Sandra

I think the shadows make this portrait. It would've been a strong portrait without it but clearly, the final product is much stronger. Black and white also adds to that strength.

The composition and lighting draw one into this image. What is missing for me is the humanity. It could be digital art. Real skin has texture and variable tone. This image is what I would expect in a 'glam' magazine where there are no holds barred in the post-production. Joanne was likely going for that look, and was successful.

In a word: Wow!!!

Superb. Flawless.

This photo has the outside the square attitude....one word" IMPACT"

Cool.! I like the darker surroundings, the streaks give nice effects too.

There is so much to like about this image. I was reminded of one of the classic portraits of Audrey Hepburn -- only this is better. The isolation of the face against the dark background, the striped shadows the full range of tones, the emotion, the sense of mystery. So few images are complete in every aspect. There is nothing more you could possibly want from this image. How many of us finish an image wish that if only the light, if only the clouds, if only, if only. There are no if onlys with this image.
Truly wonderful. I have one question. Did you see the finished image in your mind and set out to create it, or is this image the result of a creative process that evolved during and after the shoot?
Thanks, Joanna, for posting and thanks to the elves for picking.

Stunning. Among the top 5 of my favorites from the last year. I love your entire portfolio
-MC

John, what I see when I look at the classic pictures of Audrey Hepburn you reference are the photographers' desires and abilities to capture Hepburn's amazing expressions. Her eyes tell such a story and range from cuteness to excitement to wide-eyed innocence to pouting to soulful longing. She and the photographs have such personality in pretty much all cases. I completely understand tastes differ and that many people will like this photo a lot. But I see little in this photo of what the photos of Hepburn have. This is a much colder approach, the expression is much less about the subject of the photo and much more about the light and handling and styling of the photo. It seems a much more intentionally vacant expression regarding the subject than anything I've ever seen of Audrey Hepburn.

Fred: I guess it is in the eyes of the beholder, but there was a Hepburn image that really captured this look -- without the shadows. Of course, there was that impish personality of Hepburn that came across that is missing here. You realize that most on the board have no idea who we are talking about. Or, if they do, they think it is a part of ancient history.

LOL. Their loss!

Whenever I look at this, I think of the photographs you see in the front window of a beauty salon. That is, it's very professionally done, but not very interesting. That being said, someone who can achieve this level of professionalism can, no doubt, create photographs that are interesting as well.

Interesting that last week, the picture of the week was of one eye as just part of a not very human face, and here it's of two eyes in a definitely human face. Is the elf stuck in a rut or evolving in taste? I'm not sure.

I'm just not sure it is fair to compare a shot of an unknown model with the shot of a celebrity. Celebrities come with a load already whereas an anonymous model not so much. We bring a lot to the shot of someone who is famous that isn't in the photograph. Hepburn certainly had that certain something and not everyone is a Hepburn.

One issue some might have is the overlay of a "technique" which isn't natural to the situation but created--not sure one could get this effect in a truly natural condition for several technical reasons, so it is maybe more cinematic in that respect. We don't have a context for the effect nor do we have one for this model but I do think both the technique and the image of the model are well done. I don't see this as absent personality or effect but I do see it as more a commercial type of shot. Photography is a lot of different things and I often think we forget that. We don't know the reason for the effect but maybe there was a context for it--a portfolio piece to show capabilities or maybe even an assignment (not all assignment concepts are good, but we don't have anyway to judge that here). Of course, it could just be the photographer's own idea for trying something different. Her website doesn't really hint at doing commercial work but her work on this site and there show an interest in creating a more theatrical or editorial type of feel to her work. It could just be as simple as that.

Bottom line, this is good photography and whether it rises above that is certainly going to be a personal preference.

John, are you prepared to commit that this is good photography or good post production? I realize that the latter cannot happen without the former. Where do you weight it? Some will say 'who cares' but, it does matter when the lines of photography and digital art cross and the image is deemed to be a photograph.

John, in the history of photography, the two have always been inseparable, so I don't know that there is any issue in this regard.

I agree with John A in part. I think you don't necessarily want to compare apples to oranges and there could be limited benefit and sometimes a problem with doing so. One shouldn't expect all photos to accomplish similar things and one must take the type of photo and the context into account. On that level, I never would have myself thought of comparing the present photo of the week with a Hollywood type photo, especially one of Audrey Hepburn. However, as this is a a critique and learning part of the site, I thought the fact that someone had brought up what he perceived as a similarity between photos of Hepburn and this photo of the week warranted some further scrutiny.

In that light, I think the comparison can be elucidating, precisely in seeing how much this photo is not like the photos of Hepburn, in great part due to the person being photographed but also due to the aims of the photographers. One only has to look at the photos of Hepburn to see what was being done with those photos and how different a photo this photo is all around. (I should say "I" only have to look, because obviously others may look and feel differently about it.)

Comparing is not necessarily about the relative goodness or quality of the photos (and I don't think John A was suggesting it is). Comparing can be about simply seeing differences in order to consider how different the goals of various photographs actually are. In any case, it's certainly of value to see how different photographers use models and how important a model's expressiveness can be to a photo that is about the particular model (in the case of Hepburn) vs. how important the photographer's photograph is when a model is not necessarily being used for her expressions but rather as a means to create an expressive (and moody) photograph.

Personally, I think this photo is limited in terms of its expressiveness, but that's another story.

I only mentioned Hepburn because the image reminded me of a particular photo that I'd seen. Now I suppose I'll have to

go find it. It was not meant as a comparion, but only tht this image triggered that memory.

It is technically well executed in B/W, but it does not express any emotion, and imo that is its weakness.

Here is the Hepburn image I remembered.

http://text-portrait.ueltzhoeffer.com/biography/hepburn_audrey-text.jpg

On a certain level, I think that is its strength. It is quiet and it is confident. I actually think the technique begs for something different in a way, although, again, I could see it in a context where it could work well.

This will have provided the photographer with good technical practice (if needed?) but lacks any sense, whatsoever, of portraiture capturing mood, character, or a moment in time.

The photographer has so many other great photos. This one reminds me as, someone else said, of a hair or makeup advertisement you see posted in drugstore or hair salons, save for the horizontal shadow pattern. The photo does not hold my interest for long.

I like the retro-noir light/shadow effect. Very satisfying nod toward that style.

Howdy folks,

Photo.net asks users to not post in forums, upload to our servers, or generally cause to appear images that they themselves did not take. While it is rarely done with malicious intent (at least here on photo.net), in an age where so many photographers have to fight the battle of unauthorized usage and image theft, we just feel that the right thing to do is to draw a very clear line in the sand on this subject.

If there is a need to refer to another photographer's work in a discussion, I have yet to see a situation where a link would not suffice.

Questions about this, or any PN policy, should be directed to me via the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page. Please keep this discussion focused on the POTW image at hand.

Thank you,

-That Guy Who Runs That One Website

Howdy again,

Just in case I wasn't clear previously.

The POTW forum is not the place to debate photo.net policy. I will delete any further posts that are not on the subject of Joanna's image. If you want to complain or ask questions about not being able to post images that you did not make, I have made a thread for you here:

http://photo.net/site-help-forum/00aNhA