***

I am not sure how technically perfect this photograph is but I feel if it catches a person's attention, then it is a great photograph. This did catch my attention!

I love the colors, the way it was cropped (would not crop anymore) and the young lady is a beauty...seemingly caught daydreaming.

Okay, I have to say it: Very interesting, captivating subject.

 

That being said, I really like the balance of the cropping--for me it effectively distributes the weight. However, I'd still probably take a

little off the left side just because the wood is extremely blurry, which I find distracting--I don't mean take it all off, just some of the out-

of-focus part. It's too bad a slightly wider aperture wasn't used--like I said, I really like the weight.

 

Also, has anyone else noticed the really RED synthetic looking dreads to the right? Nothing for or against them, I just haven't read a

comment about them yet.

 

Good job.

Well, this was a truly interesting discussion. I think I'd oppose two sides here, reading the comments on this page:

 

The side of those who were glad to see a natural portrait that had no Photoshop done to it

 

The side of those who thought the picture needed a crop, or a contrast boost, or some skin retouching, or some color adjustments, etc

 

I'm affraid I'll have to create a third side somewhere in between. I do not mind at all to see a very natural portrait - in fact I like it very much at times, it's refreshing nowadays. And so I would not suggest touching up this or that. I like that comment somewhere saying that the strength of this photo was its "as isness". I agree with that part. Then I read that the tree was part of the story and shouldn't be cropped off - to me it's not a distraction. I agree with that as well. The same for the neck: I have no problem with it and if it were cropped off, the face would be framed too tight - it's already too tight as is imo.

 

But then I agree as well with what Graham Huber wrote here in terms of the fundamental appeal that seems missing here, and I agree with those who see the expression here as "no big deal". It's not bad, but it's not great in terms of her eyes and expression. It's nice in terms of flatness and depth, I agree with the elf on that part, but at the end of the day, what does it really say ? I read nothing, or nothing much, except perhaps emptiness and a bit of boredom in these eyes. I see a contradiction indeed between the expression and the hairstyle. That's where this picture starts, for me. That's where it could have made my day, but the story stops exactly where it starts. And finally, Graham Huber was right imo to say this is pretty much the benchmark of where a decent portrait should start. But as I see it, Photoshop is never "necessary". What we need in a portrait is just a way - ANY way - to make something spark. For a GREAT portrait, I believe we need a real story to start and end somewhere, a story that allows us to read the person. This POW portrait is indeed an interesting picture, but it has no catch, no real life, no psychological depth to it - in my view. Best regards.

For a portrait, this is quite original, from the landscape format to the pose. IMO the image is very good under all aspects, including the smooth colors, lighting, focus and detail. Summing up, an outstanding image!

This picture seem to be the only untouched image in Lev's folder. What this tells me, is that Lev intended to

present us with the subject in a candid moment without deep meaning nor interference (through photoshop). In

other words, it's a picture Of and About her, not a picture About photography or

its technique, although the intimate connection of the tight shot (between the two) blurs the distinction.

I think from time to time we all forget that perhaps, maybe, just maybe photographs are taken on a whim, that is, without serious planning or consideration. Simply for fun. To experiment, or capture things one wouldn’t normally capture. To document people or things one wouldn’t normally encounter. To forget the silly rules we burden ourselves with day in and day out, and to just be free and shoot with childlike curiosity again.

 

All I see here is a quick snapshot showcasing the girl, her quiet disposition and her awfully wild hair… nothing more, nothing less, which is perfectly A-OK with me. It has generated great discussion, made our gears turn, and is serving the purpose of the pow perfectly.

 

All the garbage about it's success as a headshot or what have you is misguided imo.

I think the capture is great. I just think the photo is not finished. Lacks contrast for me. flat and boring. you have a great capture but not a

great photo. I bet if you added a little contrast, maybe an 85 filter, and some color separation between the whites and blacks you would

have a fantastic photo. One that most likely matches the subjects personality as well. The best part about shooting digital is all the tools

available to us after we shoot the image. There are just to many people not taking advantage of these tools. In my opinion, they are leaving

way to much of their image in the air.

Please take the time to read if you feel you have some...

 

As a "dread-head" and seriously amateur photographer, I'm surprised* at some of the ignorant views of dreadlocks here;

"As far as the model herself, nasty dreadlocks and a blue face don't do anything for me."

"Photo: Great. Hair: Disgusting."

"lovely subject (even with strange hair)."

"I believe that most people would view someone with dreads as mavericks or nonconforming individuals or dope-smokers...as in Rastafari. But that right eye, which draws me in, tells me that this young lady is secure in her beliefs and confortable within her own skin." - So what if it was a dull eyed, obvious "Dope smoker"? You're basically saying you'd have preconceptions until they proved you otherwise. Who cares about what most people view when it comes to photography anyway? Most people are almost always wrong about that type of thing, or even about what it is to be a dope smoker, who are almost always, open minded and kind hearted. In any case, a good shot is a good shot.

 

*I am surprised because a) I always believed photographers to be somewhat worldy and open-minded and b) I see the personal and narrow minded opinions as irrelevant in this discussion. If I said "I find comb-overs disgusting" or "Orange faces" I would possibly offend half the people here.

It is especially irrelevant as noone would probably even notice straight brown hair, dreadlocks were clearly wanted as a part of this photograph. By this artist.

 

I agree that the photograph might have benefitted from being taken from slightly farther away, and that there is some kind of disjointed feel between the left and right eye, but despite few minor slight improvements, and having read every comment in this discussion, I find MATT VARDY'S the most poignant, especially in relation to the extremely detailed analysis made by GRAHAM HUBER.

Matt's comment can be found a few comments up and I very much agree with his down to earth, refreshing opinion. Having trawled through thoughts of technical changes and bickerings of Photoshop, I feel his view to be fundamental to photography. For me, the concept or ideas surrounding the photo are central to much photographical career. "The eye for the moment" can be lost with too much preparation.

The point is being able to perfect as much as possible the ability to very quickly get the best aesthetic for that fleeting moment, whether or not a magazine would have to retouch it may be irrelevant for this artist..

 

It's disheartening as an amateur to hear such emotionally detached critique from a professional, assuming an intention of immediate mass production and seemingly smothered in an artificial world of blemish removal.

The most disheartening of critiques I feel come in the form of such like, "Let it be said that "interesting" shots are not necessarily "good" - especially for commercial purposes." I'm sorry but, eugh.... The Elves not only didn't mention "interesting, for sale" but I would even go as far as to say, (maybe because these comments make me mildly angry,) that shots are "Rarely "good" - WHEN THEY ARE ONLY intended for commercial purposes", and that besides that, who cares what I think because when is comes to art since the beginning of chipping patterns in rocks, GOOD is wholly subjective, and that didn't change with the invention of airbrushing.

 

Why does everything have to be "Blah blah it's not commercially viable"? I wasn't aware this was a website strictly for the commercial sale of artwork, but for discussion and improvement, hence critique shouldn't come round to "I wouldnt be interested in selling this, its amateur flickr and OK at best." Also irrelevant I feel.

Who knows, she may not be at the point of or even interested in mass commercial sale, not everyone is. Maybe she simply enjoys photography, as I do?

 

Much of any form of art is the artist's natural ability and what you wish to acheive from that. Many people can take a great technical shot of a flower, but just could not manage to see or notice what works well in a split second, or an ordinary object from a different perpective. Anyone can learn the millions of techniques and take picture after picture of the same, every day thing or person. I don't think people should forget just how broad this field and different every individual is.

 

 

To me, the photographers who make the most impact on the world and who clearly portray the most depth in their work, technically experienced or not, will forever be the refreshing, inspiring and commercially unburdened.

 

 

"[i think we can forget that photographs can be taken on a whim] To document people or things one wouldn’t normally encounter. To forget the silly rules we burden ourselves with day in and day out, and to just be free and shoot with childlike curiosity again." - Matt Vardy, Artist; Legend! ;)

 

This is very well exposed.It should be expected a darker left eye that is shaded by the dreadlocks, but no.I like the skin tone and the sharpness that is the proper for such kind of portraits.The hair color, the eyes and the green backround compose a very pleasant result.My regards.

It's a good picture and makes good use of available light on a cloudy day, but I don't feel the 'experience'

 

Viscerally—and the hair really makes little difference to me, it just feels like the costume that many kids have made of dreads, mohawks, et al—I'm just not feeling it. I am also bothered by the wood she is leaning up against for the obvious reason.

 

On the other hand we are here to discuss and on that note they picked a dandy.

the photograph is well framed and I love the expression and contrast between face and hair. However, the lighting is a little off. I'd like to see more vibrancy in the coloring or perhaps more light on her eyes to fill the shadows. Her eyes have a great expression. it'd be good to bring them out a little more.

nice job, overall.

I have been on photo.net for a short time, but this is my favorite photo. Unbelievable.

Beautiful.

 

Photograph I can look at for hours and not get bored. Such a vibrant colors. Truly beautiful.

She is looking right at you and you are looking right into her blue eyes. She tells you something. This photo tells you something.