1. The portraits were made with constant lighting, no direction, and no second takes. As a practitioner, what do you see in the work that you think those conditions produced?

2. The series is presented as a typology, with consistent lighting, framing, and scale across the sitters. What did the repetition of those conditions open up for you as a viewer, and what did it close down?

3. The prints are large and the lighting leans into chiaroscuro. How did the scale and the shadows affect your reading of the sitters, and would the work hold the same weight at a smaller size or in flatter light?

4. The work is interested in the gap between how people intend to present themselves and what actually ends up in the frame. Did you see that gap in any of the portraits, and if so, what showed it?

5. Having read the artist statement, do you think the work delivers on what it sets out to do? Where does it land most clearly, and where does it fall short?

6. Where would you place Relinquished Presence in the broader tradition of portrait photography, and what does it do differently from the work it sits next to?