single photos Photo

I want to see the photo of the thing/person on the right that she's pointing to! Never did see the point of fly-away hair in studio shots.

Beautiful picture...I love the color tone,,,,,

wonderful shot, very nice tonalities and light, very elegant, congratulations 7/7

I love this portrait! It's sexy without being obvious.

It's a competent photograph, no doubt about it.  The background is soft, and well lit, allowing plenty of separation around all parts of the subject without calling attention to itself.  The lighting is pure, clean, and well suited for the subject's face.  The catch lights are bright and sparkling. The drape around her shoulders is a little wrinkled, but not too much, and yes, as Hans says, her hair flies all over the place, which has become a studio tradition. She has a lot of hair, though, and maybe without the wind, it would have hung like a dull rag from her head.  The hand, sure, that's a point of contention, but it's nice to see something other than her face.  As beautiful as she is, and as well crafted as this photograph is, it's true: There are thousands of thousands of photos of pretty girls on this site, and one doesn't have to go far to find them. Makes one think that pretty girls are actually quite common. 

So, questions a photo like this might impart , once one gets past the “ahhh, pretty” response, is "Does her personality have any correlation to her appearance?"  and, “What, really, is the subject of this photo?”

The gratification factor involved in pretty girl shoots is high enough to entice just about any photographer, male and female alike, to try their hand.   But, assuming this is not a commercial shot, one still wants to know what this person is like, and how much of her actual self comes through in the photograph.  Glamour photos lead a viewer to think the subject is always glamorous.  Portrayed in a bedroom setting clothed in flimsy lingerie, for example, might lead one to think the subject lolls around her house in a perpetual state of undress.   The studio setting we see here tends to prevent that thinking.  In other words, one recognizes that a girl posing in a studio, no matter what she is wearing, is doing just that: posing in a studio.  Compare the feeling of this shot with other pretty girl photos in POW’s past.  Notice how, in those created in a studio setting, the subject is not so much the individual, but the quality of the individual’s appearance, as opposed to those created on location, which tend to impart more personality.  

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=1231732

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=2931940

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=2525305

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=2407051

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=3903068

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=5263137

"...lip gloss"...? Ever heard the phrase "gilding the lily"?

As for a lack of "originality" this is a portrait, not a car ad. The photographer wants to show you what this woman looks like, and I appreciate that she is more present in the image than the photographer and his creative decisions.

Simple light, simple garments, MINIMAL make up, a constrained palette and a direct un-wavering gaze make this a portrait that should be valued by this woman and her descendants for generations to come. The fact that some of you don't find it to be your "cup of tea"... etc, are irrelevant to the success of the image. It just means you have a limited range in your personal tastes, and an over-arching need to stay within that range... t

Well stated, Doug. Rather than presenting an archetype, here we have an individual. The photograph does its job by raising our curiosity about the person, who is actually like no other. How much more "original" can you get?... t

Doug said:
So, questions a photo like this might impart , once one gets past the ?ahhh, pretty? response, is "Does her personality have any correlation to her appearance?" and, ?What, really, is the subject of this photo??

Doug,

I don't know how to respond - I didn't even take the photo and I am reading your comment as "slamming" the photographer. Am I wrong?

If you really want to get into it, photography is just a recording device, like a tape recorder. But then again, are the folks who record their sounds artists? I don't know - Bob Dyllan is an overrated hack in my opinion, for example.

Where does technical ability become art? I don't know.

I'm not an academic, so I'm not someone who is qualified to critique someone's expression of their art. I just experience someone's photos for what they are. And this photo by Pavel Krukov is quite good and strikes me on an emotional level, unlike Ansel Adams or Bruce Springsteen.

Tom Meyer....you are argumentative. Pavel has put his image up for feedback and its not up

to you to comment on comments as you are want to do. Instead you should offer your own

comments and suggestions. No one is being nasty about Pavel's image, we are merely giving

our points of view. Lip gloss is hardly "Gilding the Lily" its an accepted practice in portraiture.

Dave, I'm not slamming Pavel at all. Not at all. I'm making a personal response to the photograph, and then to the person portrayed. If certain things were different in my life, I'd be attempting this very same kind of image. Believe me.

 

No, I'm simply asking a few general questions. Think of a snapshot of your mother, or your child. It might be precious in your eyes because of your emotional attachment to the subject, where I might have no interest in it, at all, because it's out of focus, or poorly composed. In like manner, it's easy for me to regard this photograph highly because I find the subject appealing on a physical level, and because she is professionally and competently captured. Once I get past my initial response, though?.then what? What are we left with after we acknowledge the physical beauty of this image? This is not a statue, or a symbol, but a real person. What is she like? Is she as attractive in person as she appears in this photograph? Can she hold a conversation? Might she have a peculiar fondness for aging fat bald photographers?

 

Setting aside the issue of the hand, and the blue tint, we might say that Pavel, as a photographer, did everything right with this photograph; but, is that enough to keep it from disappearing among the thousands of other photographs of the other beautiful women that photographers have photographed since photography was invented. It's an excellent photograph of a beautiful woman, that much is fairly undisputed. My question was whether it was anything else, and whether Pavel set out to capture her personality, or to simply enjoy (and record) her beauty.

 

So, no...I'm not trying to degrade this work, but trying to respond to it, and her, in a personal manner. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I would actually consider my comments to be very complimentary in that this photograph draws me closer to the person depicted.

Excellent portrait work from a great photographer. Simplicity, elegance, beautiful tones and perfect framing.

I've looked at this photograph quite a few more times since my original comment, so I'll add a couple more thoughts.

 

After looking at it, I think the blown hair adds a bit of movement to what would otherwise be a static studio portrait. It adds a touch (just a touch) of glam as well. Sometimes that's a good thing, and in this case it works for me.

 

I think the model is fine with the amount of makeup present. I see nice shadows outlining her cheekbones, so I see no need for makeup to enhance that part. I also see highlights on her lower lip, so again I see no need for lip gloss enhancement. And if you don't light glossed lips just right, you'll end up with specular and/or blown out highlights that you'll just have to correct post-shoot. I think overdone makeup would turn this into a total glamour portrait that just about anyone can do.

 

I've come to like her expression, which I see as being sort of quizzical or questioning. It's way better than a fake smile.

 

Lack of originality has cropped up in this discussion a few times. Unless a photographer shoots a lot of portraits, I think many don't realize just how hard it can be to be "original." Unless they're using props, exotic/weird backgrounds, or a lot of post-shoot effects. That's one part I think the hand plays in this shot...it adds a touch of originality, especially with the extended forefinger.

 

The photographer here has made his choice as to how he wanted to complete the photo with the bluish tone. It may mean something to him, which is fine, even though I don't know what it might mean. It just seems too cold to me. Being a sort of traditional b&w guy, I still don't like the tone. At all.

Guilty as charged. You are defensive. I am not required to criticize in a vacuum. This is a conversation, a "discussion forum", not a series of independent soliloquies.

Doug responded: "I would actually consider my comments to be very complimentary in that this photograph draws me closer to the person depicted."... and I read his comments that way. And despite JD's defensive backlash, I was trying to say the same thing, but in a more churlish, antagonistic way. I am weary of platitudes and myopic sermons... t

On a different note, the depth created by the background light and the sharpess of the hair is wonderful. If I stare at the picture, the lady almost stands out, giving it a hologram-like quality!!

I like this beautiful portrait because it is charged with quiet action and intensity. Here is what I imagine: I hope Pavel might tell us if this scenerio has any correspondance to his reality. I imagine that Pavel asked his model to look away, to think deeply of who he IS on this earth, and then to turn and SEE him entirely. Thus the swing of her hair could be turning momentum. Thus her unique, individual gaze. I like her natural hand. The angle compliments the angle of her wrap, which she is holding. If you notice, she has a loose fold of her wrap between her thumb and forefinger, thus bringing it closer to her breast, and so we subtly see the shape of her nipple. 7/7

boring.

Very good portrait, but not unusually so. A good professional (and a lot of good amateurs) can do this day in and day out. Nice to have a beautiful subject as well.

and any one of them would be proud of the accomplishment. Rightly so.

It takes a discriminating eye to detect the difference between boring and subtle, exciting and excessive, a classic and a cliche'. Lazy, or impatient observers will be mislead... t

I view this as a classic portrait of a beautiful woman. Lovely, the way the back-light gives her a gentle glowing effect. Nice "Old Masters" side-lighting too. However, I think because the fan is blowing at her from the front, she appears to be squinting a bit. I do like the way her flowing hair gives some movement to the image.

As for the hand, on my monitor, (admittedly, all monitors may see a web image slightly different), I think because there is only a slight separation in this area of the subject from the background, it tends to make the hand appear to be floating free. You could lighten the area slightly via Dodging or use of Levels & a layer mask in PS, this might correct the "floating" feeling experienced by the viewer & anchor it down a little. Nothing drastic, just ever so lightly.

Otherwise, I like the hair-lights, the catch-lights & the way the drape is positioned so that it creates a dramatic diagonal across the image. Very provocative. The little wisps of hair are also nice. Wonderful highlighting of her neck.

The discussion about what the image is conveying is an interesting one. If this were a famous woman, it most likely would become an instant classic. But... because she is not a famous woman, the image becomes little more than an well done image of a very beautiful woman to be cherished by her family for years to come.

Unlike most of the Old Masters, she has no relationship with her surroundings. I recently viewed a Rembrandt painting of a woman, posed much like this & lit much like this. However, it was part of a set of 2 (the woman & her husband). The other painting of her husband was located at another museum. My point, if this were placed next to another image of say her husband, it would then give it instant meaning or tell a story.

I also recently visited a gallery showing of Shelby Adam's photos (Photographer that takes portraits of Eastern KY people in their surroundings). Every image told a story because of the relationship of the subject to their surroundings. He was able to capture a small part of their personality in each image.

Shelby Adams

I find each individual's reaction to this image fascinating. I am put off by some of the ad hominem comments. Each person has something to add to the discussion, and we are, after all, rendering opinions, not statements of fact. Some like the blue cast, others don't. Some feel a touch of lip gloss would improve it, others disagree. Without a dialog about these things, we don't get to think about anything but our own, personal response to the photograph. Let's keep the discussions positive rather than criticizing each other's opinions. I learn something from each detailed comment because it propels me to think about what was said, and to form an opinion of my own on that point. This forum isn't about reaching a verdict, it's about exploring various aspects of some artist's rendition of a subject. I like this image, but I think each critique of it is valid, whether I share that opinion or not. Keeps me thinking...

I agree and disagree (big surprise). While I agree that we are sharing opinions rather stating facts in our contributions, it is the contrasting observations that make this "critical" process interesting and possibly even enlightening.

For instance, while this comment I quote was not deliberately meant to be patronizing, its premise certainly is paternal:

"My point, if this were placed next to another image of say her husband, it would then give it instant meaning or tell a story.".

The implication (intentional or otherwise) is that the woman is not capable of inspiring a story without a necessary and defining relationship to a husband/mate. Or that her intense gaze couldn't be inspired by some specific and pointed thought, but is rather an inappropriate disruption (by a fan) of the compliant demeanor that all pretty women should assume when photographed.

The discussion about the discussion is so much more interesting and relevant to the art of photography, than is a dissection of the technical attributes of the photograph and its formative processes... t

Sometimes I wonder if PN`s members are living in the 19.th century

like the Mormons, dressed old fashion, listen only to classic music,

driving around by horses, living in old fashion ways without modern

commodity etc. Anyhow the pictures they make comfirm this supposition.

They are not even nostalgic, they express to belive in a pastiche

world, very sentimental.

 

This picture is absolutly nice, confirms all the ideas from portrait

paintings discovered in the 19. th century,,,long time before anyone

knows what an abstract means.

 

I think it`s ok to make this kind of shots to a haircut-magazine

or to a police rapport or something like that, but to call it ART,,,

then it must a pastiche, retro, kitch-one, not to be taken serious

in the 21.th century.

 

Modern photograhy has now the very best hard/software, which could make any painter/artist envious,,, what about use it,,, and what about

photography started to creat the new ism for visual art,, for the first time.

 

nichroe

Tom and Nichroe both make good points.

 

Nichroe, you might be thinking of the Amish, not the Mormons. I don't know what kind of music the Amish listen to, but they do utilize the horse and buggy, and dress pretty much the same as they did a hundred years ago. My daughter's mormon friend, on the other hand, could school all of us on IPods, cellphones, jet skis, and the latest harry potter movie. But, your point is well taken, at least by me, that photography flounders when it tries to recreate, or reproduce, artistic concepts of the past.

"a police rapport"... what a photo op that might be.

And God knows, what about these silly 21st Century musicians, still using a 12 tone scale?... what archaic romantics they be!... t

I think you missed the nuance Nichroe - besides the absolute perfection of the lighting and the exposure, this image is not about sentimentality, it is her expression that demands study: soft yet severe; confident yet questioning; she's beautiful and she knows it but she is challenging the world to look beyond skin-deep. The fact that the photo was made in a portrait studio with an obvious and often-used background only serves to focus attention on the face and hand - where it should be.