high key Veny

Congratulation ;)

Mona- interesting, the difference between a "printing" & a "photograph". Why would that be? I am very interested.

I'm not fond of the way the background speckles appear as a halo around the top edge of the model. It looks like a sloppy Photoshop job and that prevents me from appreciating the photo.

If this picture has taught me anything, it is that I need to refine my photoshop (GIMP) skills to a much higher level. What looks like a throw-away shot was turned into a rather nice image.

 

As far as originality is concerned, what hasn't been done before? If 2 songs use the same chord progression, does that preclude them from being great music?

 

Scott

Marketa has been on my interesting list for a while - not because she is the best photographer here, but because she isn't afraid to experiment and share with us the experiments she is working with. I'm sure this is a technique she is playing with and just learning to master, and I, at least, have learned something from the close look at it the POW affords.

 

This kind of high key treatment is often tried not just with camera but with pencil and paper - how often has this pose been sketched (yes, John, in Art Class 101)? And the shot looks a bit like a sketch. But, as Mona and others have noted, the darkness of the hair brings our focus to it, and a "study" of hair really doesn't hold our attention. Would this have been improved with further lightening to the hair and darkening to some of the body curves, perhaps in around her neck and knees?

Jayme, I will give a little info here, but don't want to get too far off track. "G" made the

comment about using and understanding what high key is. Essentially, high key just

means that the predominance of the tones are of high, light, value and does not rely on

overexposure. This photo, orignal, is high key but overexposed, but a normally shot high

key photo can be printed normally and/or will look fine on transparency film.

 

The high key printing method I was speaking of, and which this photo is reminiscent of, is

where you move the tones up, and essentially end up with no true blacks (high key photos

will generally have some blacks) If you shoot a very high key photo, or overexpose like

here,

and you try to move the blacks up, you have no headroom and start losing valuable detail

in the highs--might be ok for some, but I like to see the modeling of the form and think

digital blowouts generate a less appealing feel than their organic counterparts. I think

that is what we see here to some extent, although there was already quite a loss in the

highs in the original exposure. (I realize that there are techniques to control some of this

loss, but just wanted to give a general framework of the differences)

 

I hope this is clear, but if not, or you have other questions, please feel free to e-mail me.

This photo has actually been very useful for me. I have never really studied high-key images. It was interesting to look at the image in Photoshop with the histogram and info windows.

 

I would be inclined to agree that the artifact around the model's back is a little rough. Some feathering and blurring of the background in that part of the image might help.

Sweet simple lines. Very organic and fluid framing.

 

Looks like a darkroom bleached silver print. Is it?

I stand corrected regarding it being a darkroom bleached print.

 

Nothing wrong with photoshop process though. Old timers (being one myself) sometimes have issues with digital/photoshop process.

 

Still has merit and it is a sweet shot.

 

Being new to this, I cannot help but wonder who the elves are...

I suggest this image for next POW, technically better than current:

 

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3539487-sm.jpg

 

***

by Maxim Kalmykov

Technically, whether this or that EV should have been used for a "proper" exposure, maybe you can say it is superior as a question of academics. But only if the final result isn't borne of Marketa's choices.

 

Based on Marketa's portfolio, I don't believe she is technically deficient.

 

As art, signified by the individual's choices made to get to what we are viewing and how they affect the viewer, Marketa's vision is stronger and comes across as less contrived. The tone of her photograph is stronger, and in my opinion more appropriate based on the basic idea, as well as how well it is carried out, defined by the elements and strength of style.

 

From Marketa's biography: "I try to use a distinct and thus an identifiable style."

 

If 30% of the comments here are based on the keying and exposure and whether it is "proper", then that 30% is missing the point of art. The true artist knows the rules, a.k.a. the present conventions, and once the rules are second nature, knows when and how to break them.

 

Marketa knows when to break the rules.

why is it impoarant if it is overexposed or not. Who cares about overexposure in such cases? What details do you miss in the burned out highlights? This image is not chosen as POV because it's technically perfect.

Overall I find the image something that I've seen many times before. The treatment of the image is also not original, and I find the discussion on the high tones a veiled excuse for justifying the flaws in the presentation. It reminds me of an art school class, and I often wonder why so many images including this one constantly strive to be "like art done before" when this is simply not neccessary.

I attach my personal rendition of Mr. Kalmykov's work, with HIGHKEY levels treatment. Regardig with current POW, technically better, and ARTISTICALLY... hhmmm... ﾿worst, equal, better?

 

P.S.: I remark Marketa's high technical skill, but (you know) in gymnastics a 9.9 easily wins a 9.8 (both technical and artistic merits do account).

To me it looks like the photographer was trying to mimic a marble sculpture with the effect - the lack of some detail makes the model look like white stone. It's pretty.

 

I agree with some other posters that the "speckled" or "splotchy" background around the model's back and head is a bit distracting, and I too would like to see more definition in arm/back area.

 

But overall, I think it's quite nice!

Jennifer

So far we have had at least two alternative pics posted or linked to on this thread employing a similar pose and asserted to be superior technically. If the purpose of photography is to impress others with one's technical proficiency then I agree they are both better pictures. I don't pretend to know what the purpose of photography is. But I think it is not that.

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Marketa's purpose was to make a model look as beautiful as possible, or, to spread the credit more equitably, to bring out the true beauty of a model. I will opine that on this criterion Marketa blows away Kalmykov. I was struck from the first time I saw this POW with the beautiful lines and proportions of the girl, and I know that doesn't happen by accident. Every part of the body looks as smooth and perfectly proportioned as I could wish. I wouldn't change a single line, except that I would like to see the line of that left arm.

 

By contrast, Kalmykov's model is posed in such a way that many of her muscles show an unappealing tension, her right knee appears too sharp, there is an unattactive concavity on the front line of her right leg that leads to an unattractive convexity around the ankle, her hands are jumbled up with her feet and as a result look too big, her head is posed as if vomiting, and the hair up in a bun looks unnatural. Yes, he has succeeded in making the model's skin look like it is made of pewter, if that's a good thing, but for my money - and I know it's subjective - he has not shown the female form as well. Maybe that's not his purpose. But, for me, it makes Marketa's picture memorable and Kalmykov's forgettable.

I found the (Veny's) pose to be strong without being rigid. It seems further softened by the fall of hair. The background gray around the figure is a distraction albeit a minor one. I do envy Ms. Uhlirova's talent. Well done.

beautiful model

 

and nice comp - Light

 

i love it

Love how the "tension" in the triangle contradicts the soft feminine curves. Very nicely done.

Superb work even if I like more the original colors/tones.

It's a very nice composition and the highkey is perfect!

Very nice picture, when a picture is good it is like music, you have to listen not to speak.

I would like to make my touch with a perfect white background, but perhaps it loose some armonics in the music.

My best regards.

This is gorgeous! The line of the model is perfect! Is this for sale...at what size...and what price?

Very nice high-key image. The triangular shape pose makes a perfect composition. Congrats.

Glorious!