Untitled

I noticed the photographer’s background so I spent much time to write some comments even if I am not an expert of photography. I am not guessing what the photographer was trying to do, but one point is certain she is learning like most of us here. Just because of her background, probably it is more careful about how to learn and what to learn…

In my opinion one difference of commercial photography and art photography is that commercial photography is directly to express the meaning and art photography is indirectly express the meaning. So I think this photo is not successful because it is trying to use commercial way to do art photography.

I believe everyone agrees that her talent and that her technical grasp of the medium are both extraordinary especially for her age. If it's true, however, that comments in a critique should be limited to technical aspects of the image, then I think she's going to get fairly bored with the "way to go" comments she receives.
If she's looking for something to "chew on" then clearly it is the fact that she's stirred a bit of a debate over whether the image is "too perfect" so as to be somewhat distracting in its' perfection. Maybe she disagrees with this assessment as others do or maybe she sees the point. Maybe she intended it to be that way and maybe she didn't. These are determinations for her to make in deciding what to take out of the critique for use in her future work. Either way, I think she's intelligent enough to take these sort of comments into consideration in her future work without reducing the quality of her future work.

I too am puzzled and intrigued by the models expression, but I think that is a good thing. This photo, along with the others in your paintings group, is a good example of capturing a concept. Congratulations to all involved.

hi , the technical aspect of this portrait is good ...but the posing and look of the model is very cold and has no impression ..

If it had a title, instead “a painting”, but “a doll”, probably no body was surprised by what Joanna was trying to do …

I would like to refer to Marc G. Commentary on this photo. I have some things to say.
The old works we see in the museums, were done years and years ago , from that time, many things have changed and developed, including ways of life, technology, art , (even fashion...) and photography.

Marc , as you have uploaded the link to your work ,where I wrote you what I think, I don't see a point in writing it again, as it is easy to read it there, and I think that there is some similarity in this work ( and others in Joanna's files) to some of yours.

In short ,as I wrote you there I think that there is a technical skill in Joanna's works.In this one the model, the clothes the pose, all is well executed, to perfection , and still it is not a photo that I can say touches me, that is communicating to me. I can appreciate the technical skills and that is it. I don't see it as a painting, more like an imitation of an era that does not exist anymore , as was written, more as a " doll". I don't know what Joanna's intentions were , but Imo despite the technical skills, it is dull in expressing something that has a meaning.

I think an art work is not to touch you, but make you to think. I think this photo is different from Marc G. Commentary’ photo. In my opinion, this photo is more like art work and Marc G. Commentary’ photo is more like commercial work.

Here again, don’t forget viewers! It is not about photographer’s intention and it is about how viewers to feel…

Xiao, touch me means, make me feel and think, as a viewer.....

There is a difference in Marc G. Work, and some similarity in the communication part, of course it is not the same intentions in approaching the subject.

It depends if there is a correlation in the photographer's intention and the viewer's reaction.

Here I was trying to show Joanna why this photo is not successful…

Congratulations Joanna Kustra! After viewing this photo many times and reading all the comments, I visited your PN portfolio and your professional website at www.qstra.pl where your commercial work is featured. You are an exceptionally talented photographer and a models' photographer. This Photo of the Week is part of what appears to be a project which features the beauty of each of your models. It is obvious to me that you are well on your way to a very successful career. Thank you for sharing your beautiful work with us on PN. Rebeakh B.

I like this. It stopped me on the home page. Clearly, this is shot in a fashion-influenced style. It is technically on-target. I'm not sure how much "soul" this image is trying to achieve. It feels less like it's trying to tell a story and more like it's trying to create a world, a mood, an emotion. Despite the technical perfection, something is odd, off, quirky. And that's what is striking to me. Where is she from? When is she from? What kind of clothes are these? Where on earth could she wear this transparent dress? What sort of expression is she emoting? How old is she? Is that hair an old style or a new one? There is a give and take between traditionalism and modernism that is satisfying. It helps offer a timeless feel that you often get when looking at a portrait painting. Above all, it all feels intentional. And I feel you got the most out of this face.

ABSOLUTELY STUNNING image. I can see the pros and cons of so many comments, and I teeter both ways myself which is wierd- too perfect, perfectly perfect. I love art and it's intricacies, if it was easy I'd find another profession I guess. I can see this hanging in any photo museum and being stared at by more visitors and longer and thus 'more successful', than most Mapplethorpes or A. Adams or you name it. I can't congratulate you on POW, as they say their choice is not for the best shot they have found, but 'the most interesting to talk about'. In that case, well chosen elves. Great work Joanna, now off to see your portfolio. Keep up the outstanding work, you have the makings of a master.

Many of our comments about someone's photograph are really centered on our own biases, preferred subject matter, style, etc., and some viewers have criticized Joanna's photograph as being too perfect, lifeless, needing the subject to be looking elsewhere or to have a different expression, sterile, needing a different background, lacking soul, needing some flaw to be more real, etc. Such criticisms say more about the viewer than about the image being viewed. If the intention of the photographer was to create a portrait of a young woman as a porcelain doll (whether that be a positive or negative attribute in the photographer's mind), then these critical comments are really affirmations that Joanna has succeeded admirably. I find that offering criticisms is difficult unless I know the intentions of the photographer; otherwise, I'm revealing more about my personal preferences than whether someone else has successfully captured or rendered a feeling or a concept they were wanting to express. Even the guidance from the photo.net elves - "address its strengths, its weaknesses" - is exceedingly difficult without knowing why the photographer made the image. Saying that a photograph is "not my cup of tea" is hardly a critique; it's really telling the world that I'd rather be photographing racing cars, mountains, sunsets, or sweating athletes. I thought that Marc G. (2/24) expressed this very well. Honestly, I just don't know how to provide a good critique without knowing the photographer's intention. The best I can to is to express my interpretations of the photograph and the feelings it may generate within me, or I can make an educated guess regarding the photographer's intention (based on the subject matter) and from there offer comments about different elements that may positively or negatively contribute to that assumed intention, and perhaps offer suggestions on variations (whether they be technical or more substantive) that might enhance the photograph (again, based on my interpretation of its purpose). People are so complex, and photographs of people are so complex; maybe that's one reason why I like landscape photography so much -- it's a lot easier to interpret. But even there, I have my reasons for a particular landscape shot, and unless I express those reasons or intentions, viewers will be commenting through their own "mental filters" as Gerry S. suggested. In the end, I suppose we wade through comments, toss out those from folks who (through no fault of their own) "don't understand," and ponder the remaining critiques to help us find the successes and shortcomings in that which we are trying to communicate.

The overall concept is pretty, interesting to the viewer and there is a communication between the observer and the model. Yes, she communicates with me. I can understand her . She is an interpretation of a countess and of courtly manners. At first look she seems to be a porcelain doll, but she can also be a talented lady, maybe for music or writing. Noble people were talented in those times.
On technical level, it is perfect, so clean and crystal clear. The composition is simple. Her manners and her overall approaching are elegant, stiff, I wouldn't say lifless in total, but more being veiled with the good manners .

I have no problem with the style or subject matter of the photograph. I have a lot of admiration for someone who can do something like this. It takes a lot of skill, and it's remarkable that one so young has these skills to such a high degree. That said, the image seems to me to be more about post-shoot processing and image editing wizardry than about photography, itself. As such, I can't really relate this to photography at all, except for the fact that it was made with a camera. It's beautiful, but it isn't real to me.

Wonderful!

This type of photography is light years away from what I do, but I can still find interest in it. In terms of the "lifeless" look, if this photo was executed to emulate old style paintings, then the pose and expression are appropriate IMO. I am find many things about this photo interesting. I wonder about the ribbon around her wrist, the dark nail polish and the wooden beads at her waist. I am intriqued by the subtle glimpse behind the lace at the shoulder. I also notice that the hands look considerably more lifelike than the facial area. It almost appears that far less PP work was done in that area. I am a little bothered by that on a personal level. I wonder if that was intentional and what the meaning would be. Overall this is a good photo, although it doesn't excite me personally. I looked through the rest of Joanna's portfolio and feel that she is very creative.

Two additional comments after reading this thread:
1)I read here and there that some people felt there had been a lot of post-processing here... Well, are you sure...? Where do you see any heavy post-processing, here ? I don't think so. Yes, the colors have been reworked a little, a very mild skin-smoothening may have been applied - but I can't tell for sure, and maybe there was none at all, in fact.
Then Joanna might have used PS filters at a very low opacity, but that's not certain either, as far as I can tell. Basically, if this picture was indeed reworked, then it was reworked in a very mild & subtle way. Nothing overdone, IMO. And we remain close to real photography, with this image.
2) Is this fashion or not ? The reasons why I thought it wasn't : the styling and the clothing itself. Who would sell such clothes nowadays ?! :-) It may well be a feature photo for a play or some theater company, but nobody makes clothes like this to sell them, as far as I know.
Now, what about the styling...? Well, I looked at a couple of details...
a) This "thing" around her neck - "collar" may be the correct name for it in English ? - is not placed perfectly.
b) The jewel on it disappears in an "imperfect" manner.
Finally some imperfections to chew on, for those who found this all too neat and tidy...? :-)
c) What's this read ribbon at her wrist, which catches so much attention ?! Whoever - even in the past ? - wered ribbons this way ? As far as I know, nobody. So what's this ribbon there for ? It catches a lot of attention - and imo too much attention if this would be a true fashion shot. On the other hand, I'd say that this ribbon is an almost sure sign of a second degree intention. You may note that the ribbon is more or less at the same level/height as the camera, which gives it great emphasis. And then it's red. For these two reasons, the ribbon is very prominent. It may or may not be intentional, but here's what I felt about it... It makes her look like a present... Some painters in the past loved to hide strange little details somewhere in their paintings, for various reasons... I think that's what Joanna did here with this ribbon, and I would love to know what was the point of this ribbon for her...
I hope the photographer will shime in at some point soon, to tell us more about this picture !

Fashion is not necessary for clothing. Fashion in my opinion some times more emphasizing styling than clothing; if fashion is more emphasizing styling it is more close to artwork, otherwise it is more close to commercial work. As for the red ribbon in this photo, which indicates the photographer’s intention, it is a “doll”. The photographer is trying to use a “doll” format to express “styling”, and use “styling” to express “art” work. So in my opinion this photo, the photographer’s intension is good, very good, but technique is not so good – some degree “amateur” alike…

A photographer’s intention already is in his photo, and that is a viewer’s job how to find it; sometimes a photographer handle his “intention” well, and sometimes not…

What a great image, it looks as if it were done my one of the Grand Masters of painting. Tom

Sevens seem low to rate this unique image. Beautiful!! It's so captivating. Excellent job.

Excellent, original, ethereal, inpecable!

Tired. Not enough time. This is a wonderful image. The costume, in particular, is remarkable because it existed at no actual time in history. It evokes the late Eighteenth Century as well as the mid Nineteenth, but it belongs to neither and to both. The hair suggests Marie Antoinette or one of her contemporaries, but at the same time it also quotes Twenty-First Century ideas of style.

Tired...