Regarding the yellow tint, it just adds another aesthetic dimension to the photo and thusly creates a more complex overall aesthetic of the photo.

Although the mainstream aesthetics have been geared toward beauty, there are many aesthetics other than beauty. Dreadful, for instance, is an aesthetic and an example of it although I subjectively may not call the aesthetic of the color dreadful.

Though simplistic and limited, the dichotomy of beauty and the sublime can be used to illustrate the point. Or, we can talk about, say, prettiness vs. non-prettiness.

The subject of the photo is a pretty lady smiling in wind. But, the treatment of the photo including the yellow tint, eye details/shadow, texture, crudeness, etc., is not to enhance the superficial prettiness of the subject but to create aesthetic tension by introducing contrasting aesthetic qualities other than prettiness. This creates aesthetic complexity and can deepen the abstract, whatever the author intends it to be. This strategy is rather common in the art world; therefore, I am going to assume it is at least not uncommon in photography -- I am not sure since I am not a photographer.

BTW, if one approaches aesthetics in terms of “good or bad,” one may be committing an artistic suicide. Different aesthetics are employed for different effects and abstract. One can be selective about them depending on your intention with your photo. And, there may be no such thing as a bad aesthetic. The more open-minded one be about them, the broader and deeper one’s artistic world be.

A viewer's noticing of cheekbones and the bringing out of facial structure, can very much be up to the photographer. Good portrait photographers give their subjects/models credit for a lot. Good subjects/models do the same for the photographer. It's a collaborative effort.

Notice how the cheekbones are shaded, notice the strong line of demarcation at the cheekbone. That's, in great part, the photographer's doing. He makes it organic and seamless enough that a viewer simply thinks of it as the subject's.

Interesting image. I like the "vintage" treatment - it goes well with the subject. I would frame it differently, do not like top edge of the image slashing trough middle of her forehead. I would include some hair on top - she is not bald - is she?. It would make a beautiful series of photos with more images from a beach: 3/4, full length, smiling, hair blowing one way or another - maybe 5-8 images - all with same effect. Again it is very interesting image/subject - I would love to see more.

I am torn - I appreciate some aspects of this image (for some of the reasons already given in this thread), and, like others, I am bothered by other aspects of it, eg, grain, heavy shadow areas, color, specks of dirt, etc.. After spending some time trying to get to the bottom of what really attracts me to this image, I decided that there is a suggestion of graphic simplification contained in it that I really like, but I feel that in spite of considerable simplification of detail that has already taken place, it still has too much of the feel of a photograph and was not brought far enough away from the photographic realm. Specifically, I think it could do very well as the basis of a painting (either digital or real) or even a very highly simplified piece of graphic art.

I'm a very visual and concrete type of guy, so I always try to test hypotheses and suggestions that I make by actually trying them out myself. Changing someone's photo is almost guaranteed not to be in accord with the original intent and goals of an experienced artist, and is at odds with how many experienced people critique images, but at minimum, it helps me clarify my understanding and appreciation of a piece, and hopefully may do the same for others.

My first little experiment produced the attached version of the OP's image. On the plus side, it allows me to get an idea of how the image might look if the grain, color and heavy shadows were all reduced and it was moved further away from photographic "realism". I now get a feeling of strength and nobility in the woman that I hadn't seen/felt in the original. However, on the negative side, I feel that I managed to almost completely kill the 70's-young love-beach nostalgia feel it had and I made it much more conventional and less interesting / mysterious / suggestive. Bah! There must be a way to retain more of the good qualities, but I haven't figured it out yet. Phooey!

Tom M

I still think that Stasys was doing what he could with a picture that wouldn't print very well conventionally, because there's no detail in the eyes. So, he applied a lot of sepia or selinium like coloring to cover over these deficiencies and voila, he had a picture with a lot of toning and a little mood, and it's not a bad outcome, since it couldn't be printed in any other way.

Seems to me that it's kind of a conventional mood that's being conveyed, so I don't think it's all that great, but if I could get this out of an otherwise unprintable picture, I might be reasonably pleased with the results.

I don't know what Stasys started with and what his intentions were in making this photo, whether he envisioned this kind of result or used it as compensation for the shot he had. I do know that I've had some technically very good shots, with lots of detail in the eyes and shadows, no burned-out highlights, etc., where my vision led me to a place where I purposely created black holes and burned highlights in post processing. I know many here would be upset with me. That's the price I pay for doing what I want. Not every photo is modeled after Ansel Adams. And . . . many great photos come about through compensation or compromise. Not everything starts off and ends up perfect . . . thankfully.

Taste is a personal matter. No one should like this or shouldn't like this. I completely understand that this kind of photo won't appeal to some. I would expect that.

It's often hard to determine the line where bad technique and expressively unusual technique can be separated. I judge by what I see and what I feel. I accept certain approaches to technique in some cases and not in others, depending on the context and how it weaves with the entire photo. In this case, the technique seems part of the photo to me, organic with everything else about it.

I'm not sure why grain, dirt and such are not photographic. In fact, a platinum prints and gravures can absolutely show paper texture and any of the contact print methods can have dirt, stains and such introduced in the printing process. Just the other day I was listening to a panel of top photographic folks--curators, educators etc--jump all over another one who mentioned the lack of a clean print when reviewing some work, reminding her of Walker Evans' and others whose prints exhibit dirt, even fly parts, in their prints. We get used to clean prints both from our labs and on our monitors, but textures like this have long been part of photography and how we express ourselves with it.

The color reminds me, as I said, of some of Edward Curtis prints http://bit.ly/LjUfcc -and there are also some pretty dark details here--and this is not one of the worst in that regard. In fact, one of his most famous prints is almost all black with few details at all. I don't think that this is the exact one I was thinking about, but http://bit.ly/KBNEIT anyway. Part of our use of technique is to try to create a mood or feeling from looking. Dirt, color, darkness etc can all conspire to create something that challenges our "standards".

Anyway, as Fred said above, it isn't that anyone needs to respond but I would hope that folks might accept that often technique can be abused to convey a thought or feeling. Knowing how to do it right allows for creative departure and control of the result.

I don't think you guys should act like this picture is so "hard to get." It's a fairly conventional picture, in my opinion. You get a few pictures like this, put them up on a wall, get some new slacks and shirts and put them on a few racks below the pictures, and you've got a Gap or Old Navy Store or something like that.

It's an OK picture, but it doesn't herald the coming of a new artistic movement or the reprise of a great old one.

Martin, the argument against this image is all based on technique, I think that is all that Fred or I have suggested, that technique can be used/abused as a means to an end. Photographs don't have to be perfect to be worthy of looking at, which seems to be the underlying theme here for those who don't respond to this image--no one is suggesting more.

I don't think I'm deadset against the technique. For whatever reason it was used, I just think that it led to only a modestly expressive picture.

The portrait of the American Indian at the first link in John's posting above is masterfully done, and to compare the POW to that is . . . well . . . I don't get it.

I look at it and say "I've been there, I've seen her, and it make me feel good". I have the opportunity to mentally build in the details into this image that relate to me. Stasys has given me that opportunity. It is a framework, a foundation. I can see that those who can't 'fill in the blanks' won't like this photo.
This image brings me back to my youth and I thank Stasys for sharing it.

John, I downloaded the first Curtis picture you linked to, opened it in Photoshop, and upsized it by 400 percent to give me a few more pixels so I could sharpen it a little, and then compared it to Stasys's picture, which I had also downloaded. The contrast couldn't be any starker. Curtis's is a rock-solid masterwork and Stasys's is oddly cropped at the forehead, oversaturated, and way too contrasty.

The second Curtis picture you linked to, with the line of cattle--I don't think it's a very good picture. I don't like it. It's a blurry mess.

This picture is not to my taste in a conventional way, but I understand the approach. It's not a picture to please a sitter or viewer but rather it's more deeply personal, like a dream or distant memory I had. A quick flash of a moment in life long ago that is now just a buried fragment of thought, grown dim and dirty in the clutter of memory and time, of a girl I once loved. All I can remember of her was that windswept, sunny day and that smile. She was young and beautiful and I was strong and clever and said something funny to make her laugh. We were carefree and happy that moment.

I sometimes have flashes of fragmented memories like this and this picture reminded me of them.

Louis, that is one of the more eloquent statements that I have ever read on this forum. You have nailed it for me. It's about a beautiful girl long ago in a setting that can never be replicated.

That, at least, is what I fill in the blanks with where her eyes and mouth are concerned, and whatever her hair and skin color might have been. For others, it transcends gender as well.

This photo, like all photos, is not only about the subject but about what the viewer brings to the viewing. This photo, more than most photos, is not only about the subject but about what the viewer brings to the viewing.

I get the sense that several of the other pictures in the same folder are probably of the same woman. It doesn't matter to me whether this image began life as a snap or as a series of carefully posed shots. The particular post processing techniques are likewise a matter of great irrelevance. I like the effect, and that effect resonates with something in my own personal history. I am incapable of objectivity in evaluating a photo like this.

As Fred said far above (Jun 19, 2012; 11:52 a.m.), this one is about vision, and it is from the gut. As you said, Louis, it is "deeply personal," at the same time that it is very nearly universal.

A picture that stretches from the personal to the universal: thank you for that, Stasys!

--Lannie

I sent a message to the photographer via Facebook that his work was selected for discussion and that his input on its making would be greatly appreciated. Hope he responds.

The post-processing in this image is so very topical in this image. In the age of Instagram and the vintage look this almost has the feel of 60's sexual chic. I like the tones very much as they add to the element of allure.

For me , this is an exceptional photo, very powerful sense of attraction to the hidden story in it pertaining to events in the past, probably in memories,etc. Its not a "garden variety" type of photograph, in such way judging the details in shadows, high shocking contrast in it, very striking color cast and dirt/speckles. The photo powerfully take me to the past, a past full of unraveled memories, i such a way , eg. you find an old "dusy and rusty" photo among papers of an old book. Also its not such a photo deciding to print in large size and hang on office wall. Its just a some personal memories hidden in an old photo. I like the space and powerful sense it.

I am nothing if not persistent. I've sent another message to the photographer, this time via a stock photo company he works with. And in all the time I've spent trying to find him, I've bumped into this Photo of the Week repeatedly and now respect and admire what he's done.

He's posted another of this woman that I also like:

http://www.photodom.com/photo/452061

The title is "ЛЕТО" which means Summer, I believe in Russian or Lithuanian.

Alberta, it's refreshing to hear that you've changed your mind . . . a state not often expressed on PN. Sometimes, the photos I like best are the ones I started off not liking and, for one reason or another, grew on me. I even have a couple of my own that I started off a little unsure of and appreciate more as time goes by.

yes, velcome to zee dark side...

Big black holes where eyes should be. Another black hole where her mouth should be, giving her a toothless look. Big black blotches where hair should be. And this is a summer "portrait"? No. Just no. This is one of the worst photographs I've ever seen.


have to agree, looks like it was cut from an old yellowed newspaper and scanned.

Everyone remembers this girl. We all spent that summer with her. We all loved her. (The specifics of it all, of course, are kind of hazy.)

I think this is what stock photos are meant to do: evoke similiar responses from as many people as possible So, it makes sense to me that Stasys markets this and similar pictures as stock photos.

John, a few weeks ago, I think you commented that there was a hot spot on a child's face that would make the picture hard to print. Why is an area of the picture that is completely black any better?

Martin - I don't believe this is a stock photo. I did not find it on any of the sites at which Stasys markets his stock photos. I think this and several other portraits are part of a personal collection. And if we can think, for a moment, that they are personal and see that several are of the same woman, then I think it's easy to come to the conclusion that this woman means something to him. My guess is a relative. I want to think so. It then explains the intimacy of the wonderful expressions on her face in his various photos of her. Stock photos don't capture intimacy. At least not the ones I'm familiar with.

Martin, this is a very different style of photo from the one John A commented on a few weeks back. Context is everything. A blown highlight or blackened shadow which will not work or be tolerated in an Ansel Adams photo will work extremely well in, for example, a contemporary Japanese photo. Why? Context. Style. Communication.

Not all photos are the same. It's a matter of internal organic relationships within each photo, not of following certain rules of technique across all styles and genres. Nan Goldin bleeds colors into each other, has color aberrations encroaching the shadows in many of the faces of her subjects. See HERE. Goldin makes use of some very strong color effects to convey emotion, context, location, and other things. EVEN YELLOW! See HERE. That wouldn't work in a Joel Meyerowitz photo. HERE. Or a Harry Callahan photo. HERE. It would, instead, be a mistake for someone doing work with the sensibility of the latter two, which is not better or worse, just different.

What the photographer was doing in the photo of the little girl John A commented on was creating a very traditional-looking and classic portrait. That's not the genre or style Stasys is working in here. Again, that doesn't mean you should like it. But we should at least understand what he's trying to do and NOT trying to do and judge his work on its terms rather than terms that would apply to other photographs. John A was constructively trying to help that other photographer achieve the vision he seemed to be going for, where a blown highlight was a distraction to the overall look and technique. He was not trying to turn it into a different type of photo. He was honoring the photographer's chosen genre and style. Were I to suspect that Stasys was trying to make the kind of photo that other photographer made, or going for the look of Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, or Joel Meyerowitz, I'd say he failed miserably. But that's obviously not the case. Different worlds.