Untitled

I am truly enthralled by this photograph and inspired too! If you share your techniques anywhere I would be most interested! Well done, this is craftsmanship at it's best.

 

too good, style, expression, colors, look, all too good!

 

A.

Please view the whole cataloguge "paintings"! Thanks! qstra.pl

I don't quite understand how anyone could give this image 3s or 4s, but whatever.

 

Agree wholeheartedly with the others here and share G's curiosity as to just how you achieved this look.

 

(Enthralled? Yeah... me, too.)

Excellent work, Joanna!

every detail is so well done! i too wonder how you got this effect.

Jonna:

 

This is simply breath taking, thank you!!

 

S. Lee; I agree about someone about giving a 3 or 4, the only reason that I can see is that the person who give a low rating for something this good just can’t equal the guilty and is jealous. Me personally I don’t count any rating that a person can’t or won’t put their name to it.

 

This is one of the most beautiful portraits, good use of light and good PS technique.....congrats 7/7

Beautiful portrait with a wonderful sense of eloquence and class. She has a feel of poutiness as well. The forehead and face may be slightly overexposed. My wife noticed and did not like the black or blue nails - small detail. I will look at the others. Good work! -- Charles

Such a delicate photo. I am in love with this. You did an amazing job. The background was a great choice.

Excellent work.7/7anon.Regards.Janusz.

Excellent;

Best Regards

Hugo C.Romano

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

I don't think I can add to what has already been said . I personally really like this shot good balance great colors and lighting . A very clean and eye catching shot .. Congrats !!!

The first think I notice about this type if image is that it is "too perfect" (Perfect lighting, perfect model, perfect contrast, perfect complexion, perfect background, perfect highlights, perfect catchlights in the eyes etc.) Whether by photoshop or by relentless impeccable studio setup it is obsessive it its "perfection".

The down side is that it starts to become sterile and unreal. I almost long for some sort of imperfection that brings the viewer back to the "real world" , which franky, add interest -- a blemish, scar, a rip in the dress, a bead of perspiration....something that says that she is a living, breathing being and not a porcelain doll.

This is indeed very nice work, and I congratulate you, Joanna, on this photo and on this entire folder named "paintings." I think that the folder is more nearly what I would call "portraits" than paintings. The smoothing and noise reduction are perhaps overdone, but I understand that you were going for a certain effect, and I think that you succeeded.

As for the label "painting" or even "painterly," I would be more inclined to use that label for work done in the style of former PoW recipient, Maria-Mihaela Sarbu. Nonetheless, this is good work. Congratulations again.

--Lannie

I just visited your website.
Now everything makes sense seeing that you're a commercial fashion photographer who is in the business of perfect images -- unattainable reality.

As a young man I painted portraits now I fool around with a camera, your work and in particular this photograph makes me want to start painting again. Thank you for reviving the dream.

After viewing your folder I find your images hauntingly captive. A neo-classicism. Best wishes. DEC

 

 

 

 

speechless

 

 

A beautiful technique for sure. Too perfect? Maybe, but there is a limit to perfection. This image was made real when the model brought her (as previously noted) black nail polish. Overall though, a stunning portrait... Mike

Unlike the earlier commenters, I am less concerned with the technical aspects of the photograph,image. I certainly think every artist has the right to pursue whatever aesthetic that she aspires to. Yet, to me, a work of art is not the mathematical sum of its parts, that is, its essence can never be found in the technique that went into making it. If that were so, art would have died with the Rennaissance arists and their endless obsession with perspective, sfumato, and whatever other methods with which they sought to define their madness. In their quest for perfection, they often achieved vulgarity, the most famous example of which was Michaelangelo's Final Judgment, a shockingly bad display of of the most grotesque form of self-aggrandizement.

What I'm getting at is that art has to have SOUL to be compelling, and portraiture is a very difficult art form to master, though many consider themselves masters at it. The great works of portraiture that move us do so because the artist has managed to engage the sitter, to compel the sitter to give of him or herself, to present an honesty that shines through the page or the canvas at the viewer. Da Vinci achieved that in the Mona Lisa, Rembrandt achieved this in his self portraits, as did Van Gogh. In photography, Paul Strand mastered this art, as did Yusuf Karsch in his great portraits of Sofia Loren and Ernest Hemingway.

Looking at this image, I feel a certain lack of soul, like the wax effigies Robert Mapplethorpe used to photograph after drugging his male prostitute sitters. The face, scrubbed of texture, the eyes, vacant and staring at nothing in particular, harken to me the worst of Mapplethorpe, when objectivization of the form, rather than presentation of the PERSON, was his intention.

Now, to give the devil her due, I think, having gone through all her folders meticulously, she does achieve that effect extremely successfully, but for the reasons I have already stated, I do not find that game worth the candle. Many, I am sure, will disagree.

Interesting the that this image was the one chosen from Joana's portfolio. The whole portfolio is rather open and yet at the same time the strength of the individual image is its subtlety of light and how it seems to permeate the subject. I appreciate the idea of creating the image as inspired by a painting. Especially an older period style painting. The broad light is effective and yet the catch-lights are still distinctive in the eyes. I'm honestly not a fan of the model's gaze; rather vacant and far and away above the camera. I think this image would also be very successful if it were done with a wet plate process or even with a sepia tone as part of an antique process. The background is kind of a murky tonality yet it lends itself in the resemblance to a painters background. The color is just not that appealing. An interesting and unique image at the very least but I think there are many more interesting images that might have made an excellent choice for POW instead. I guess I am just not as enthralled with the choice made and personally would have chosen another from any number of superior alternates from Joana's portfolio.

How strange that hardly any criticism about stiffness, lack of life, rigidity - you name it - was addressed, for centuries, to all these works of art exhibited today in our top museums all over the world...!
Yes, this "model" is stiff. And yes she looks almost like a wax figure. and yes, this picture looks in a way like a painting. And yes - Joanna, don't apologize for this ! -, this is all very, very, perfect... But that seems to be where criticism starts and understanding stops, for some people. Whereas for me this is probably where criticism should be on hold for a while, and where the viewer should try to question the photographer's motives for taking such a picture.
Did anyone imagine that Joanna Kustra would be ignorant of the fact, that she created a very "lifeless" image, that her model became some sort of a "porcelaine doll" or "wax figure" - and the same goes for many if not all other pictures in this folder...? Well, not me. I'm certain she knows exactly what she's doing, and what she's looking for... Now the question is: can WE, viewers, understand what she's trying to do...?
Here's a personnal observation I made after many years on photo.net: second degree image-reading is not something readily available on this site. All people tend to like certain things and mostly like to receive "emotions" from the pictures they look at. All this is of course perfectly acceptable and fine. I like emotional pictures like last week's POW, but I like clever second degree pictures too, and this is certainly one of them.
Here is a link to a very interesting discussion I had with a few members who explained very well - thanks ! - their views about one of the pictures I posted, and which received a bit the same comments as the ones on this page... "Cold" picture, where the model looks like a "doll", lifeless, etc. All these words appeared on this page as well: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8078453 - and before that on many other pages of mine, and on my own POW page as well, a few years back. It's all fine, but I'll clearly stand on Joanna's side and try to understand and defend the form and content of this picture for a moment...
Form: Could this picture be meant to look like a painting for some COMMERCIAL reason, perhaps ? Possible. I don't know, I don't actually think so, but I'd like to know. Fact: It looks like a painting - an "old" painting, as suggested by the classical pose and the old clothes.
Content: Question: Is this a picture about the model (portrait) OR about her clothes (fashion) OR... about ART perhaps....? Or even about WOMEN or HUMAN BEINGS in general. I think we'd need to clarify this in order to engage on the right road with our interpretation, but imo, this picture's content is some sort of a mix of all this, and at any rate, is clearly a "replica" of past artworks, and as such, a comment on them.
Whether about women in general or about this person specifically, this picture seems to be a statement about their/her "other-worldly nature", as her "empty" gaze attests. It's also a statement about grace and elegance, really... It's finally telling the viewer, that some - or all ? - women are creatures living in a parallel world, and are looked at, as if they were "porcelaine dolls" precisely - in fashion, at least, but maybe in life as well...? These are the questions that this image raised in me.
As a comment about art now, this picture is picking parts from the past, including STIFFNESS ! So it could be a comment about stiffness in art, either directly or "as a side-note" only.
All this is why this picture interests me a great deal. And finally, saying that a picture is "too perfect" can't be a serious reason to dislike it - or can it...? I admire the "neat" feel of this image, which leaves us with something beautiful to look at, and with a content to understand...
Joanna's work is imo very subtle, and I'd go as far asto say, that she's an extremely talented artist. I'm really glad to have a chance here to discuss with other members about her work. Best regards.

Hauntingly beautiful... I admire your restraint, a lesser artist might have been inclined to add photoshop brush strokes or some such nonsense.