well done!
(ignore the haters...those flatulent bitter fellows)

Jens Marklund's picture

Nice speech Edd. What you call "crafting an inner vision" is basically using lots of different photos so you can cut together one decent one. It must really take some balls for that. Another word for it is laziness. 

Regarding the "makers individual perspective" in this series, that's just photography! Everything in photography is showing your own perspective and saying something with it. I wouldn't even call this work photography, since it's just copy/paste from different photos just cause she doesn't have the time or will to do it the right way.

Furthermore, how can you say it's easy to shoot street, portraits or landscapes - but this kind of concept takes a master mind? Everyone of those categories is about timing and patience, just to get that one frame. You don't shoot a landscape on a cloudy day, switch the sky in post, paste some interesting objects, change the light and then call yourself a photographer. I have great respect for landscape photographers, because they get at up 4am just to get that light. If it isn't there, they wait. And if it never comes - they go back another day. 

That's all I have to say. I'll let someone else bring up the terrible post processing. Oh wait.. I just did.

That was no speech but rather a comment on photography.
"basically using lots of different photos so you can cut together one decent one. It must really take some balls for that. Another word for it is laziness"

No, perhaps you have never tried editing in Photoshop if you believe it to be "laziness" and using lots of different photographs (particularly if you are the sole photographer) requires patience and a certain determination and vision.

"Regarding the "makers individual perspective" in this series, that's just photography! Everything in photography is showing your own perspective and saying something with it. I wouldn't even call this work photography, since it's just copy/paste from different photos just cause she doesn't have the time or will to do it the right way."

By your own definition? "showing your own perspective and saying something with it" the work we see above is photography in essence. 

"Furthermore, how can you say it's easy to shoot street, portraits or landscapes - but this kind of concept takes a master mind?"

Yes, i said Street (its there,snap it) Portraits (its there,light it and pose it as you will and snap it) and Landscape (wait for the right time of day/night and snap it) is easy but I did NOT say anywhere this photography takes "a mastermind". Clearly anyone who can read can see those are your words here and positively not mine. (can you not even stick to the facts of the written word?)

it's great intent, just a little sloppy execution. I'm not sure the results are fstoper worthy to be honest. If these were flawless photos then I'd appreciate them more. Unfortunately i'm left with the feeling of being a little ripped off.

I got sucked into the vision with passion, I could even forgive using common elements between photos as it's could be because the artists likes a comon linear thread between the images to keep us on line.

However just to many little editing lapses to be jaw dropping. Shame as I really do like them and makes me want to conceptualise postraits.

Andre Goulet's picture

Using your logic, I should discount your entire comment because of a few grammatical errors in the last paragraph, maybe have F-Stoppers delete your comment. I should just throw out everything you said because of that? Invalidate ALL of your words because of a few? 

That's what you're saying here, that F-Stoppers shouldn't show this work because of a few flaws that you've perceived?

I like the work. It makes me think of things to add or subtract from my own styles. That's as good a reason to feature this here as any.

DB's picture

Well I won't say that these pictures don't have some aesthetic merit and technical skill.  They do seem to fall into what seems to be an ever growing "chick angst self portrait" type genre though.  Not all self portraits I know but I'm generalising.  There does seem to be a lot of similarities to other work in this genre though - so much so that I was sure that at least one image was by someone else who shoots the same sort of thing.  So for me, quite nicely done but very derivitive and not particularly original in style or content.

Sandy Phimester's picture

For whatever it's worth, good or bad, these are more Photoshop and editing technique, than they are actual photography and camera work. To me, whether it's well done or not, these (and other posts like them) do not feel like photography.

Jesus Christ, will all you haters just shut the fuck up and stop studying the pixels of these photos and go out and shoot something??  I'm sure I'm not the only one that is tired of all the bullshit dickheads on here that have nothing better to do than try to knock someone down that gets their work shown.  No one cares if you're seeing 'too much' of this style of photography!  Shut the fuck up.  There isn't a wealth of fun, informative sites like these on the internet, so shut up and enjoy it for what it is.  That is all.

 So no one should care if you have something to say, either?

I'm not sure what that means, but probably 'yes.'

exactly!